Chris, why do we need cameras when we can be completely parsed by google queries?

You think we can be completely parsed by google queries? How very strange.

A. A good start

Q. What do you call a couple of lawyers at the bottom of a cliff?

I thought that was muppets, not lawyers.

> You think we can be completely parsed by google queries? How very strange.

Well don't you remember how you were talking about your machine being able to read our thoughts and intentions based on what we were searching for? You could predict human action and whatnot I think. You were pretty emphatic about that, right?

Oh, now I remember. After a bit of honest questioning you did a 180 and started running the other way. Suddenly your machine became somewhat mundane again, simply flagging suspicious looking queries for future surveilence.

I think you're a little confused Jeff.

I have a system that can place extract a high resolution semantic spectrum from any text string. Which means in practice I can compare any two text strings, that although they may appear completely different on the surface, I can detect their deep structure similarity the exact same way one might compare the spectra of two stars. It has nothing really to do with google, and certianly can in no way substitute for large numbers of cameras in public spaces.

The semantic spectra between the idea of semantic spectra and public security cameras has little overlap.

Chris, I was only using you against you. Sorry if that weight is too much to bear.

Recently it seems (at least here on ?off) that you've focused your arguments and efforts towards advocating the end of privacy, you see this as a major milestone in human progress, assisted by a strong AI that presides over all of the collected data. You are still very much a fringe character, but it sounds like you've gotten "better" since you're infamous debut here. So congrats on that. I still think you're ideas lead to abolition of personal liberty, something I hold as sacred as my own life.

You've still have that muppet obsession thing going on. But then again, don't we all?

You're still stuck here then, Chris.

Public access to all public cameras and unambiguous identification of all people moving in public spaces. I don't see how that effects your freedom at all.

"I don't see how that effects your freedom at all."

It sine qua non affects my freedom to go about my business without all and sundry knowing what I'm doing.

If you're in a public place, all and sundry can see what you're doing by definition.

I don't mind other people in a public space seeing me, and to a certain extent I don't object too much to being tracked by camera within certain limitations, but *anyone* being able to see what I'm doing and with no control over what they can do with the knowledge is a whole different ballgame.

Note I said *lead to* the abolitions of personal freedoms. Chris's ideal is not just that peoples actions would public knowledge, but that also their thoughts as well. There innermost being, you could say. Sounds like sci-fi dreams, but remember, we do express our thoughts in certain ways, and if we were always monitored, a sophistication machine could likely create a remarkably accurate "model". Chris believes that a society can be established in which all have equal and free access to these models.

I believe the powerful will always work to retain their power, and ideas like Chris's will only lead to further their grip on the rest of society (many already see that in the backlash laws against terrorism).

Chris sees a utopian society where all men are free, equal, and accountable. I see 1984.

s/sophistication machine/sophisticated machine
and fix all the other errors if you like.

Interesting term, 'sophistication machine'.

I have no idea where you get the idea that I want open access to people's thoughts. If you care to find a quote, I would be quite interested.

My ideal is an air traffic control like system for people moving in public space. If I were to go a step beyond this, I would like to see all tax information public an available from the same interface, which would require identification to access.

As for thoughts, you can keep them as you like, though I expect there will be places - Cuba - for example where they will be, or possibly currently are, actively extracted against the will of their creators. I am agnostic on this point.

+++As for thoughts, you can keep them as you like, though I expect there will be places - Cuba - for example where they will be, or possibly currently are, actively extracted against the will of their creators. I am agnostic on this point.+++ -- Chris McKinstry

+++ You can try to keep your contents. Like so many cats. But, so long as you type, I will find a way in.

As for my politics and my religion, they are both for sale.+++ -- Chris McKinstry

Consistency has never been one of your strong points, Chrissy, but misrepresentation and backpedalling have certainly been.

Chris, you sound like a different person. I am surprised that you are denying arguments now when you were so adament about them before. You were so much more interesting then. It makes me wonder if there are medications/drugs involved here.

I'm not going to go hunt for a quote, but your justification for opening peoples' minds to the public basically implied that if _everyone_ were open, law obiding individuals wouldn't have anything to worry about, especially because they are being 'understood'. And it would be easy to catch the disobient, because they would be 'understood'.

I mean, these are the logical extensions of the social and political beliefs you espouse now anyway. Are you now arguing that models of people wouldn't be created using the data that is collected through monitoring?

I am the same person I have always been and I am saying the same things. I think you are remembering something I said about wiring muppet's thalamus, which was of course a joke.

I do recall someone else making a reference to some science fiction story about thought transcripts being sent to some kind of valut... Anyway, that wasn't wasn't me.

You are confusing or actually fusing ideas in your head with your model of me. It is an error you should correct. I don't like being misrepresented.

And no, yours are not logical extensions of my pov. They are purely yours.

Look back at what I have written. I am anti-anonymity, and nothing more.

At this point, I would like to provide a link for any future visitor who happens to stumble upon this thread:

http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?off.9.165584

Chris says I am misrepresenting him. I honestly wouldn't want to do that. So, read through the discussion linked above, and draw your own conclusions.

Chris, IMO, you would be better served by saying, "I went a little overboard", than by "What? Huh? I would never!".

my gosh, that thread is a classic.

Okay, pointing to the longest thread here is not much help.

I can't find something that does not exist. So, it is up to you to be specific. Quote me or retract.

did you miss where I quoted you? seems like you did

or maybe you just ignore it when someone proves you're a fruitcake.

No muppet. I didn't miss what you quoted. But, as I had already qualified, nothing involving you in my mind is serious. I don't even reguard you as real, if you recall.

My public position is clear. But I will restate it to make it clearer:

- I would like to see public access to all cameras pointed into public space.

- I would like all people moving in public space to be identified and tracked and the interface to the identification and tracking system needs also to be public.

- Anyone accessing the cameras or tracking information must also be identified.

- I would like all tax information and in fact all financial transactions period, public.

As far as the mind reading stuff goes, and the model building as well...who can say? I can imagine misuses of the technology, but I can also imagine misuse of pliers. Misuse of everything however, would be more difficult in a world where we have a public air traffic control system for the movement of people.

I think the world already exists where we have a private air traffic control system for people. You don't want it to stay private. Public is better. Much much better.

Or maybe we should eliminate the "air traffic control" altogether.

There's no going backwards. You can't eliminate. Only make it exclusive or not.

Given the type of stuff that Chris McKinstry focuses on, and writes about in ?off, I think that someone should notify the proper authorities that CK probably does LOTS of illegal stuff.

I mean, sex with kids, sticking wires in people, spying on people; this man writes about all kinds of crazy stuff. Based on my ability to infer thoughts based on what people type on the web, I say we lock him up for 20 years.