TLDR: Public officials lose their right to privacy and are subjected to surveillance. Corruption is impossible if they cannot make private deals.
Preface: The American government has been rolling out mass AI surveillance systems with facial recognition much like we've seen in China. There are currently 5,000+ cities in America that are covered, roughly 1/3 of all law enforcement now uses AI cameras. These databases recognize and keep track the movements and behaviors of literally everyone, the systems are incredibly expensive to install and maintain (we foot the bill) and they are often misused or compromised. It's a huge ongoing issue in America that very few people know or care about so it's been growing and expanding over the passed few years and, if not stopped, will eventually become a beast. This got me to thinking about what an ambitious goal they have: to create such a powerful a system to track and predict patterns of half a billion people; and it's possible with enough energy into a data center but would take a lot of energy and a lot of cameras (currently there are 100k cameras by Flock and a partnership that takes footage from everyone's Ring doorbell).
The solution: Flip the system around. It's much easier, much more doable, much less ambitious, much much cheaper, to surveil politicians than it is to surveil everyone else. Public officials lose their right to privacy and are subjected to surveillance. They cannot have a conversation with their wives without everyone citizen hearing it, they cannot take a bathroom break without everyone knowing exactly how long it took, they cannot exchange a nickle without the whole world seeing the receipts, they cannot receive a gift without the everyone knowing exactly what it is and who its from. Corruption requires privacy. Without privacy, corruption is impossible.
In the simplest terms, we have the Private citizen & the Public official. Citizens have a right to privacy, politicians don't.
Can you find a problem with this idea? I still need to think of a name for this political system, has anything like this ever happened in the past?
jews won't allow it because jews are corrupt
There's another solution for that problem...
Not really. It would work and that's why it'll never happen.
Basically, it's the inversion of the Panopticon; instead of making everyone think they could be under observation, identify the people who should be under observation and make sure they know it.
I'm down. Let's find some Zoomers who want to be "influencers" and pay them to stalk politicians instead.
We used to call those people investigative journalists and they would always die mysteriously by suicide bullet to the back of the head.
I had an idea a while ago to make your face and image/appearance your own personal property.
Essentially making the public use of cameras mostly illegal.
That's incredible. The use of an AI to track a persons patterns and movements would be legally considered stalking if not for their corporate loophole. An individual cannot record all of your movements in public and keep a huge predictive database of your life without breaking the law of stalking, and I think its the same goes for the law enforcement agencies as well; but a private corporation can do it and then sell that data to whoever the fuck they want and that somehow isn't considered stalking. Its some sort of legal loophole to get around stalking chatges where they can do it because they are considered a company and not a government office or an individual. However, making my image proprietary means that they are breaking other laws as well. It may actually work.
Sounds like corporations aren't people when it's convenient.
And then a hooknose judge ignores you because he wants to rape and torture your children.
Of course. Were that proposed today, certainly.
But as with most of my speculative ideas on a future society, it is just that. A future society created after the war, not this broken infested nonsense.
War's already over. We lost.
Oh?
Yes. Plan, prepare and act accordingly.
There's never just one war. This upcoming one won't be the last either.
The war against evil is indeed eternal
Setup a camera to constantly film yourself, then copyright it. If anyone else films you they're "pirating" your protected work.
The main one being that the road to getting there likely involves a violent revolution.
The road to just surviving will involve a violent revolution, what more is there to put on the line?
We've already chosen a slower but more comfortable death.
It's going to get A LOT more uncomfortable and the youth today are way more aware than the idiot boomers at the same age.
It's not going to be a slow and comfortable death, a Western fire will burn bright again soon.
I hope you're right. Zoomers honestly seem retarded in every way with a tiny few bucking the trend. Some Alpha's live up to the name so far but it's too early to tell.
The young are always retarded out of ignorance but they tend to turn more conservative as they learn more. Gen Z men by far are more conservative than any other generation at that same age. The women are nutcase leftoids but as they get into a relationship with a man, they become more conservative as well.
Gen Alpha I expect will be even more based. They will probably be the soldiers for this upcoming war for western civilization.
I'm hoping so. There really should be more of a backlash against the ones who groomed them into fag and tranny shit in their teens. Remind me to post about the Weimar Wildboys later.
I'm not advocating for violence or calling for a violent revolution. Usually an end to corruption involves a violent revolution, but this system could actually be a nonviolent solution. Its more than a way to prevent corruption, it can end active corruption as well because the system works by simply monitoring those in important, powerful positions that are capable of being corrupted.
Young people think this way because they've never faced a real emergency in their lives and can't comprehend the value of privacy on any real level.
This is ridiculous beyond belief. You will not get intelligent or talented people to serve under these conditions.
lol. Plenty of corruption is right out there in the open. Fucking, Scientology exists. Everyone knows it's a scam. Yet.. no one is bothered enough to actually make the investment in defeating it. You haven't thought this through on any serious level.
What you should really be asking is, why, in the age of the internet, do we need a federal legal apparatus that only functions for 6 months out of the year as if horses are the only way to move information and goods around the country?
We simply don't need this shit anymore. The states have all the tools they need. The "strong federal government" idea needs to die. Like 10 years ago.
Firstly thank you for your well thought out reply that actually finds issues.
I'm not certain what you mean about an emergency where people lose their privacy. Since cell phones with GPS trackers and google accounts, millennials and younger can't even imagine a time when privacy was a guarantee. Those were the generations that was given cell phones so our gen x or boomer parents could track them just like the chipped family dog. And the technology has gotten stronger.
Palentir is a giant predictive AI system that's been tracking us for decades. Imagine a virtual world with cars and people like a GTAV map but its the real world and all the people are all real people being tracked, it updates in real time and stores everyone's patterns, and predicts into the future. Like the supercomputer in the movie Deja Vu. Or the magic orb in lord of the rings that Sauron used to spy on everyone (guess what it's called).
The technology makes their goal of mass surveillance of everyone seem less ambitious and more of an actuality, a goal already achieved for the most part. I don't think it's too farfetched to consider that the same technology, in the right hands, could be used to prevent corruption.
This makes sense under our current system but I'm not convinced that it would be true under a new one. In the ancient Greek city-state of Sparta, their elected rulers lived in isolation within special quarters and had no personal business whatsoever, they were forced to focus on only ruling without any possibility for personal gain or corruption. Those 5 rulers, called Ephors, were prohibited from indulging in any form of luxury, such as eating meals or wearing cloth above the lowest class Spartan, and kept each other in check until the next annual election.
The archon's in ancient Athens lived in public quarters and swore oaths to live as a lower class during their term. They had no privacy and the citizens kept them in check, they weren't allowed to have personal relationships.
In the 17the century Edo era in Japan, the rulers besides the emperor, the Tokugawa shoguns, also lived similar minimalistic lifestyles in public areas under the watchful eye of the citizens.
There are probably other examples of similar systems in the past that likely worked well at preventing corruption at the time. So I wouldn't dismiss the idea because people wouldn't want to participate. If all those who want to enact great change or have power over everyone else must also make the personal sacrifice to do so, that wouldn't mean less intelligent or less worthy rulers; it'd mean more committed, more trustworthy rulers.
And your other point that corruption doesn't require privacy, well I simply disagree. The only example you give is Scientology which is an organization known for losing legal battles whenever any form of corruption is exposed, they try to keep secret yet constantly get outed by defectors and always lose when anything is exposed. Scientology is a prime example of how corruption is reduced and destroyed when brought into the light, it is also a great example of a massive organization that is corrupt with very secretive, very private and shady policies.
Your daughter has cancer. She can tell you and let everyone in the world know, or she can not tell you and keep her privacy. This is what I meant about the young, they don't have anyone who depends on them, so they can't see this HUGE obvious problem staring them in the face.
lol. Put your idealism away and get real. You're going to use Sparta as an endpoint? We have the internet and they didn't. You're not even trying to find a solution, you're just broadcasting your tastes, or perhaps the tastes of whoever taught you this claptrap.
Say that to all the people who are, to this very day, victimized by this. You've confused aimless bloviating for serious thinking.
Lol brutal response. I love it. I'll respond later though, I'm busy but this is good.
Scientology is a prime example of how corruption is reduced and destroyed when brought into the light. Looking into this you'll find only lost legal battles against those who expose their corruption, you won't find any example of corruption without total secrecy, and this destroys your main point that corruption does not require privacy. It does.
I have 0 sympathy for the "victims" of Scientology that you speak of, look into this and you'll see that they all willingly donated their wealth to the organization and then regretted it, and that's the extent of their victomhood. These idiots have nothing to do with the clear correlation between corruption and secrecy. Maybe you can think of a second example, you did say "Plenty of corruption is right out there in the open," and I disagree. The spotlight is where corruption ends.
Its an original idea I had based entirely on the modern technology that we have today. I brought up multiple historic examples of entire societies of men willing to sacrifice privacy to best serve their nations, because you claimed that "You will not get intelligent or talented people to serve under these conditions." Point demolished, unless you can think of a response beyond an insult and "the internet exists"...
You keep bringing up the internet and how the tech makes everything different today... Well that's exactly my point with the predictive AI surveillance state. The technology today is so advanced that ending corruption is doable, so much so that people say things like "the internet exists so why is this still happening", or "why, in the age of the internet, are things still this way".
And lastly, I still don't understand what you are saying about young people facing emgencies and having value for privacy. The system I am proposing is one that grants citizens privacy, it is a counter to the current system that tracks my daughter and keeps a database on her doctor visits, the AI company knew she had cancer before she told anyone and sold that data to ad agencies. What are you saying and what relevance does it have to the topic at hand: the idea of ending corruption using the same surveillance technology that they use on us.
That execution is impossible and you'd absolutely filter out any people you'd actually want in power since they wouldn't subject their families to that shit.
"You will not get intelligent or talented people to serve under these conditions." Someone else also mentioned that there would be no intelligent rulers worthy of those positions that'd be willling under the condition of no privacy. This makes sense under our current system but I'm not convinced that it would be true under a new one. In the ancient Greek city-state of Sparta, their elected rulers lived in isolation within special quarters and had no personal business whatsoever, they were forced to focus on only ruling without any possibility for personal gain or corruption. Those 5 rulers, called Ephors, were prohibited from indulging in any form of luxury, such as eating meals or wearing cloth above the lowest class Spartan, and kept each other in check until the next annual election.
The archon's in ancient Athens lived in public quarters and swore oaths to live as a lower class during their term. They had no privacy and the citizens kept them in check, they weren't allowed to have personal relationships.
In the 17the century Edo era in Japan, the rulers besides the emperor, the Tokugawa shoguns, also lived similar minimalistic lifestyles in public areas under the watchful eye of the citizens.
There are probably other examples of similar systems in the past that likely worked well at preventing corruption at the time. So I wouldn't dismiss the idea because people wouldn't want to participate. If all those who want to enact great change or have power over everyone else must also make the personal sacrifice to do so, that wouldn't mean less intelligent or less worthy rulers; it'd mean more committed, more trustworthy rulers.
Anyone willing to be a politician under these conditions is someone that shouldn't be one. Also, what do you do about military affairs and foreign relations? All the stuff that's confidential? That would end state secret, exposing a lot of military operations and opening the country to invasion.
Valid. I'll have to think on these.
Someone else also mentioned that there would be no intelligent rulers worthy of those positions that'd be willling under the condition of no privacy. This makes sense under our current system but I'm not convinced that it would be true under a new one. In the ancient Greek city-state of Sparta, their elected rulers lived in isolation within special quarters and had no personal business whatsoever, they were forced to focus on only ruling without any possibility for personal gain or corruption. Those 5 rulers, called Ephors, were prohibited from indulging in any form of luxury, such as eating meals or wearing cloth above the lowest class Spartan, and kept each other in check until the next annual election.
The archon's in ancient Athens lived in public quarters and swore oaths to live as a lower class during their term. They had no privacy and the citizens kept them in check, they weren't allowed to have personal relationships.
In the 17the century Edo era in Japan, the rulers besides the emperor, the Tokugawa shoguns, also lived similar minimalistic lifestyles in public areas under the watchful eye of the citizens.
There are probably other examples of similar systems in the past that likely worked well at preventing corruption at the time. So I wouldn't dismiss the idea because people wouldn't want to participate. If all those who want to enact great change or have power over everyone else must also make the personal sacrifice to do so, that wouldn't mean less intelligent or less worthy rulers; it'd mean more committed, more trustworthy rulers.
I'll reply to the military point in another comment.
A total lack of privacy for elected officials is not the same as an end to confidential military operations. It would only mean an end to private negotiations. Of course military strategy will not be publicized for our enemies to see, that should be obvious, however these privacy rules would still imposed upon the elected person(s) who would make the decision to enter wars in the first place.
Confidential military tech can remain confidential, the existence of the tech may come out but the actual technology does not have to be public for other nations to reverse engineer.
The system that denies privacy would absolutely make life dangerous for elected officials. They could have private security, but their location being publically known is enough to create a real danger of attacks. This could help with the political paradigm of a nation by forcing rulers to serve the people of the nation over others; but that is not the point of the system, the idea is just to end and prevent corruption via eliminating private deals. How could the system allow for safety of rulers during wartime? Well it'd have to be postponed during wartime or there could be a succession of rulers who hold the same view of the war, which is a military strategy that Iran has shown us recently: kill a leader and a new one replaces them. And this wouldn't be an issue in the first place if our nation had strong, well defended borders.
That was the idea with FOIA but it didn't work. We all know what needs doing. We can't talk about it. We have no way to get it done (by design).
Might as well just watch the niggerball/goon and play vidya/doomscroll endlessly until the end.
Was nice knowing ya gamers.
Too cumbersome.
The presumption that the system exists to serve or "represent" your interests, rather than ruling over you.
The former was never the case, and they've got zero incentive to limit their own power in order to make that happen.
Actually a cool idea ngl.
God damn. That’s a brilliant idea and something I never heard before.
If someone wants to force these laws on others- they should first hold themselves to a higher standard
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Its a sound idea, but remember it is the very people we need this on that would be implementing it. Never gonna happen.