I would argue that such a product would be by its nature political, because it’s only practical use case was the furtherance of a political goal.
Again, I disagree. Surveillance has a lot of use cases outside of government, and a huge use case is keeping the government in check. Palantir could have sold its services to non-profits like the ACLU as a check on local, state, and law enforcement agencies. They could have sold it to HOAs and neighborhood watch associations as an early warning system for repeat offenders.
The government skirting the 4th amendment (and a few others) doesn’t automatically make its sub-contractor’s products “authoritarian,” it makes its use of those products authoritarian.
So a system that does so (like the ones sold to the govt) is a political software product.
I disagree with that conclusion. The use by the government is authoritarian, but that doesn’t make the product authoritarian.
To me where it gets tricky is when private entities grow to government-sized proportions, and begin to use these same tools for similar purposes
A private entity can do authoritarian things, like spying on its employees or customers. Authoritarianism isn’t strictly tied to governments, but anything that acts like a government. Here’s the first definition I found:
Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom.
Software can’t really favor obedience to authority, it can’t really deny you your freedoms, it’s just software. Likewise for a camera system. The only way those things can be authoritarian is if paired with some form of enforcement arm, like corporate security or law enforcement. So that combined system is authoritarian, the cameras or software on their own cannot be authoritarian.
Surveillance has a lot of use cases outside of government. Palantir could have sold its services to non-profits like the ACLU as a check on local, state, and law enforcement agencies.
In theory, yes. In practice no.
ALCU could not roll a system like that out; never mind securing the resources needed to deploy this meaningfully; using it would go against their ethos, because using it would make them authoritarian, or adjacent.
Similarly, even if HOAs could deploy a system like that, that’d make them authoritarian.
Mass surveillance products like these don’t have a lot of non-authoritarian uses. Even if you could find such a use (of which I’m skeptical), it’d almost certainly need to be subsidized by an authoritarian customer.
We’re not talking about security cameras around you personal property, here.
Similarly, even if HOAs could deploy a system like that, that’d make them authoritarian.
That really depends how the system is used. If it explicitly doesn’t record regular residents and people who have signed up officially as visitors (and homeowners can review footage), I don’t think the camera system itself would really be authoritarian. Yeah, the system would be capable of violating privacy, but as long as the system is transparent and reviewable by the residents, I think it can be privacy-respecting. Basically, it would be like a home security system, but across a neighborhood, and it can even be self-hosted to not let third parties access the data (and police requests would go through the HOA board, which consists of residents).
That’s my point. If the system itself can be used in a privacy-respecting way (and the vast majority can), even if it’s typically not used that way, the system itself cannot be authoritarian. If an institution uses it in an authoritarian way, then the institution is authoritarian.
In short:
cameras are not authoritarian
databases are not authoritarian
license plate and face recognition software isn’t authoritarian
connecting 1-3 together in a searchable way isn’t authoritarian (would be a fun hobby project)
Sharing info from 4 isn’t authoritarian (again, could be a fun hobby with friends)
An institution (gov’t, business, HOA, etc) using 4 and/or 5 to enforce policy on citizens/employees/residents/etc is authoritarian
I have friends that use home cameras to do object classification as a hobby, mostly to identify and fee record wildlife. I’ve also heard of people doing this to identify package deliveries and catch package thiefs. Sharing those models with others on the internet is largely the same idea as what flock is doing, and with enough data, similar solutions to what Palantir is doing could be done entirely by hobbyists.
The products Flock and Palantir aren’t authoritarian in and of themselves, it becomes authoritarian when those products are used to enforce policy.
Again, in theory in a vacuum, I agree. But I disagree that anything you describe could actually be both commercially viable and deployable without authoritarian involvement
In your example do you not see all the gymnastics and bending over backwards you need to do to avoid the inherent nature of the system? I’d go so far as to say that the people in your theoretical HOA are analogous to supporters of a authoritarian regime.
You’re making a pro-gun argument here, and it’s not convincing for similar reasons: products are more than the sum of their parts, and the actual application of a product matters more than the theoretical use. If it is nearly impossible to meaningfully use apolitically, then it is not apolitical.
I disagree that anything you describe could actually be both commercially viable and deployable without authoritarian involvement
You haven’t heard of Ring cameras? Commercial security systems? They do basically what I’m describing, just not as well because they don’t have as much of an incentive. Are end users willing to pay for these more advanced models? No, so consumer grade cameras stick to object detection like deer vs racoon instead of specific individual detection (e.g. scanning eyes).
Governments, however, are willing to pay that amount. Why? Because they think it’ll help them detect criminals, and they think that helps keep people safe. It’s an extension of the HOA idea, just with government-scale funds backed up with law enforcement to go after threats. That, in itself, isn’t authoritarian, but setting up such a system opens the door for authoritarians to take control and misuse it.
I’d go so far as to say that the people in your theoretical HOA are analogous to supporters of a authoritarian regime.
Analogous, sure, but the HOA has no enforcement arm for non-residents, so all they can do is ask the police to intervene. That’s the difference with a city, it has a police force it can order to intervene using information from that system. It’s the mixing of enforcement and surveillance that makes it authoritarian.
So a surveillance system is not itself authoritarian, it’s only authoritarian of there’s some enforcement arm to enforce obedience or punish disobedience.
If it is nearly impossible to meaningfully use apolitically, then it is not apolitical.
Again, I disagree. Something is only political when used for political ends.
They do basically what I’m describing, just not as well because they don’t have as much of an incentive. Are end users willing to pay for these more advanced models?
Well there you go. It could be authoritarian, except an authoritarian govt isn’t subsidizing it. Exactly like I described.
Governments, however, are willing to pay that amount. Why?
You keep walking straight into the points I’m making.
That, in itself, isn’t authoritarian
Wrong. Setting up a super invasive surveillance system is inherently authoritarian, even if they initially happen to use it for reasons that don’t typify authoritarianism. You have to bend over backwards so hard to keep it from becoming authoritarian, that it will just naturally corrupt any entity that deploys it, even making the monumental assumption that an entity that deploys this didn’t have the intention to use it for nefarious purposes from the start.
it’s only authoritarian of there’s some enforcement arm to enforce obedience or punish disobedience.
Is a rather clumsy piece of mental gymnastics. Not only have you said it before. You can use this argument, coupled with your earlier “it’s constituent parts aren’t authoritarian” to argue that nothing is authoritarian.
Again, I disagree. Something is only political when used for political ends.
And again this is just the pro-gun argument. Fine on paper, useless in reality.
I’m making the argument that it is possible for software to be political even if it wasn’t created as such. I only need to show that a single case is possible.
You are making the argument that it is impossible, and you keep trying to prove it by example.
Again, I disagree. Surveillance has a lot of use cases outside of government, and a huge use case is keeping the government in check. Palantir could have sold its services to non-profits like the ACLU as a check on local, state, and law enforcement agencies. They could have sold it to HOAs and neighborhood watch associations as an early warning system for repeat offenders.
The government skirting the 4th amendment (and a few others) doesn’t automatically make its sub-contractor’s products “authoritarian,” it makes its use of those products authoritarian.
I disagree with that conclusion. The use by the government is authoritarian, but that doesn’t make the product authoritarian.
A private entity can do authoritarian things, like spying on its employees or customers. Authoritarianism isn’t strictly tied to governments, but anything that acts like a government. Here’s the first definition I found:
Software can’t really favor obedience to authority, it can’t really deny you your freedoms, it’s just software. Likewise for a camera system. The only way those things can be authoritarian is if paired with some form of enforcement arm, like corporate security or law enforcement. So that combined system is authoritarian, the cameras or software on their own cannot be authoritarian.
That’s my point.
In theory, yes. In practice no.
ALCU could not roll a system like that out; never mind securing the resources needed to deploy this meaningfully; using it would go against their ethos, because using it would make them authoritarian, or adjacent.
Similarly, even if HOAs could deploy a system like that, that’d make them authoritarian.
Mass surveillance products like these don’t have a lot of non-authoritarian uses. Even if you could find such a use (of which I’m skeptical), it’d almost certainly need to be subsidized by an authoritarian customer. We’re not talking about security cameras around you personal property, here.
That really depends how the system is used. If it explicitly doesn’t record regular residents and people who have signed up officially as visitors (and homeowners can review footage), I don’t think the camera system itself would really be authoritarian. Yeah, the system would be capable of violating privacy, but as long as the system is transparent and reviewable by the residents, I think it can be privacy-respecting. Basically, it would be like a home security system, but across a neighborhood, and it can even be self-hosted to not let third parties access the data (and police requests would go through the HOA board, which consists of residents).
That’s my point. If the system itself can be used in a privacy-respecting way (and the vast majority can), even if it’s typically not used that way, the system itself cannot be authoritarian. If an institution uses it in an authoritarian way, then the institution is authoritarian.
In short:
I have friends that use home cameras to do object classification as a hobby, mostly to identify and fee record wildlife. I’ve also heard of people doing this to identify package deliveries and catch package thiefs. Sharing those models with others on the internet is largely the same idea as what flock is doing, and with enough data, similar solutions to what Palantir is doing could be done entirely by hobbyists.
The products Flock and Palantir aren’t authoritarian in and of themselves, it becomes authoritarian when those products are used to enforce policy.
Again, in theory in a vacuum, I agree. But I disagree that anything you describe could actually be both commercially viable and deployable without authoritarian involvement
In your example do you not see all the gymnastics and bending over backwards you need to do to avoid the inherent nature of the system? I’d go so far as to say that the people in your theoretical HOA are analogous to supporters of a authoritarian regime.
You’re making a pro-gun argument here, and it’s not convincing for similar reasons: products are more than the sum of their parts, and the actual application of a product matters more than the theoretical use. If it is nearly impossible to meaningfully use apolitically, then it is not apolitical.
You haven’t heard of Ring cameras? Commercial security systems? They do basically what I’m describing, just not as well because they don’t have as much of an incentive. Are end users willing to pay for these more advanced models? No, so consumer grade cameras stick to object detection like deer vs racoon instead of specific individual detection (e.g. scanning eyes).
Governments, however, are willing to pay that amount. Why? Because they think it’ll help them detect criminals, and they think that helps keep people safe. It’s an extension of the HOA idea, just with government-scale funds backed up with law enforcement to go after threats. That, in itself, isn’t authoritarian, but setting up such a system opens the door for authoritarians to take control and misuse it.
Analogous, sure, but the HOA has no enforcement arm for non-residents, so all they can do is ask the police to intervene. That’s the difference with a city, it has a police force it can order to intervene using information from that system. It’s the mixing of enforcement and surveillance that makes it authoritarian.
So a surveillance system is not itself authoritarian, it’s only authoritarian of there’s some enforcement arm to enforce obedience or punish disobedience.
Again, I disagree. Something is only political when used for political ends.
Well there you go. It could be authoritarian, except an authoritarian govt isn’t subsidizing it. Exactly like I described.
You keep walking straight into the points I’m making.
Wrong. Setting up a super invasive surveillance system is inherently authoritarian, even if they initially happen to use it for reasons that don’t typify authoritarianism. You have to bend over backwards so hard to keep it from becoming authoritarian, that it will just naturally corrupt any entity that deploys it, even making the monumental assumption that an entity that deploys this didn’t have the intention to use it for nefarious purposes from the start.
Is a rather clumsy piece of mental gymnastics. Not only have you said it before. You can use this argument, coupled with your earlier “it’s constituent parts aren’t authoritarian” to argue that nothing is authoritarian.
And again this is just the pro-gun argument. Fine on paper, useless in reality.
I’m making the argument that it is possible for software to be political even if it wasn’t created as such. I only need to show that a single case is possible.
You are making the argument that it is impossible, and you keep trying to prove it by example.