The surveilled society: Who is watching you and how

One alarming method of surveillance I learned about this year was cars. Many cars come with built in surveillance and privacy violations. Several manufacturers allegedly sold the location data of car owners, tracked by their GPS systems (https://fortune.com/2024/07/26/general-motors-honda-and-hyun...). Some manufacturers revised their policies based on outrage, like GM (https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/gm-killed-program-that-sold...), but my recollection is others like Subaru did not. Many cars also have options for opting out of having your personal data resolve to data brokers and insurers but they opt you in by default.

One step backwards, it is greatly imprudent to match a tracking device (such as a GPS receiver) and one's name.

This would have worked in trustworthy societies - not these ones. (If a trustworthy society is still known in these times, please inform.)

A society cannot be "trustworthy", but it can embody "high trust".

(Not wishing to be pedantic for its own sake, there's an important distinction)

High-trust is the average trust metric between any two randomly chosen individuals from the set at some time.

Trustworthiness (in one regard) is the historically accumulated record of positive performance against promises made. But a society is not a single entity. Maybe society's representatives might be trustworthy.

What I meant in the post was "In using some service, one trusts it will not be abused"; consistent abuse of service is societal - hence, said societies "are not trustworthy".

I didn't mean to undermine your comment, sorry.

So there's a push for "zero trust" society. What do you make of that?

> there's a push for "zero trust" society. What do you make of that

Given that what happens is what is allowed by the society in which it happens,

the priority is to flee - as fully bad indicators are there. The problem remains, "to where" - identifying a society that still recognizes and defends Dignity.

You raise a keyword that is paramount in our time. Dignity. Privacy is a tangible and common talking point. Anyone who wants to flee to a forest hut can obtain privacy, but not dignity, because escape is undignified.

While the concept of privacy makes it into laws, it's still just a minor component of a broader "dignity" that so many technologies seem set on destroying. A dozen or more major thinkers since the 1900s have noticed that human dignity is very fragile in the face of technology (Weber, Marx, Fromm, Freud, Jung, Nietzsche...) Surveillance is just one modern facet of undignified life with technology.

Question: can technology ever enhance dignity?

We've seemingly built a system (society) in which material and social success hinge on a willingness to forgo dignity. People who have a strong sense of dignity are disadvantaged and marginalised. So to answer your "to where?" To the margins. Unless one is prepared to embrace indignity in visible opposition. Struggle may be the last refuge of dignity.