Spotting Malice Debunks Privacy Invasion

[behavioralist]

Every individual treasures his privacy for a unique set of reasons.

We can divide these sets of reasons into classes of malice, from the minimum to the maximum of contempt for society's legislative "Spirit" or intent.

Clearly it is not consistent with The Spirit of The Law that privacy should be applied toward covertly doing grievous harm. So the reason the average person is protective of the right to privacy is not that he wants to free people to do grievous harm if they are so inclined.

Along comes a science of human behavior, Behavioral Science. This science can tell us who is inclined to do grievous harm even while these people are thoroughly convinced they are dissembling their malice perfectly. It can divide people and families into classes of malice, from least to most.

And it has been demonstrated that a computer can be programmed to divide people into such classes of malice, for the person who can't learn to do so for himself. Everyone can apply this expertise, in other words. No need to hire one of the rare experts.

And this invites a reassessment of Privacy Laws. Why not have Privacy Rights Evaluation testing? That way, if you harbor less malice, you get more privacy!

[Space Commander Travis]

By jiminy, that sounds Orwellian. Or perhaps rather Dickian, as in Philp K. Dick. Does it not sound rather Minority Report?

[behavioralist]

By jiminy, that sounds Orwellian. Or perhaps rather Dickian, as in Philp K. Dick. Does it not sound rather Minority Report?

To have science restrict prying to where it's always serving the taxpayer strikes me more as a restoration of the (perhaps purported) status quo, except as it affects the bounders among us.

[+OverSword]

Every individual treasures his privacy for a unique set of reasons.

We can divide these sets of reasons into classes of malice, from the minimum to the maximum of contempt for society's legislative "Spirit" or intent.

Clearly it is not consistent with The Spirit of The Law that privacy should be applied toward covertly doing grievous harm. So the reason the average person is protective of the right to privacy is not that he wants to free people to do grievous harm if they are so inclined.

Along comes a science of human behavior, Behavioral Science. This science can tell us who is inclined to do grievous harm even while these people are thoroughly convinced they are dissembling their malice perfectly. It can divide people and families into classes of malice, from least to most.

And it has been demonstrated that a computer can be programmed to divide people into such classes of malice, for the person who can't learn to do so for himself. Everyone can apply this expertise, in other words. No need to hire one of the rare experts.

And this invites a reassessment of Privacy Laws. Why not have Privacy Rights Evaluation testing? That way, if you harbor less malice, you get more privacy!

So based on a computer algorhythm, rather than actual actions/behaviour, you're proposing people be issued levels of privacy they may or may not be entitled to. Very stupid. Perhaps we should take into consideration the percentage of black people that commit crimes as compared to whites and just for safetys sake give all blacks an automatic lower level of privacy expectation for the good of the whole of course.

Your idea is not original or good. In fact your idea is stupid.

[Ashotep]

I have to agree this is a dumb idea. It would be like these tests that are designed to tell you if you might get cancer or some genetic disease in the future. People are afraid employers will not hire you or insurance companies might not insure you based on these tests.

[behavioralist]

So based on a computer algorhythm, rather than actual actions/behaviour, you're proposing people be issued levels of privacy they may or may not be entitled to. Very stupid. Perhaps we should take into consideration the percentage of black people that commit crimes as compared to whites and just for safetys sake give all blacks an automatic lower level of privacy expectation for the good of the whole of course.

Your idea is not original or good. In fact your idea is stupid.

An infallible process for prioritizing law enforcement investments has not existed until now! Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences had not culminated before 2012.

Someone who doesn't want the worst-case malice recognized and impeded must be endowed with enough malice himself to hope the worst-case maladjusted are keeping the enforcers busy.

[Space Commander Travis]

An infallible process for prioritizing law enforcement investments has not existed until now! Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences had not culminated before 2012.

Someone who doesn't want the worst-case malice recognized and impeded must be endowed with enough malice himself to hope the worst-case maladjusted are keeping the enforcers busy.

Really? An infallible process for prioritizing law enforcement investments has not existed until now! But now one does? So even though Behavioural & Cognitive Sciences has not culminated until now, it's reliable enough to be able to see into the future and label who might and might not be likely to have Malicious intent in the future? Perhaps it might be an idea to give it a bit of time to make sure that it can be relied on first. Anyway, Someone who doesn't want the worst-case malice recognized and impeded might not necessarily be endowed with enough malice himself to hope the worst-case maladjusted are keeping the enforcers busy, they may just be concerned about some vaguely defined "Science" taking upon itself the power to decide which people are potentially Malicious and so should be snooped upon by the Authorities.

[behavioralist]

Really? An infallible process for prioritizing law enforcement investments has not existed until now! But now one does? So even though Behavioural & Cognitive Sciences has not culminated until now, it's reliable enough to be able to see into the future and label who might and might not be likely to have Malicious intent in the future? Perhaps it might be an idea to give it a bit of time to make sure that it can be relied on first. Anyway, Someone who doesn't want the worst-case malice recognized and impeded might not necessarily be endowed with enough malice himself to hope the worst-case maladjusted are keeping the enforcers busy, they may just be concerned about some vaguely defined "Science" taking upon itself the power to decide which people are potentially Malicious and so should be snooped upon by the Authorities.

A sound enough argument (except as more congenital malice ---more repressed family-loathing--- provokes more violence and contagion of opposition; rabble-rousing). But consider "And yet it moves!". How long does a scientist have to wait for thick-as-a-brick to stop impeding his potential to be of use?