don@allegra.UUCP (D. Mitchell) (04/09/84)
AI and criminology I totally agree with DW's article in net.crypt. Computer techniques would be used to keep track of "political criminals". Middle class intellectuals are far more vulnerable to this sort of control than are street criminals and drifters. Already, right wing organizations use this technology to keep track of people they consider politically dangerous, and while the government is not allowed to do this, they have received information from these organizations under the table. In some cases, victims are chosen simply by correlating magazine subscription information.
abc@brl-vgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (04/09/84)
But just like so many things, do you really think that, because the "good guys" don't build a tool which can be used for "good" or "evil" that the "bad guys" won't build and use the tool? It seems that what is needed is research into methods for controlling these tools (Computer Science) and research into new public policies regarding the use and misuse of such tools (Humanities and Social Science). Remember: whether the U.S. did it or not, others still would have developed and deployed nuclear weapons.
dand@tekigm.UUCP (04/10/84)
< I cannot agree too strongly with Brint Cooper about this. The tool never makes the wielder any more or less an "evil" person. If given a choice, I'd rather have such a tool built by the established AI community for two reasons: 1) The program's existance is published, so people can think about the implications and possibly set up systems to reduce the amount of abuse the system is used for. As a possible victim of misuse, I can also start thinking about preventive measures to unreasonable privacy invasions(I personally believe no one even now has any real privacy if someone is out to do you in, but that is not germain here.) 2) If such a tool is in the public domain, at least the people it was originally designed for, the law-enforcement agencies, would get some use out of it. If this tracking system were to be built in a CIA shop or an NSA shop, no one outside those organizations will ever know of its existance, and thus never be able to use it. Abuses with such a system are going to be inevitable; the goal for us to set is to see that the abuses are kept to a minimum, which we can't do if the system requires "Top Secret/Burn Before Reading" clearance to even know that it exists. Lest anyone try to say that the possible abuses of such a system outweigh the few benefits of it, remember that Theodore Bundy was convincted with such evidence as gasoline receipts in the area where one of his victims disappeared, at the same time she disappeared. With such a system, perhaps, Ted Bundy would not have racked up the score of dead, young women that he did. Such a system might help pinpoint the current Green River Killer in Washington State, or reduce the predations of the itinerant killers who prey on anyone they think they can get away with. If some shadowy bureaucrat were out to get you, this system would not be necessary--a judge's signature is all that is needed to open up the records of your Visa, your bank, your employer, etc (granted it may not be a legal action on that part of that judge, but we're already talking about illegal activities, no?). Finally, if this discussion is going to go on, let's move it to net.politics or net.misc or net.legal, net.ai is not the proper forum for this discussion. Dan C Duval ISI Engineering Tektronix,Inc tektronix!tekigm!dand
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (04/17/84)
I would recommend a very good article on the matter in the one before last
issue of "Science for the People" (unfortunately I do not have the issue under
my eyes, but I'd be willing to give more details if anybody's interested).
The article is titles "Computerised Big Brother, From a german perspective".
It seems that West Germany is well ahead of other countries in the use of
computers for internal police.
"In Germany there is a constitutional separation of powers between the secret
services and the police. In reality, their information systems have in part
become mutually shared and increasingly cross-linked. Firthermore, by citing
reasons of national security, the police and secret service can gain access
to data compiles in public or private data collections. For example, a
"social data bank" on 55 million people includes such information as medical
reports, income, job ability and so on.
.....
Border crossings into and out of East Germany are routinely registered by
customs agency computers, and Western bloc country border-crossings are also
often recorded. If leftist litterature is seen by officials during a customs
search, this can be recorded as well. Already underway are on-line connections
between BKA (equivalent of FBI) computers and the federal car license registra-
tion bureau as well as state agency address files. Even PUBLIC LIBRARIES (my
capitals (SQ)) have delivered data to these information systems. Many companies
in order to protect against sabotage, electronically collaborate with police
to check all employees for suspicious "anticonstitutional activities"
Anyone who deviates from "standard behaviour" will eventually appear in one
of these electronic files. "Deviants" include political activists, members of
communes, criminals and criminal suspects, alcoholics, drug abusers, homosexuals
and even people who have contacts with these."
(reprinted without permission)
It goes on like this. Definitely an interesting article even if what is said
is not really surprising.
Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigley