Chinese Federation - A "Big Brother" Complex?

[Poet]

Hey all,
Hope nobody minds me starting this here, but I've been wondering for a while - how far is too far when it comes to surveillance?

I read this article in August of this year, and though of how terrifying the prospect of a "digital panopticon" would be. Near the bottom of the article, legal scholar Feng Xiang gives his opinion on the matter:

...public surveillance via CCTV cameras is being rapidly supplemented by a range of more insidious data collectors-cum-tracking devices: the smartphones in almost half of all Chinese citizens’ pockets. This will eventually create a world devoid of privacy.

“It’s not like [George] Orwell’s 1984, but it’s like a new way of life,” says Feng, noting that even a hike in a scenic park or up a mountain in China today can involve mandatory fingerprinting by police. “In the old days at least you had somewhere you could hide, or where you can do your private things. But now the assumption is people know where you are.”

From earlier this year, it's been a concern to me the breach of privacy that this system displays. An introduction of a "social credit system" also encourages people to live textbook existences in line with government principles. Placing a foot out of line by jaywalking, making a comment about your disagreement with certain government decisions, or being late to work one too many times can all lead to public demerits, and ultimately, blacklisting. All of it completely out of an individual's control. And now, ABC News displays the physical oppression of religions once again - as an atheist state, China has always very clearly been against religion, but opened up a couple years ago to allow the sale and distribution of religious materials, the public display of beliefs and the freedom of underground churches. Now that the government is back to literally burning down crosses and replacing them with images of their communist leaders, the question stands:
We take for granted here in Australia our freedom of speech, religion and, most of all, freedom from discrimination. Now that China has officially rolled out its surveillance and credit system, will this create an infringement of basic human rights, and ultimately another corrupt political hierarchy? Morally, how just is this procedure? Will those who found freedom in religion be blacklisted by the government for their innocent actions?

A keen bean awaits your responses.

edit: lol forgot to put in the main reference article, sorry O-o

[jazcstuart]

Did you see Foreign Correspondent last week? It was about the surveillance and the social credit system, and followed people that have been blacklisted for minor reasons and have basically become excluded from society. I think it is scarily similar to "1984" (despite what the article says), due to the inescapable surveillance and the emphasis on ensuring everyone thinks the same, with the oppression of religions. Have you read it yet? (I remember you said you wanted to)

Although I'm not very aware of the specifics of what is happening, I think one of the most scary things is that many people genuinely believe it is being done for their own good, and that the surveillance makes them feel safe. Maybe they are right, but I can't see a situation in which it doesn't lead to a loss of freedom and allow for the control of a corrupt political hierarchy, as you put it.

I think also we have come to accept a certain level of surveillance and data collection in our own lives, mainly with social media. Although it is not as in-your-face, I think it still brings it's own challenges.

I will be interested but concerned and wary to see how everything develops in China. What are your thoughts Poet?

[Poet]

I will be interested but concerned and wary to see how everything develops in China. What are your thoughts Poet?

Well, here's for hoping there won't be such a drastic dystopian/Orwellian outcome, but I do feel like this is something we should be concerned about. (I've managed the first three chapters of '1984' so far, and it's brilliant! )

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's the article that my mother read to me after bringing it up the other day. Thanks for linking it! My view on this is that the government is taking it too far. Although many believe that this is for their own good, innocent people will be targeted, and giving absolute control to a single power, such as government, is extremely unwise, especially when its leaders are already, well, not the most honest people out there. There's a reason Australia has a separation of powers. This may have developed from good intentions, but now, instead of helping the people of China, it's turning them into slaves.

For me, it's a matter of history repeating itself - oppression and forced obedience never works well. To see innocent people persecuted for doing things they would have the freedom to do in almost every other country in the world irks me. And above all, I fear for them as a working society. What happens when the divide gets bigger? What happens to those blacklisted, trapped in their country and unable to work? This system will most likely create a division between the people - the government is purposefully crushing out any opposition, and rewarding informants and "good" citizens. I don't like it.

[turinturambar]

I'm torn, because it's fascinating technology that can be used for a lot of good, and yet I don't have any reason to trust that it will be used for good. To me, privacy is just the expected default. I hate the idea that you have to justify privacy (e.g. "If you weren't doing anything wrong, you wouldn't have a problem with everyone knowing what you were doing"). And my usual response is retrospective wrong-doing: Just because what I'm doing is fine now doesn't mean it won't earn me a black mark in five or ten years time. I also hate the idea of systems that end up enforcing conformity, because a lot of the interesting perspectives and advances come from people who question the normal (also because I've never quite considered myself normal  ).  People optimise for what you measure, and it is never clear in advance what the outcome of that is or what you will have lost. (Society does already work like this, but I think an authoritarian government has the potential to accelerate it).

It is a concern for us in Australia if we want to try and remain on good terms with both China and the US (which could be difficult...). At the moment I don't think it's politically popular here to be too close to China, but what deals might politicians cut with China in the future, and how might they impact us?

In the West, we have to acknowledge the potential for overreach by corporations as well as governments. Certain major corporations in the US (mentioning no names) are definitely looking at the same technologies and the same ability to inter-link vast datasets.  And corporations face a completely different set of rules and restrictions from governments, and it is certainly possible to see corporations having more power than governments in the not too distant future.  And even if we trust those collecting the data, both China and here have the concern of how datasets collected could be used by bad actors.

Sorry, I have no real positives to offer tonight - the technology is beautiful and the potential for good is vast, but even with good intentions it will go wrong.  So I think the questions for the West are really "Is it better for this power to be wielded by governments for the theoretical good of citizens?  Or for corporations so that they can more effectively sell you things?"

[TheBigC]

In my own subjective account, the notion of constant government surveillance is utterly reprehensible. Although government regulation is a necessity to prevent chaos, at what point does regulation stifle one’s perception of free will. This seems totally tyrannical and merely totalitarian. To further exercise my eloquence, I believe it is, in fact, highly cynical. What self-righteous egotists are constructing these regulations: as though they are so perfect and infallible! Part of the human condition is making errors and sometimes these errors break the law, sometimes some of us are in positions that law-breaking activities are necessary to best provide solace in what would otherwise be a hardship. Should I have to justify myself every single time I commit an unlawful activity? Certainly not. We are humans, we should be able to have the discretion to commit supposed vice and partake in unlawful activities when considering both risk and reward. For example, take the scenario where an individual’s parents are dying, they may jaywalk or break speed limits, but because of that they have spared enough time to hear the final words of their dying parents (extreme, however highly pertinent). Many examples could be found where this is applicable.

Digressing, I will recite my inquiry relating to free will. The novel point-based system will eventually become a form of social currency, wherein it may be a representation of the honourability of an individual, analogous to the importance of education in the west (i.e. someone with an MD is higher in the social hierarchy than someone with a bachelor’s degree etc). Ultimately, this will create severe tension within those who want to exercise their freedom of speech, or purported lack thereof. The Chinese government may utilise this scheme to corruptly seize points from individuals deciding to contest the governmental efficacity, hence discouraging any dialectical discourse pertinent to contentious issues. Now, that sounds god awful. The Chinese population should be apprehensive. 

[Lear]

Related - Black Mirror Season 3 Episode 1 ‘Nosedive’ is quite literally exactly what China plans to do. It’s as if they took notes from this episode.
Anyone interested should definitely watch it

Mod edit: removed access to copyright material -- Calebark

[Quantum44]

Related - Black Mirror Season 3 Episode 1 ‘Nosedive’ is quite literally exactly what China plans to do. It’s as if they took notes from this episode.
Anyone interested should definitely watch it
Feel free to message me if you want a link to it.

The parallels are definitely quite disturbing, although I’d argue what China is doing is a lot more concerning, given the control of people’s “social credit” rests entirely in the hands of a government that has shown they are willing to go to extreme lengths to ensure their reign lasts as long as possible.