would you prefer....

[sushi]

given that the world population is bigger than ever , and there are so many differnt kinds of people you can meet in real life,

would you prefer to have full transparency and completely see through the person you meet, or keep things ambiguous and unknown.

a lot of con artists take advantage of the fact that they keep their past crimes and personality secret, and scam new people.

what if there is a system that allows us to check the profile of someone/stranger we just meet to have a general idea what that kind of person is, to know whether they are trustworth or not. it will be a honest profile, rather than full of bs fake profile.
in the future, ai could probably help us assess what the other party/stranger is like and build a profile based on that person, rather than like right now. Right now, we still know very little or clueless about the strangers we meet, what kind of personality they have and what kind of public face they are showing. They could be just bullshiting and lying about themselves, their backgrounds and history to gain our trust. But to be able to see the other person's profile and personality would be serious intrusion on privacy. The gain would be we would have more information about the stranger and rather we can trust them or not.

 

[Deleted member 1424]

A.
People you know generally pose a much larger threat to you than people you don't, discounting, y'know, fucking militaries.

B.
A comprehensive 'honest' profile database like this would be great at shitting on undesirables. Maybe even just disposing of them. Ah, Justice.

C.
I bet the morality scores would improve by mere association with wealth. It would quickly lose any utility for dealing with conmen, if it ever had any.

D
Did your stupid teenager steal an ipad? Well, now you and your whole family are disbarred from education and travel!


Honestly I could list the whole alphabet on why this is a bad idea. However it's also an inevitable one that already exists in multiple forms. You feel lucky, Sushi?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

A strongly moderated Wikipedia page for every living thing and person on Earth would be pretty lit. Pretty sure it would create more problems than solve though.

For one, adding clarity to the world for everyone just makes it easier for assholes to be assholes, and asshole far outnumber the rest of us.

 

[Cognisant]

Suppose FTL travel is impossible, what then?

Getting around at even a tenth of C is impractical but information can be beamed around at C easily so the obvious solution is to send robots to other systems and have them report back, that's good enough for surveying, but not really a solution to the problem of "I want to personally visit alien worlds".

But what if you could have it both ways?
What if you could have it ALL the ways?

Make a copy of yourself, send the copy out into the universe and have it constantly streaming its experiences back to you, in fact you could send out hundreds of them and explore the universe without ever leaving home. Sure there's years of latency but it doesn't matter, you're not controlling your copies rather the entire point of sending a copy is that they'll do exactly what you would have done if you were in their position. Furthermore you're not watching a video you're experiencing what they're experiencing (via a BCI) as though it happened to you, as if their thoughts & actions were your thoughts and actions. From your perspective you're not watching a live stream rather you're remembering something that has already happened to you.

Likewise you could do this on Earth, have dozens of copies of yourself all networked together and sharing their experiences like the Tachikomas from "Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex" although they would sync their memories at intervals rather than constantly, then again when you're a machine with perfect recollection when the sync occurs probably doesn't matter so much.

Anyway my point is that if people did this, even if they were physically unique individuals their sense of self would soon become a collective sense of self, even if this syncing was occurring at intervals this melding of minds would probably still happen but I think the people within the collective would find the time between synchronization events distressing.

And anything less than forming a hive mind won't get the results you're after.

 

[sushi]

employers already demand a profile of someone when they first arrange an interview. But the profile , resume is pretty much half bullshitting about yourself..

Likewise you can search for someone's profile in facebook or linkein Tinder, but then again, half the stuff they post in their profile is made up crap.

its already becoming a trend. The way employers human resources judge new recruits is similar the way we evaluate new strangers we meet.

I disagree with dair, strangers are still more dangerous than people you are familar with or related by blood.

A self profile for the other party for reference would inform them about what your personality is ,or whether you are trustworthy or not. It would give them a general picture of your personality or what kind of person you are.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Information is neutral.

The people who have the information can use it for your benefit or against you.

How is this system going to figure out when and where the people get information about you and how it is going to be used by other people.

You already have the internet and facebook and lots of companies and onlineshops stealing your information and using it against you.

Not sure you want some dumb ass halfwit use information against you, because he cannot read or understand something.

Plus what exactly is the type of information you are talking about????

Do you really want to advertise to your whole family that you are gay and not going to law school????

Do you want people who read only headlines in news and think that they know everything look at your profile and make larger than life assumptions about your integrity and personality and your person????

 

[BurnedOut]

I would rather dogmatically protect privacy but in order to accomodate some order, I think context-reading programs should be made which analyzes the current moment based on research and predicts a possible behaviour. Nobody's history should be permanent in nature. Part of change is that it should not always track itself linearly.

For eg,
A man stares at a child and a camera picks it up and first rates the person as 'normal' and then as the staring continues, the men is labelled as 'acquaintance' and then 'potential kidnapper' and then law enforcement is dispatched to the situation. I think it would be cool to rather make programs that make human tasks easier whilst using human behaviours but at an enhanced level. Instead of comprehensively tracking someone's history and then draw judgements in a biased manner, data-collection itself should be refined. Systems that analyze causality should be established than systems that only look for patterns by dominantly referring to past data.

Anonymization of data should be the norm. A near-sentient internet that automatically obfuscates any personal data that passes through it will be awesome.

 

[sushi]

Information is neutral.

The people who have the information can use it for your benefit or against you.

How is this system going to figure out when and where the people get information about you and how it is going to be used by other people.

You already have the internet and facebook and lots of companies and onlineshops stealing your information and using it against you.

Not sure you want some dumb ass halfwit use information against you, because he cannot read or understand something.

Plus what exactly is the type of information you are talking about????

Do you really want to advertise to your whole family that you are gay and not going to law school????

Do you want people who read only headlines in news and think that they know everything look at your profile and make larger than life assumptions about your integrity and personality and your person????

some general information and personality of new stranger you meet and talk to, in social settings or work etc, so you are not completely in the dark about him and his motivations, leading to distrust.

It saves speed reading and guessing about the person, because people wear masks or exploit other people's ignorance.

How much to reveal is a matter of privacy.

meeting and forming be relations with new people can be extremely random and prone to chance, especially given now there is a large population pool that can only get larger, leading to more variations of different personalitites. It not like in the old days in a village, where there are only 20 to 50 people you basically can know all your life.

 

[ZenRaiden]

meeting and forming be relations with new people can be extremely random and prone to chance, especially given now there is a large population pool that can only get larger, leading to more variations of different personalitites. It not like in the old days in a village, where there are only 20 to 50 people you basically can know all your life.

You are correct, but this does not justify monitoring people and exploiting their private affairs so other people can feel safe.

Safety of people is entirely their own concern and nothing else.

My solution is simple. I associate with people based on what I consider safe and proper for my own needs. I seek mutual benefits and reciprocity and of course some sort of respect. Trust build bridges, but trust is not just something you create out of thin air. You have to work for it and it takes effort.

Introverted and socially inept people have issues doing this efficiently, but they also have the benefit of not being easy target.

Its given and take.

Plus we know that people often can and will exploit others if they are inclined to do so. Even if you know someone someone can and will do so if they want to.

People have will of their own.

Plus relationships have organic nature, they are not static. People develop and learn from each other.

Simple rule of thumb. Avoid people who act and behave the way you do not like.
Prefer people who are the type of people you want to associate with.

Having a small village of 50 does not guarantee that people are nicer. It just means you know what to expect.

If you have trouble to figure out people and lack ability to navigate social settings you are not alone. Everyone including social butterflies and and extrovert people have the same issues.

The extrovert socially skilled just make it seem more natural and less awkward and seamless, but they too have to learn about people and how to interact, but they just don't mind solving these issues on the fly and work through them, because they are energized by them.

Most introverts don't like this and feel demoralized by conflicts and depleted.
Its not enjoyable and fun.

The point is you have responsibility towards yourself.

 

[Daddy]

Ambiguous and unknown. It's more fun that way, learning how to read people and understand them and judge their character.

And I always tell people that I don't lie to them; I just don't always tell them the whole truth. Then I couldn't do that...and having more information about people seems like it would make it too easy for people to come to hasty or ignorant conclusions, kind of like biased media. They will search for what they want to see and envision it the way they wanted, not what it actually is or the whole picture of what is actually there...hence, why I don't always tell people the whole truth...

 

[onesteptwostep]

A relationship is built upon trust, and trust only comes when there is a sense of faith. Transparency doesn't bring in trust, in fact transparency usually brings in ineptitude and apathy.

Also knowing someone and actually having public access to their criminal record are different things.

Actually this topic reminds me of a philosopher: Byung-Chul Han. He has an interesting perspective on what transparency has done to our economy and society at large, and he likens the contemporary economic situation to 'pornographic'. According to a summary of his book "Transparent Society" on Amazon:

Transparency is the order of the day. It is a term, a slogan, that dominates public discourse about corruption and freedom of information. Considered crucial to democracy, it touches our political and economic lives as well as our private lives. Anyone can obtain information about anything. Everything―and everyone―has become transparent: unveiled or exposed by the apparatuses that exert a kind of collective control over the post-capitalist world.

Yet, transparency has a dark side that, ironically, has everything to do with a lack of mystery, shadow, and nuance. Behind the apparent accessibility of knowledge lies the disappearance of privacy, homogenization, and the collapse of trust. The anxiety to accumulate ever more information does not necessarily produce more knowledge or faith. Technology creates the illusion of total containment and the constant monitoring of information, but what we lack is adequate interpretation of the information. In this manifesto, Byung-Chul Han denounces transparency as a false ideal, the strongest and most pernicious of our contemporary mythologies.

 

[sushi]

why do people wear name tags then, it is just an extension.

you could just ask the person the name yourself

this is the same about how much people reveal about themselves using technology/

although x ray machine that let you completely percieve a person's character or read his thoughts and motives is probably an extreme, i am guessing social technology we are going to that direction sooner or later. We could probably speed read what a person is hiding within a minute, but with the risk of becoming transparent ourselves.