Capital de TokensWho decides what warrants surveillance?
Watch on YouTube The thesis of this episode is simple: the danger lies not only in AI conducting surveillance, but in who defines what warrants surveillance. Because “threat” sounds like a technical term, but it always contains a political decision. Is a threat a concrete threat of violence? Or also a protest that makes investors uncomfortable,
The thesis of this episode is simple: the danger lies not only in AI conducting surveillance, but in who defines what warrants surveillance. Because “threat” sounds like a technical term, but it always contains a political decision. Is a threat a concrete threat of violence? Or also a protest that makes investors uncomfortable, delays permits, or damages a company’s reputation? And those decisions are often made within private organizations, using procedures the public knows nothing about and without the safeguards that, at least in theory, constrain the police. I say “at least in theory” because governments do not have a spotless track record either. But a private company adds another problem: it can hire intelligence services, share information with authorities, and operate with very limited transparency. If a company gives the police a report suggesting a possible risk, that report can have an influence even if it proves nothing. And that influence carries more weight when it comes with charts, scores, and technical vocabulary. Technology gives an appearance of objectivity that it often does not deserve.
Full episode: https://youtu.be/I6VjIX4F6_Y
🤖 AI-generated content: the script, voices, and images for this episode were produced using artificial intelligence tools.
#Shorts