The New Nano-Technology And Artificial Intelligence Will Begin To Merge With The Chinese Social Credit System. This Will Create One Of The World's Biggest Threat To Democracy And Freedom.This Post Also Heralds A Warning About The Future Use Of Malicious Rogue Nano-Scale Sensors For Surveillance.
Authoritarian regimes are gaining an edge in controlling the singularity by funding their own quantum computers. China is creating a bulwark against democracy and freedom to serve their authoritarian needs. It is amazing how many Western individuals and institutions are asleep at the switch regarding this massive threat. China's Social Credit System, where linking advanced technology to the control of society, is already underway on a grand scale. It involves the use of surveillance techniques on a massive scale and is sure to be enhanced with nano-sensors in the near future.
A) First, the technological side of this marriage between technology and social control:
The holy grail of science and technology, the technological singularity, will be developed through quantum computers. All the AI, nano-technology, and DNA manipulation have one common factor driving them forward; it is the quantum computer engines.
China has ramped up its investment in developing quantum technologies, but few understand the impacts of losing this modern-day space race.
We see this by way of an article from FP news (Foreign Policy), http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/28/the ... ith-china/
The Quantum Gap with China
By Thomas E. Ricks | November 28, 2017
China’s recent announcement of a $10 billion, four million square foot national quantum laboratory in Heifi should raise alarms. Having already demonstrated a head-start in a handful of quantum technology applications — such as its launch of the Micius satellite, the first satellite-to-ground quantum network, and China’s claimed engineering of a quantum radar capable of detecting current stealth technologies — China has proven it wants to maintain its advantage. These achievements combined with the massive investment by the Chinese government in quantum research should be a wake-up call to policy-makers and military leaders alike.
China’s increased spending and demonstrated advances in developing quantum technologies will enable advantages both commercially, and militarily, for a handful of reasons. The most concerning advantage relates to codebreaking. Today, communication networks pass digital information over public infrastructures, such as fiber optic pathways and wireless airwaves, using encryption to prevent eavesdroppers from reading the content of the message traffic. The only thing stopping eavesdroppers from decrypting this traffic is the mathematical complexity of doing so. Quantum computers will have the ability to crack these codes in far less time than today’s most advanced conventional computers. Furthermore, as quantum computers make linear gains in computational power, they will exponentially decrease the time it takes to break current means of encryption.
Conversely, just as quantum technologies can be used to decrypt traditional security measures, it also can protect information in sophisticated new quantum communication channels
One of the most vulnerable area for every country is to have another county be able to crack its encrypted military and commercial security codes. Doing so exposes the attacked country in such a way to bring it to its knees. Whichever country can accomplish this first by developing the quantum computers with sufficient computational power to crack these traditional codes will have more than just a head start. It will have absolute dominance.
The author of the above article goes on to say,
Given this, what should policy-makers, military leaders, and commercial decision-makers do? Just as previous world leaders have made calls for increased scientific spending to bolster national security interests, leaders today must recognize the changing threat landscape imposed by quantum technologies and put some skin in the game. To produce a profound increase in opportunities in this field someone must provide incentives for the next generation of researchers and developers. The free market may not be enough. Recently the U.S. House Science Committee voiced concerns that the United States was falling behind countries such as China that are ramping up research and development in this area.
This is the race of all races. Unless the USA has some black box project we have no knowledge of to produce these quantum computers, we will fall behind. To put this funding into perspective, the aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), is the most expensive and advanced warship ever built, costing $13 billion. If the Chinese, with the recent $10 billion investment, could develop the quantum technology to crack our military security codes, then even the entire USA military budget, which is approaching $600 billion for 2018, is suspect as a deterrence. Perhaps one less aircraft carrier and more money dedicated to this quantum race is the way to go. Although no one knows when the quantum computers will be of sufficient effectiveness to break these codes, it is obvious China is hedging their bets in this direction.
I previously stated the following from my post #9 under Brain Structure Drives The Consequent Effects Of Economic Inequality,
We are at war; it is a war between competing brain structures. What we are witnessing is the opening salvo of class warfare on a world wide scale. Few dare to call it what it really is in an attempt keep the cauldron from boiling over. Nevertheless, the carnage is just starting and will continue.
From a forum on this website I also present what I consider to be the most important contextual view of the future in one simple paragraph:
1-B Economic Inequality: The Outrage! FUTURE CONCERNS: THE SINGULARITY
"Let there be no doubt, the single most important aspect we are really battling for here is to control the future, our future. Will we control it or let the wealthy elite control our destiny? Make no mistake, what happens here will determine the outcome of humanity. Whoever controls the Singularity will control the future; will it be them or us?"
We can see the Chinese wish to dominate the control of quantum computers and hence, control the singularity. Furthermore, they are not a benign country as the following brief slide show indicates just what the Chinese Totalitarian State is all about,
https://www.slideshare.net/vm2701/total ... m-in-china
With regards to nano size particles themselves,
Nanoscale Materials https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemi ... ials-under
Many nanoscale materials are regarded as "chemical substances" under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Specifically, chemical substances that have structures with dimensions at the nanoscale -- approximately 1-100 nanometers (nm) -- are commonly referred to as nanoscale materials or nanoscale substances. A human hair is approximately 80,000-100,000 nanometers wide.
These chemical substances may have properties different than the same chemical substances with structures at a larger scale, such as greater strength, lighter weight, and greater chemical reactivity. These enhanced or different properties give nanoscale materials a range of potentially beneficial public and commercial applications; however, the same special properties may cause some of these chemical substances to behave differently than conventional chemicals under specific conditions.
Currently nano-scale particles are regulated for toxicity, not for the maliciousness of future sensors. It is obvious the role of this regulatory organization will needed to be expanded or enhanced in some manner once the nano-scale sensors begin to enter our environment.
We can also see by way of Wikipedia there is no sophisticated mechanism currently in place to monitor nano-particles especially those of the rogue type which could be dumped into our environment,
B) Second, the social control implications of the marriage between technology and society:
Regulation of nanotechnology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Because of the ongoing controversy on the implications of nanotechnology, there is significant debate concerning whether nanotechnology or nanotechnology-based products merit special government regulation. This mainly relates to when to assess new substances prior to their release into the market, community and environment.
Nanotechnology refers to an increasing number of commercially available products – from socks and trousers to tennis racquets and cleaning cloths. Such nanotechnologies and their accompanying industries have triggered calls for increased community participation and effective regulatory arrangements. However, these calls have presently not led to such comprehensive regulation to oversee research and the commercial application of nanotechnologies, or any comprehensive labeling for products that contain nanoparticles or are derived from nano-processes.
Regulatory bodies such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. or the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate of the European Commission have started dealing with the potential risks posed by nanoparticles. So far, neither engineered nanoparticles nor the products and materials that contain them are subject to any special regulation regarding production, handling or labelling.
Totalitarianism has a new friend and will be enhanced by the Chinese Social Credit System set for its full roll out in 2020.
The Social Credit System (社会信用体系 shèhuì xìnyòng tǐxì) is a proposed Chinese government initiative for developing a national reputation system. It has been reported to be intended to assign a "social credit" rating to every citizen based on government data regarding their economic and social status. It works as a mass surveillance tool and uses big data analysis technology. In addition, it is also meant to rate businesses operating on the Chinese market.
Big data meets Big Brother as China moves to rate its citizens
The Chinese government plans to launch its Social Credit System in 2020. The aim? To judge the trustworthiness – or otherwise – of its 1.3 billion residents
By Rachel Botsman
21 October 2017
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/chinese- ... y-invasion
On June 14, 2014, the State Council of China published an ominous-sounding document called "Planning Outline for the Construction of a Social Credit System". In the way of Chinese policy documents, it was a lengthy and rather dry affair, but it contained a radical idea. What if there was a national trust score that rated the kind of citizen you were?
Imagine a world where many of your daily activities were constantly monitored and evaluated: what you buy at the shops and online; where you are at any given time; who your friends are and how you interact with them; how many hours you spend watching content or playing video games; and what bills and taxes you pay (or not). It's not hard to picture, because most of that already happens, thanks to all those data-collecting behemoths like Google, Facebook and Instagram or health-tracking apps such as Fitbit. But now imagine a system where all these behaviours are rated as either positive or negative and distilled into a single number, according to rules set by the government. That would create your Citizen Score and it would tell everyone whether or not you were trustworthy. Plus, your rating would be publicly ranked against that of the entire population and used to determine your eligibility for a mortgage or a job, where your children can go to school - or even just your chances of getting a date.
A futuristic vision of Big Brother out of control? No, it's already getting underway in China, where the government is developing the Social Credit System (SCS) to rate the trustworthiness of its 1.3 billion citizens. The Chinese government is pitching the system as a desirable way to measure and enhance "trust" nationwide and to build a culture of "sincerity". As the policy states, "It will forge a public opinion environment where keeping trust is glorious. It will strengthen sincerity in government affairs, commercial sincerity, social sincerity and the construction of judicial credibility."
Also, a recent article in the Independent indicates what could possibly go wrong with this system,
China ranks citizens with a social credit system - here's what you can do wrong and how you can be punished
Alexandra Ma for Business Insider https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 97486.html
Tuesday 10 April 2018
The Chinese state is setting up a vast ranking system system that will monitor the behaviour of its enormous population, and rank them all based on their "social credit."
The "social credit system," first announced in 2014, aims to reinforce the idea that "keeping trust is glorious and breaking trust is disgraceful," according to a government document.
The program is due to be fully operational by 2020, but is being piloted for millions of people already. The scheme is mandatory.
At the moment the system is piecemeal — some are run by city councils, others are scored by private tech platforms which hold personal data.
Like private credit scores, a person's social score can move up and down depending on their behaviour. The exact methodology is a secret — but examples of infractions include bad driving, smoking in non-smoking zones, buying too many video games and posting fake news online.
1. Banning you from flying or getting the train.
China has already started punishing people by restricting their travel.
Nine million people with low scores have been blocked from buying tickets for domestic flights, Channel News Asia reported in March, citing official statistics.
They can also clamp down on luxury options — three million people are barred from getting business-class train tickets.
The eventual system will punish bad passengers specifically. Potential misdeeds include trying to ride with no ticket, loitering in front of boarding gates, or smoking in no-smoking areas.
2. Throttling your internet speeds.
This is according to Rachel Botsman, an author who published part of her book on tech security on Wired last year. The exact mechanics aren't clear yet.
According to Foreign Policy, credit systems monitor whether people pay bills on time, much like financial credit trackers — but also ascribe a moral dimension.
Other mooted punishable offences include spending too long playing video games, wasting money on frivolous purchases and posting on social media.
Spreading fake news, specifically about terrorist attacks or airport security, will also be punishable offences.
3. Banning you or your kids from the best schools.
17 people who refused to carry out military service last year were barred from enrolling in higher education, applying for high school, or continuing their studies, Beijing News reported.
Citizens with low social credit would also be prohibited from enrolling their children at high-paying private schools, Botsman said. It's not clear whether this particular policy has been put into action yet.
4. Stopping you getting the best jobs.
"Trust-breaking" individuals would also be banned from doing management jobs in state-owned firms and big banks.
Some crimes, like fraud and embezzlement, would also have a big effect on social credit, Botsman reported.
5. Keeping you out of the best hotels.
People who refused military service were also banned from some holidays and hotels — showing that vacation plans are fair game too.
The regime rewards people here as well as punishes them.
People with good scores can speed up travel applications to places like Europe, Botsman said.
An unidentified woman in Beijing also told the BBC in 2015 that she was able to book a hotel without having to pay a cash deposit because she had a good score.
6. Being publicly named as a bad citizen.
Naming and shaming is another tactic available. A a 2016 government notice encourages companies to consult the blacklist before hiring people or giving them contracts.
However, people will be notified by the courts before they are added to the list, and are allowed to appeal against the decision within ten days of receiving the notification.
It's not clear when the list will start to be implemented.
A prototype blacklist already exists, and has been used to punish people.
The scrolling list on the left shows individual's names alongside partially redacted ID numbers, while the one on the right shows company names.
Li Xiaolin, a lawyer who was placed on the list in 2015, found himself unable to purchase plane tickets home while on a work trip, Human Rights Watch reported. He also couldn't apply for credit cards.
There is also a list for good citizens — that will reportedly get you more matches on dating websites.
The BBC said that Baihe, China's biggest dating site, is boosting the profiles of good citizens.
They can also get discounts on energy bills, rent things without deposits, and get better interest rates at banks.
These perks were available to people in Rongcheng, eastern China, whose city council rolled out a social credit system for its citizens and was profiled by Foreign Policy.
Despite the creepiness of the system — Human Rights Watch called it "chilling," while Botsman called it "a futuristic vision of Big Brother out of control" — some citizens say it's making them better people already.
A 32-year-old entrepreneur, who only gave his name as Chen, told Foreign Policy: "I feel like in the past six months, people’s behaviour has gotten better and better.
"For example, when we drive, now we always stop in front of crosswalks. If you don’t stop, you will lose your points.
"At first, we just worried about losing points, but now we got used to it."
Sterling called it correctly when he presents the following quotes from his previous post #22 that I referenced,
The Kleptocrats of the world want us to be their slaves. They are accomplishing this by destroying democracies around the world and grabbing power towards this end. This is apparent as China's Xi grabs more and more power to set himself up to be the ruler for life as the Times reports.
C) Finally, what does this marriage of technology and social control mean for us?
Can you read the handwriting on the wall or do you need a rifle barrel poked into your ribs or a trudgeon slammed up side your head to get the point? The world is drinking the poisoned Kool Aid of authoritarianism which derives its power from a loss of democracy and inequality. Take note, authoritarianism and inequality are the very bedrock of slavery. Say goodbye to your freedoms unless you are willing to fight for them.
It is obvious the future role of regulatory organizations will needed to be expanded and enhanced in some manner once the nano-scale sensors begin to enter our environment.
My personal view is there will be no privacy in the future unless we soon start to regulate and control the explosive growth of nano-sensors. This includes the rogue malicious nano-sensors from within the USA or from out side by malicious actors or state sponsored programs. Here are some near term examples I have read about with near term research to underscore the point:
1) Synthetic neurons processing at 200 million times faster than ours combined with nano-scale technology and unseen genetic manipulation will kill any sense of conventional privacy.
2) RF (radio frequency ) receivers and transmitters will be produced at nono-scale allowing them to be dispersed into the atmosphere in the trillions where unsuspecting individuals will inhale them. From there they will be designed to cross the blood brain barrier and enter an individual's neurons. Once inside the brain they will fulfill their mission by either reporting back to their source or enacting specific actions.
3) The walls all around us will be painted with newly developed paints embedded with thousands of sensors per square inch. They will report where we are, who we are with, our blood pressure, anxiety levels, and what we had to eat just to list a few.
Let me first add some clarity to this matter. There is the collection of the personal data and then there is the use of this data. Given the overwhelming size and scope of the problem in total, I suggest we focus our major attention on only one of these areas first to be efficient and effective; it is the area of the initial entry of these sensors into our environment. Surely it would be best to have both areas controlled, but I do not see the political will now to take on this task other than just the usual verbal window dressing which is tokenism at best.
I will use the three examples above to make my point.
It is not that these three examples will act alone. Rather, they will be used in conjunction with one another to give a complete information picture, a gestalt if you will. The world we live in will become a technological soup of data gathering capabilities with no way to hide from it. And the examples above do not even account for the many other ways information will be collected in the future. The amount of sensors, along with their speed and level of of sophistication, means data collection will be ubiquitous and continual. In total, there will be an avalanche of data being collected on any individual at any point in time. Moreover, in Singularity terms, every cell within a persons body could be monitored on multiple levels with big data knowing more about us than we ourselves know.
The list of such possible future technologies is staggering. Compare this to the recent congressional hearings involving Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook members who lost their privacy to Cambridge Analytic. This shows the near primitive speed the judicial system is willing to work at to protect our privacy today.
As stated in my Post #6 under, "Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%,"
Unfortunately, because the creation of new laws is mostly based upon past actions, it almost always lags behind technological developments. As we draw closer to the Singularity, this time differential between past actions and the creation of new laws may very well decrease due to new technology in the legal arena itself. But overall, in absolute terms, it will take more time to develop these laws. This is because the new laws will need to be developed in some ratio to the exponentially accelerating new technology being developed. One can envision a legal system not capable of keeping up with the dizzying array of new social implications needing regulation and control. Of course there will be technological developments in the legal arena itself to aid in the processing of this technological onslaught. But one can see a scenario where even the new legal technology will be overwhelmed at some point. With an absolute increase in time needed to process the new technology, forms of human rights abuse will multiply against those individuals least capable of defending themselves.
I think the only way not to get overwhelmed by the size, speed, and sophistication of the new nano-sensor surveillance is to focus on their initial introduction into the environment. This means there must be stringent regulation as to which sensors will be allowed and for what purpose. Furthermore, there will need to be testing of the environment to detect for rogue sensors on a continual basis which, once detected, can be eliminated and their source identified.
I have some support in my opinion about privacy being severely curtailed in the future from an article in the Singularity Hub,
Will Privacy Survive the Future?
By Raya Bidshahri -
Sep 25, 2017 https://singularityhub.com/2017/09/25/w ... 1d1iyd3g90
While the argument to protect privacy and individuals’ information is valid to a certain extent, we may also have to accept the possibility that privacy will become obsolete in the future. We have inherently become more open as a society in the digital world, voluntarily sharing our identities, interests, views, and personalities.
Given the formidable future situation we will find ourselves in, I believe there is no real hope of privacy in the conventional sense in the long term. While the USA and Europe in the short term will struggle to maintain our privacy in these established manners, I see it as a fools errand. They will not be able to out run the technological tsunami coming their way. Rather, we should open the doors up to the collection of personal information. Why? Because trying to stop this information gathering would be a Herculean task tantamount to stopping the Singularity; it will not happen. Instead, we should take a very narrow focused position on controlling what sensors are allowed and how this information can be used. This nodal point of control is the only choke juncture I envision being able to protect our privacy in any meaningful and effective way. Finally, we will need to set course in the near term as to how this information will be used, for what reasons, and most importantly, by whom.
Without fear mongering, as this post only hopes to open the eyes of individuals to future developments, and while we are awaiting the dawning of the nano-sensor era, one cannot help but wonder if malicious rogue sensors are already here. After all, because we cannot see them or feel them, how would we know unless there is a concerted effort to test for them. A radioactive substance at least can be detected with a geiger counter; not so with nano-sensors. Historically when something is admitted into the environment, like a toxic substance, it takes a calamity before action is taken to remove it. Let us hope this is not the case with nano-sensors.