Omnipresent AI cameras will ensure good behavior, says Larry Ellison

He's not even trying to frame it as "the weight of crime will be lifted from the people so they can prosper". It's "citizens will be on their best behavior". I've got a suspicion that he envisions a separate world for himself that does not involve such monitoring.

The state in this case believes this is "good behaviour", but this would be shocking to most HN readers. This is a good example of why you should never give one person or organisation too much power.

Who gets to define what "Good behaviour" is?

  If democratic self-governance relies on an informed citizenry, Penney wrote, then “surveillance-related chilling effects,” by “deterring people from exercising their rights,” including “…the freedom to read, think, and communicate privately,” are “corrosive to political discourse.” 

  .. “Governments, of course, know this. China.. wants people to self-censor, because it knows it can’t stop everybody. The idea is that if you don’t know where the line is, and the penalty for crossing it is severe, you will stay far away from it.. if your goal is to control a population,” Schneier says, “mass surveillance is awesome.” 

  .. The social challenge now, [Zuboff] says, is to insist on a new social contract.. “We have to create the political context in which privacy can be successfully defended, protected, and affirmed as a human right. Then we’d have a context in which the privacy battles can be won.”

Not the politics, not what he really thinks: A reason which matches a market opportunity he thinks Oracle can seize.

Technology this powerful is the bedrock of a successful hypothetical totalitarian state, a big prerequisite. What do we do once it's within reach?

"Every police officer is going to be supervised at all times, and if there's a problem, AI will report the problem and report it to the appropriate person."

Mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution.

- St. Thomas Acquinas

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Awareness_System

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/12/technology/oracles-chief-...

Or is he only worried about the behavior of people who aren't billionaires?

- ALL the focus is on asset allocation and ordinary people surveillance, nothing on who control AND OWN the controllers, or the "AI" mentioned;

- smartphones, mobile connectivity the key to make people pay the surveillance, obviously for the profit of the controller.

Instead of FTTH to focus on stable and high performance links to WFH focus on mobile surveillance, I'm curious why we IT workers do no agree a MASSIVE, WORLDWIDE STRIKE asking for mandatory WFH for all eligible jobs "we run the nervous system of the society, we build it, we will not be flesh-based bots of some manager in a smart-city lager", and focus on desktop computing instead of mobile, because here happen anything else.

It seems the important questions are whether such systems will define what is right or whether they will support the population in decentralized social decision making and synchronization the same way capitalism supports distributed allocation decisions.

... and certainly wont be throwing IoT remotes against the wall in anger, publicly berating employees, or storming off angrily in their F1s, etc, etc. Hypocritical jerk.