Reasonable assumptions about THS

[lachimba]

Is it a reasonable assumption to assume in THS that intelligence and law enforcement agencies have banks of 10s of 100s of shells running NAI to monitor video feeds etc for persons of interest and sepecific events monitored by LAIs and then at a higher level by an SAI or human?

So more or less they have a high chance (50%+) of picking up anything/anyone that isn't well hidden or off the system so long as they were actually looking for it in the first place.


Also is it also reasonable to assume that when Law enforcement needs to reconstruct a scene they might use gathered video feed from ordinary citizens, cameras, other sensors etc to construct accurate VR simulations of that time period over a specific area? Such that they can walk in the simulation and shadow someone after the fact so to speak?

[Jürgen Hubert]

For Fifth Wave societies, this is indeed reasonable.

Fourth Wave societies might manage this for their most important cities.

Third Wave societies probably will not have the resources unless they spend a significant portion of their overall economic output on monitoring its citizens.

[lachimba]

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

For Fifth Wave societies, this is indeed reasonable.

Fourth Wave societies might manage this for their most important cities.

Third Wave societies probably will not have the resources unless they spend a significant portion of their overall economic output on monitoring its citizens.

Yep 5th Wave ofcourse should have mentioned that.

[Xplo]

Originally Posted by lachimba

Is it a reasonable assumption to assume in THS that intelligence and law enforcement agencies have banks of 10s of 100s of shells running NAI to monitor video feeds etc for persons of interest and sepecific events monitored by LAIs and then at a higher level by an SAI or human?

IRL, this kind of solution never seems to work as well as it ought to - maybe people don't want to spend the money for that much equipment, or can't be bothered to program/administer it properly, or else they tend to suffer from glitches that the IT guys can't or won't nail down.

Then you have the question of whether a given region is willing to enact this level of surveillance AND spend what it would cost to build and maintain.

But the basic idea seems possible.

Also is it also reasonable to assume that when Law enforcement needs to reconstruct a scene they might use gathered video feed from ordinary citizens, cameras, other sensors etc to construct accurate VR simulations of that time period over a specific are? Such that they can walk in the simulation and shadow someone after the fact so to speak?

It's a bit "CSI", but seems reasonable. We have software right now that can generate 3D geometry from ordinary 2D video, or increase video resolution with the addition of hi-res still images.

Of course, can all your video sources be trusted, or have some of them been modified (possibly in realtime) to add, change, or delete crucial details? Ah, intrigue.

[Jürgen Hubert]

Originally Posted by Xplo

IRL, this kind of solution never seems to work as well as it ought to - maybe people don't want to spend the money for that much equipment, or can't be bothered to program/administer it properly, or else they tend to suffer from glitches that the IT guys can't or won't nail down.

Well, there have been about 90 years' worth of advances in computing since the present time...

Then you have the question of whether a given region is willing to enact this level of surveillance AND spend what it would cost to build and maintain.

For a Fifth Wave nation, this is not all that expensive.

[lachimba]

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

Well, there have been about 90 years' worth of advances in computing since the present time...



For a Fifth Wave nation, this is not all that expensive.

Maybe very cheap. One NAI on one computer watching one camera might be a very low cost.

[Jonathan Willis]

The technology is certainly there to do this.

If you don't want it in your campaign then it can be plausibly handwaved away by "big brother" and budgetary concerns. Otherwise, it exists in most public areas. Of course regardless of constant monitoring you would also have private individuals with VII/VIG's, which can (plot conveniently) make witnesses still important.

[sn0wball]

Technologically, this may well be reasonable. Legally and socially, this may not. Given todays trends in the legal protection of personal and data privacy, a state with anything resembling the rule of law in the THS timeline will not be allowed to monitor its citizens and their data at will. The state may neither collect nor save personal data just in case. Note under which circumstances democratic staes today may tap phones, localize mobile phones, shadow persons, search homes, confiscate private property, monitor public places and so on - although of course details differ from place to place.

This will especially be true as far as general prevention is concerned. Things are different once a crime needs to be investigated. But note that even then, many measures by law enforcement agencies will need prior judicial consent.

It seems unreasonable to assume that in democratic Fifth Waves societies these legal standards will be lowered.

[Xplo]

Originally Posted by Jürgen Hubert

Well, there have been about 90 years' worth of advances in computing since the present time...

I'm not really talking about a technological deficiency, but merely the fact that Things Will Still Break In The Future, and that complex systems are more prone to minor failures and quirks due to their complexity.

So yes, you could handwave that and say that the system works perfectly thanks to decades of AI development or whatever, but I think it's realistic to say that it goofs sometimes.

For a Fifth Wave nation, this is not all that expensive.

No, but the OP wasn't specific.

[Jürgen Hubert]

Originally Posted by Xplo

I'm not really talking about a technological deficiency, but merely the fact that Things Will Still Break In The Future, and that complex systems are more prone to minor failures and quirks due to their complexity.

So yes, you could handwave that and say that the system works perfectly thanks to decades of AI development or whatever, but I think it's realistic to say that it goofs sometimes.

I don't think this is a handwave. Computational problems that were glitchy and error-prone two decades ago have become trivial today, and even though Moore's Law has broken down in the setting, 90 years of computational and software advances are still a lot. And modern software does have plenty of error-correcting elements, or else nothing would work today. How much better are they going to be in the future when there is self-aware software able to correct its own programming when something doesn't work?