Singularity and the body cam

Edmonton MP Peter Goldring issued a press release that had folks scratching their heads a few days ago. Even after an emergency re-education meeting with the Prime Minister’s Office, followed by a swift retraction, they were still shaking their heads. And that includes me.

The retraction was unequivocal: “Earlier today, I issued a press release that I now recognize was completely inappropriate. I retract that press release unconditionally, and deeply regret it.” I’ll bet he does regret it. I’ll wager the depth of his regret can be measured by the anger level within the PMO.

What was the fuss about? Here is the original text:

Peter Goldring, Member of Parliament for Edmonton East, today stated that MPs that consort with others should avail themselves of readily available risk protection for their health and integrity, to prevent besmirchment when encounters run awry. ‘“It will not be good enough to simply say that your intentions were honourable and you were just inviting a colleague to your apartment at two in the morning to play a game of Scrabble at the end of a day of playing sports and drinking. MPs must learn, as I have from encounters with authority figures in the past, that all do not tell the truth. I now wear ‘protection’ in the form of body-worn video recording equipment. I suggest others do so too, particularly because some accusers hide behind a shield of supposed credibility which many times is not, and sometimes even hide behind a cloak of anonymity, which conceals their shameful indiscretion and complicity.” Mr. Goldring made the statement in the wake of the unproven harassment allegations against two Liberal MPs by two NDP MPs, one of whom has spoken to the media while insisting her name not be published. Liberal leader Justin Trudeau suspended the accused from caucus without due process.

Let’s first give Mr. Goldring an award for his choice of florid language. First, MPs may choose unwisely to “consort” with others, with the result that there may be “encounters” that may “run awry”; so he recommends the use of body cameras that may “prevent besmirchment.” Otherwise, accusers may hide behind “a shield of supposed credibility” and even “a cloak of anonymity,” to conceal their “shameful indiscretion and complicity.” That’s quite a string to put together. At least he avoided using any less tasteful expressions.

Second, let us applaud the swift retraction of the implication that the playing of a game of Scrabble, even after a day of sporting and drinking, and at two in the morning, could be some kind of elaborate cover for more salacious activity. As a Scrabble player myself, I take seriously the challenge of trying to cross the 300- point barrier, and would be shocked, shocked, if the game were in any way implicated.

Third, let’s give Mr. Goldring credit for noting the importance of due process in Parliament. I’m sure the former Conservative senators suspended and down on their luck would be interested in his views. However, having noted the importance of due process, he manages to condemn the accusers without suggesting he has any particular knowledge of the facts.

And fourth, Mr. Goldring has, by making his ‘everyone start wearing a body camera’ suggestion, speeded up the advent of Singularity Day. That’s the day when human intelligence and machine intelligence are going to converge, and you can imagine what might happen after that, because collective human intelligence will either stay level or—depending upon whether you think there are more Stephen Hawkings than Peter Goldrings around—rise ever so slightly. In fact, there is a website that runs a countdown clock: the current estimate is 30 years, 24 days, one hour and three minutes, although by the time you read this it will be even less.

Mr. Goldring has got us all thinking about wearing body cameras now. If we have two MPs with contradictory accounts of an encounter, are we now supposed to believe the MP with the camera? Will we say that the MP who didn’t wear the camera was negligent in not doing so, or must have had something to hide? The next thing you know, we’ll all be following the MPs’ lead and wearing body cameras for the same reason. The Calgary police are going to start doing it. I’ve heard it recommended for surgeons. In our ever-more-paranoid world, isn’t this starting to take precautionary behaviour over the top? Aren’t we rushing to yield good old human judgment to the machine a little too readily?

After all, if no less a public figure than Stephen Hawking can confess that his biggest fear, after the invasion of earth by alien life forms, is the unregulated use of artificial intelligence, aren’t we entitled to push back a little on the—let’s call a spade a spade—crackpot suggestion that we all wear body cameras? Even if it means passing up a game of Scrabble?

dsimmonds@wellingtontimes.ca