Gary Farber has oodles of dread-inducing discussion of the surveillance capabilities of satellites — all in the hands of bureaucrats who don’t seem to value privacy, but urge us to trust them.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Well most of them are good Christian folk that we can trust are doing God’s will. They will do no other actions than what will be shown as God’s ultimate love for us.
Not.
I would have thought that the really ubiquitous surveillance technology to be concerned about in the near future will be based around monitoring idle cellphone signals. It won’t be too long before everyones signal can be triangulated and monitored in real time. Given the fact that almost everyone has a cell phone and simply leaves them on 24 hrs a day rather than when we are making a call it will in effect be the same as having a tracking beacon attached to every person. In many countries they are bringing in laws to register the name of the owner of each cellphone (publicly to prevent crime, it is claimed) which will make this sort of scenario a very real concern in the near future.
Psalms 35:20 For they speak not peace: but they devise deceitful matters against them that are quiet in the land.
35:21 Yea, they opened their mouth wide against me, and said, Aha, aha, our eye hath seen it.
I don’t get it.
Why are people so obsessed with the idea of privacy? Do you have something to hide?
Obsessive privacy is, IMHO, one of the roots of identity theft. If we had NO privacy it would be readily apparent that the identity yon thief is attempting to use already exists quite happily elsewhere
This is one of the mechanisms Visa/Amex & the rest use to track fraud on your credit card transactions… If you make a purchase in LA, then a few hours later another in the UK – it’s highly *probable* there is some fraudulent activity occuring (not definite!).
I am always alerted by folks who demand ‘privacy’ – from what? What *exactly* do *you* have to hide that is so damned important?
I’m not advocating a ‘truman show’ existance for everyone. In reality most of our lives are too dull for that to be at all interesting. But I don’t see why most info about me should be hidden in any real sense.
The only qualification I’d make (and re-iterate) is when information can be used pejoratively.
Non-privacy requires much more openness in general – and ‘protected classes’ would need to expand to include such things as hereditable health conditions (to mention one) – otherwise ‘unscrupulous’ corporations and individuals may use such information to discriminate against you.
Other than that. Who needs it.
Transparency is only an issue for those with something to hide!
Unbelievable. It’s not that it’s so “damn important” to anyone. We just don’t want to be disturbed with what other people think is “so damned important”.
You just answered your own question. If some government has the power, they’ll use your lack of privacy – in the name of terrorism or whatever other excuse they come up with. Information is power.
I do. I you don’t like privacy, you should move somewhere you can put up glass walls on your house and display your genitals in public.
It is possible to get prepaid phones where your name is not associated with the phone (I just bought one).
“Transparency is only an issue for those with something to hide!”
You say that like having “something to hide” is a bad thing. You don’t need to be “evil” or engaged in illegal activities to want to keep some things private.
There is also the issue of data interpretation. You assume that all that information about you will be interpreted perfectly. Mistakes happen, cellphones get lost and stolen and not reported immediately. Suppose the person that pick-pocketed your phone then goes and commits another crime then drops the phone somewhere. You could easily find yourself accused of that crime with possibly no way to refute it.
Transparency is only an issue for those with something to hide!
I have a number of serious objections to your argument which I don’t have time to formulate at the moment but to this last point I would say this: The question is not whether or not one has something to hide. The question is why should I not be allowed to hide it if I wish. If, in fact, I do have something in my life that I would rather other people and especially the Government not know, under what theory of a healthy and functional society should I not be allowed to hide this information? What places society’s or the government’s interest in knowing intimate details of my life as higher than my own individual desire not to have that information available to others?
“It won’t be too long before everyones signal can be triangulated and monitored in real time.”
I’m afraid that’s wrong; they’ve been able to do that for years; it’s a standard investigative technique. Heck, just see The Wire. Or see here, for instance.
Anyway, satellite capabilities didn’t suddenly change yesterday; it’s the official announcement that now Homeland Security will be able to use satellite surveillance domestically, and all local police agencies will be tied in as well, that’s changed. Now the National Reconnisance Office will be spying on Americans: that’s what’s shocking and precedent-breaking.
SteveM: You’re points are all well-founded, but I’m not assuming that my phone *is* my identity.
I do agree that my position is unrealistically utopian, but that’s what ideals are about, right?
In a *properly* pulic world it would be perfectly obvious that the *you* there with my phone is *not* the “me” here without my phone, with every other piece of evidence (including public ‘breadcrumbs’) indicating that *you* were attempting to perpetrate fraud.
The ‘but they’ll steal my identity’ argument is only plausible if identity is founded upon hidden data. Then the only way to prove your ‘youness’ is to have access to that hidden data. That is *unfortunately* the way of the world today.
We won’t solve identity theft without a major paradigm shift. What I’ve outlined above is one approach. There are, no dooubt, many others – but many are already well known (and mostly distopian)
On a similar [rant]
Jeff said:
I have no problem with my genitalia, or other, being on display. My question (as I alluded to earlier) is – why should *you* find them at all interesting?
You’ve seen one set of genitalia, you’ve basically seen them all. Or do you automatically conflate ‘visible genitalia’ with ‘sex’, and ‘sex’ with ‘should be hidden’?
Lot’s of pop-psychology opportunities there ;)
Tony, please in the name of transparency provide me with your full name, phone numbers, home address, hours you will be home and images of both sides of your home and car keys. Or do you have something to hide?
Tony. Seriously. C’mon.
You have nothing to hide? Maybe not from your current government. Maybe just not yet.
If a certain contingent of the US had their way, posting on an atheist website would be considered a terrorist activity.
Actually, on the topic of genitalia, I do have something to hide.
That’s why I drive a fast, loud, shiny sportscar. They’ll never guess what I’m overcompensating for.
I second SteveM. I have plenty of things I wouldn’t want various people in my life to know about me, and I don’t think that’s strange or unusual.
Plus Tony, the way that we protect against some forms of discrimination IS by keeping information private in the first place. There is a reason why employers aren’t allowed to ask a job candidate whether he or she is married or plans to have children. The protection is derived from the privacy. It’s much easier to prohibit employers from requesting this information in the first place than to try to build a case of employment discrimination after the fact.
Transparency is only an issue for those with something to hide!
Transparencey of course, especially under this admin., is what the U.S. government is all about.
So what’s to worry about, right? I mean, it’s not like they could have hidden agenda’s, misinformation or lack competence. What could possibly go wrong?
daniel
Do I have your guarantee that you will not , nor through negligence allow, my data to be used in a pejorative manner?
Probably not.
Perhaps you should read the *entire* post.
Mine is an admittedly utopian viewpoint, but not entirely unrealistic. It is much preferable to me than the seemingly inevitable distopian future suggested by ‘more and more privacy’.
However – to be realistic, it requires that my information cannot be used pejoratively – i.e. the transparency of the entire suite of data that identifies me as being uniquely me, is evidenced from a multiplicity of sources, and any ‘who are you’ query can be readily correlated with that multiplicity of sources. THerefore you can never be me, since I will leave a history distinct from your history – and you cannot mask that attempt to ‘fake me’ or ‘transition to me’.
Today – with my public data you can easily and ‘with complete privacy’ pretend to be me and execute massive fraud with very little effort. That is a *consequence of privacy*. Not a consequence of zero privacy.
The statement that privacy is only required if you are doing something “wrong” is strange. The same folks that advocate the loss of privacy in some areas are the same who hold that other areas of their lives are shut away because of “common decency”. Would they give up their privacy in the following circumstances even though it would reduce a lot of “sinning” and save considerable amounts of money. Consider that washrooms will not need walls or stalls (what would you be doing in there that wasn’t natural or proper), clothes will not be required in locations like offices and schoolrooms where protection from the environment is not the only concern (are you hiding your true feelings towards your boss or fellow workers), and without privacy, hotels would be reduced to warehouses with cots (what else but sleep would be on your agenda).
However – to be realistic, it requires that my information cannot be used pejoratively
Tony, I’m probably misunderstanding you here, but isn’t this like saying that we wouldn’t need privacy if no one ever did anything unethical or even of questional ethics? It’s almost like saying, mistrust is bad because we wouldn’t need it if everyone were trustworthy.
Today – with my public data you can easily and ‘with complete privacy’ pretend to be me and execute massive fraud with very little effort. That is a *consequence of privacy*. Not a consequence of zero privacy.
If there were ZERO privacy, how could even you demonstrate that you WERE you?
See what posting a *position* will do?
Anyway, I agree with almost all of the rejoinders — all of which are clearly and firmly based on what is the current situation and dominant mindset.
I’m simply proposing that the current mindset is wrong.
I agree kmarissa that knowing my marital status, age or plans for family are currently protected. That is because our current mindset says – if I knoiw ‘X’ about you, then how can I use ‘X’ to provide leverage for me against you.
We live in an adversarial society.
Someone above said ‘information is power’. True – but only if information is not a commodity. Information is power only when it is scarce (like most anything else).
Brownian made a comment about ‘certain governments’. And indeed – that government position is only possible when there is no transparency.
I would like to see the paradigm shift.
I’m an HR consultant fer petes sake!
I understand *why* we disallow the use of certain information in our decision making. However I also understand that regardless of the presence or otherwise of the information being explicit, people will form opinions based on their ‘supposition’ of what the information might be…
Hiring managers who won’t hire female college grads because they’ll ‘likely just run off and get married and have kids in a couple years anyway’ will never be changed by laws and regulations – they’ll simply invent other ‘plausible’ reasons for their actions.
Complete transparency doesn’t change basic human nature. There will always be assholes. Discriminatory assholes will be visible due to their track record, and with full transparency that record would be obviously discriminatory (and actionable).
In those (few) cases where the discrimination is not obvious – then c’est la vie, no?
In a fully transparent society apparent inequality (of treatment, behavior, etc) would be much more visible. Would that mean we would act on those inequalities – not necessarily – we’re still human (with all of the argumentativeness that entails)
Tony:
If you are a citizen of the United States of America, there is something you might have heard of, referred to as the Constitution.
What part of “persons, houses, papers, and effects” do you not understand?
fusilier
James 2:24
Discriminatory assholes will be visible due to their track record, and with full transparency that record would be obviously discriminatory (and actionable).
In those (few) cases where the discrimination is not obvious – then c’est la vie, no?
Few cases? Sadly, no. It really isn’t as clear-cut or obvious as that in most instances, which is a big reason not to allow that information to be injected into the conversation in the first place.
In a fully transparent society apparent inequality (of treatment, behavior, etc) would be much more visible.
I’m not sure that this is true, especially as, at this point, most companies know better than to write on an applicant’s file, “do not hire; candidate is recently married”.
kmarrisa:
Tony, I’m probably misunderstanding you here, but isn’t this like saying that we wouldn’t need privacy if no one ever did anything unethical or even of questional ethics? It’s almost like saying, mistrust is bad because we wouldn’t need it if everyone were trustworthy.
I think it’s the other way round. The opportunity for unethical or questionable behavior becomes much less in a fully transparent society, because transparency is bi-directional.
There is always the opportunity for ‘bad’ — but *honestly* most bad *requires* privacy: of motives, of actions, of results. Without privacy, the opportunity-equation of bad changes significantly.
If there were ZERO privacy, how could even you demonstrate that you WERE you?
With a complete lack of privacy, I will have a total causal chain of history from birth to me. *I* am that complete data set.
Re: validity & certainty of *my identity*. Anyone who’s done any data management and informatics will attest that faking data in ‘slim’ or ‘discrete’ data sets is easy. making such changes in complex data sets is a much more difficult proposition.
so with ‘zero’privacy it actually becomes easier to confirm my identity, and to ensure it’s integrity.
Of course – brownian’s ‘government agencies’ are precicely those who have both the capability and (perhaps) desire to maliscously and undetectably make such changes. So this also requires complete transparency in governments too!
I *did* say this was a utopian position!
I think see the point that you’re getting at Tony, but it’s a hellavuh lot more complex than the comment “transparency is only an issue for those with something to hide!”
If I understand correctly the paradigm shift that you’re talking about, it may exist in miniature in small towns and villages everywhere. Smaller communities (even when ethnically, rather than geographically determined) often have a certain ‘everyone knows everyone else’s business’ transparency. For some it can be comforting; a friend and his wife packed up their kids and moved to a small town in Saskatchewan where kids still walk each other to school and play unsupervised in the park later. Others however often flee such communities for the anonymity of big cities as soon as they’re able.
Still others merely post on the internet under a pseudonym.
Anthony Karosas (AKA Brownian)
kmarrissa:
It’s not what they choose to write on the file that becaomes indicative of discrimination ina transparent society. It’s the complete record of their behaviours and decisions.
Example: A company with the approach stated, may write ‘insufficient X’ or ‘not a cultural fit’ or whatever. But it would become fairly obvious that they seldom hire ‘young women’ (or whatever) based on the transparency of their public data. Anyone with a mind to do so could discover that fact. Anyone who felt discriminated against may have a mind to, so it becomes somewhat self correcting.
It’s not that people become more ethical – it’s just that evidence of unethicval behavior becomes so much more visible, it behooves people and corporations to be ‘cleaner than clean’ – at least where it shows. In a more transparent society it would show in many more ways, therefore resticting the opportunity for such practice to be hidden.
Tony, I admit that I’m still confused. You have a total causal chain of history, but so does anyone else. Let’s say you go to get money from your bank account. How do you prove that you are you, and it’s your money and your bank account? After all, Bond movies have taught me that even fingerprints can be falsified ;) Do you submit to a DNA test? Do you do the same when using a credit card, when giving insurance information at the doctor’s office, when filing your taxes? I just don’t understand how that could work. In banking alone, you couldn’t use bank cards, credit cards, checks, or anything other than cold, hard cash, which you couldn’t keep safe even if you hid the lot under your mattress, what with everyone having information on the shape of your front door key and anti-theft security codes.
Yes, you have said all along that it is a utopian position. But it seems about AS utopian as saying, everyone should behave ethically all the time (and even that wouldn’t clear up all issues unless we could all agree on what behaving ethically even IS in all scenarios). In that case, what does it matter whether information is private or not?
Fusilier:
Re the Constitution.
Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What part of “persons, houses, papers, and effects” do you not understand?
Where does that amendment *anywhere* state that such must be *private* or *unknown*.
It does mention *secure*.
I think I’ve answered why full transparency is much more secure than a ‘vault full of secrets’ which seems to be your position.
So which part of *secure* don;t you understand?
Tony,
I’m an Originalist. “Secure” means “it’s none of the government’s damn business.” Period. Paragraph.
“The right…shall not be violated,….” Period. Paragraph.
(Oh, and yes, the Second Amendment, too. Do you own a cannon? I do. 2.25inch coehorn mortar.)
fusilier
James 2:24
“Transparency is only an issue for those with something to hide!”
This argument is fallacious on the face of it. Total transparency only works if everyone has total access to information. A good example is Health Insurance. Since we have a for profit system, information is power. If a private for profit health insurance company has access to your DNA and is able to quantify your risk for getting a genetically risk determined disease they will separate you from a universal group and price your health insurance appropriate to their actuarial tables. This in order to maximize profit to their investors. Its only rational to control risk.
Since everyone has a probable risk factor for something this will only slice the pie in smaller and smaller groups until you can only be insured for those diseases for which you have minimal risk factors. There is no other way for a private health insurance company to be responsible to its stockholders.
Here though can be a solution, universal single payer health care that puts everyone, and I mean Everyone into the same pool that spreads the risk of cost appropriately. This is a useful and positive government function. As appropriate as National Defense, Federal Highways, Public Schools, and our much derided Postal Service.
Transparency in the political world is only appropriate for defined behaviors. Who is paying what money to whom for political influence is a good example. A bad example is if information is used to track an opposition parties’ ‘Get Out The Vote Campaign’ to give advantage to those (in power) who have access to that information. If political party ‘X’, being in power, can see that ‘Y’ is targeting a neighborhood, while ‘Y’ not being in power has to wait 24 hours to get the same information about ‘X’s ‘Get Out The Vote’ strategy, “Y” has been put at a great disadvantage. An unfair one in a democracy. One that can become so self-perpetuating that democratic traditions are destroyed.
The privacy protections provided for by the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution addresses this very clearly. The protections provided are not quaint or obsolete, but are absolutely necessary to preserve the liberty of a free people.
The ‘No more secrets’ fantasy expressed in the very fun film
“Sneakers” is just that a fantasy. It’s the concrete thinking of a barely twelve year old incapable of the nuances of a 21st century adult world.
Brownian:
I understand & agree with the desire in some cases for anonymity. Personnaly I think a LOT of that stems from our behavours re ‘known data’ and the (ptentially negative) power that gives others over us (cf ‘secret names’ and shamans)
Kmarrisa: How can I *prove* I’m me.
Let’s posit the ‘transactional’ scenario since that’s normally the identity theft position: I go to my bank, or store and wish to transfer funds from ‘my’ checking account to another account (my cash account, or the store’s retail transaction account): in everyday terms I withdraw cash, or I make a purchase.
In both cases, universal access to data about ‘me’ can provide the teller/retailer with various evidence that I am indeed me and authorised to execute this transaction (and this authorisation happens independently of me or anything I possess): That might be photographic evidence (what do I look like); GPS positional evidence (Am I plausibly expected to be in this vicinity at this time?); Q&A’s that would require a ‘search’ (what was the house number of your childhood home?).
None of these are in themeselves irrefutable – but used in concert are indeed measures of reliability – you are *you*.
The internet becomes more challenging, (but ultimately simpler, too) because we would need to draw on a host of information about *me* to validate *me*.
Current approaches using ‘RSA tokens’, personal certifications, etc. are workable in ‘small doses’. and are not ultimately scalable.
I am not a secutiry analyst, so I’m not the person to ask how to implemente secure remote identification in a transparent world… but I would suggest this is less complex than guranteed secure authentication is a potentially compromised (private) world.
Ken Mareld: you mention that transparency is fallacious, and then go on to disprove your own statement by positing mechanisms whereby it is not fallacious. (Your healthcare scenario is one where our current situation makes assumptions posited on ‘privacy’ and your scenario makes differnt assumptions based on ‘no privacy’ leading to a solution that is ‘societally appropriate’ in each case (or not, YMMV).
You suggest that governments would have some ‘edge’ over private individuals in access to data. Why should this be the case? What *rights* should a government have that *I* should not, in a society where transparency was pre-eminent?
When I say transparency, I mean *transparency*. 100%, undiluted, unexpurgated, lack of privacy information. You know what I ate for breakfast, and you also know who I was necking at the office party.
BTW – I would also know the same about you.
Perhaps I have a different point of view on the above as I virtually never set foot in a bank and do essentially all of my transactions online, for which the first question at least would have problems. But furthermore, these suggestions are already commonly implemented (as I know full well, having had my bank card “frozen” a number of times while traveling). Asking a person what number of house they grew up in (which, frankly, I couldn’t answer at all) is really no different than a security question or a PIN. The problem is of course, your “secret” answer must be in the file, and there’s your secret information again. Photographic proof of identity is certainly required to make withdrawals the few times that I go into a bank, and a former bank-teller friend has told me that they always require an ID check. But I don’t understand how making the details of my own bank account public would make these other measures MORE effective than they are now, with the privacy of my information as an additional hurdle.
Besides the banking problems, there are so many areas in which aspects about a person can and would be used unfairly against them that again, as a “utopian” ideal, you might as well just say that people must be perfect for this to work, in which case, privacy wouldn’t matter at all anyway.
And then you’re back to the same problem
You know what I ate for breakfast, and you also know who I was necking at the office party.
BTW – I would also know the same about you.
Which doesn’t do you (person B) any good at all if “I” (person A) am in a position of power of YOU, and you are not in a position of power of ME.
kmarrissa:
Yes – the information is available in a file…. but which (out of potentially billions of pieces of information) am I going to ask you today? Even if it’s thousands, you’ll need to parse my entire dataset to pull that information quickly enough, then do it repeatedly (in the absence of other ID such as your face).
One internet/phone authentication I recall was:
Present a piece of text to the person. Ask the person to read (or repeat) the text. The phrasing, intonation and ‘voice’ are a signature that can be used to identify YOU the person (and we’re not simply asking you to say ‘James Bond’). And in a world of full transparency there will be countless examples of YOU talking available to compare with.
There will also be countless examples of you talking for software to piece together to pretend to be you…. but remember – transparency – including accessing your data, and from where, and who has such software (or has the skills to write it) and so on. Investigation of your ‘they stole my identity’ would be somewhat easier.
Brownian’s distopian government notwithstanding.
I don’t want to stop the party… but I need to go do some other work for a while ;)
However I want to leave on this note:
Isn’t it interesting how so *many* of our values and so much of our viewpoint is shaped by the assumptions that ‘information is power’ and that ‘privacy is a right’.
Remove the last (in all regards) and a *lot* of our sacred cows just up and die, and the first becomes meaningless.
Oh, BTW (and to satisfy transparency)
I’m Tony Coyle, Scottish, Athiest (ex Catholic), HR Consultant.
With that & google you should be off to a fine start for finding out almost anything you’d care to about me. (IF you have that much free time, I have a couple projects you could help on….)
Tony’s vision of a completely transparent society can only work if that transparency applies to all of society, from the top to the bottom.
The extension of technical surveillance to ordinary American citizens, as a fishing expedition just to see if anyone might be doing something or thinking something of which our ruling “elites”* do not approve is an extremely different story. As long as the powerful are shielded from the indignities they deem good enough for the common people, as long as they can hold the attitude that we mere groundlings are their creatures, subject to inspection at their whim, this sort of measure can serve only a corrupt and evil purpose.
Whenever I see someone haul out the hackneyed old “you don’t have to worry unless you’re doing something wrong” argument, I detect the odor of a classic authoritarian follower, who can’t be expected to comprehend why anyone would object to being inspected by their owners.
* I always use scare quotes when using the word “elite” in this sense. This is because the word carries connotations of objective superiority, a distinction which I will not grant to ruling classes in general, who historically have often been nothing more than a society’s most succcessful gangsters.
Tony,
You wouldn’t have potentially billions of pieces of information; you’d have the pieces of information previously agreed to between the bank and the customer. As I said, I have no idea what numbers my various childhood houses were, and I couldn’t even tell you all the street names. I occasionally mis-remember my social security number. The greater the number of “answers” one has to remember, the greater the potential that one won’t actually be able to get his or her own money. Taking a previous example you used, I was stranded nearly penniless several times despite having my bank card and my pin, simply because the countries where my bank knew I would be traveling were “high crime,” and said bank was afraid my card had been stolen. Not fun.
But I also wonder if, were we to begin to rely on features such as voice-recognition to keep our bank accounts safe, thieves wouldn’t simply focus on technology to allow them to recreate voices. After all, the sound of your voice would be public information. Without knowing much about electronics, I suspect that great strides would quickly be made in voice-recreation technology if the voice became the new credit card number.
But in all honesty, the banking issues don’t bother me nearly as much as various other social issues. I would think that with the extent that people here have noted the discrimination that they have received from being atheist, you can imagine the consequences of true compulsory transparency.
Ktesibios, I don’t see it even then. Knowledge is power, but a lot of other things are power as well. Tony’s examples all seem to suggest that all of our “secrets” are “equal,” (i.e., seen one set of genitalia, seen them all). That doesn’t work where secrets are “unequal.” For example, being an atheist can lose a person’s job. Doesn’t matter if that person knows that everyone else who works there is a Baptist, Catholic, Jew, etc. Those “secrets” aren’t equal. And despite what Tony implied earlier, discrimination in many ways is NOT at all easy to detect or obvious. Often, the only transparency that would evidence discrimination would require the ability to read minds.
Similarly, you face problems of power: if one person has power over the other, it doesn’t matter if they have equal “secrets,” one might suffer for those, while the other will not.
Privacy has not always been so important to people–such as in medieval Europe, where there were typically no walls in homes, and the notion of individual rights far in the future.
The reason we value privacy in modern society is because we value individuality, a fairly recent cultural concept. When surveillance devices prevent us from truly, freely enjoying our individual liberties, this is when it becomes invasive.
It has nothing to do with having anything in particular to hide–only with wishing to decide for yourself which boundaries between yourself and others to breach, and which to leave intact.
My point was that total DNA transparency provided to private health insurance systems becomes antithetical to the common good, but that the problems of that area of transparency could be addressed by a universal health care system. What form of health care would you propose?
In a transparent world, while all information is free, that information has to come from somewhere. Physical instruments must have a hand in providing that information. The satelite taking pictures has to be put up into space by someone or something. Whoever owns or controls it has an influence on the information gathered and disseminated by it.
Open Source has had a tremendous and positive impact on our information based society. Here, not only is information transparent and free it is now used by 70% of the computer servers (I guess) in the world. Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman should share the Nobel Peace Prize (my opinion). Open Source has become an influence in law. The coverage of the SCO vs. IBM case by Groklaw is a case in point. Again I point to areas where transparency is a wonderful thing.
My objection is that it doesn’t work as an economic or political model.
Total information has to be filtered to provide context or meaning, we do it all the time. We ignore some stimuli, and pay attention to other stimuli just to put one foot in front of the other.
Government will always exist, its how we organize society. Tribal, Community or Nation-State. A totally transparent society while may be a utopian ideal, cannot exist due to the competitive forces of the evolutionary paradigm. Someone WILL have an advantage over someone else.
I find the various discussions of top-down/bottom-up utopia/dystopia surveillance issues to be slightly off point (though still interesting and important).
I think it boils down to (and should boil down to) the relationship between the government and the people (and similarly the various companies and businesses that access, control and provide “personal” information.
The government should be our servant. Not our copper.
That’s my tuppence.
Oli
I find myself in *violent agreement* with almost everyone who has posted in response to my (somewhat idle) comment!
Power: I agree with the statements made regarding ‘elites’. Whenever a power elite exists, it tends to bend knowledge to it’s ends. That’s why my comments are flagged as ‘utopian’. I do think we can go a long way towards making all facets of society more transparent. I think we should. I think it is valuable, and will, ultimately, reduce that power base — when everyone has full access to information, information ceases to be a motivator or driver for power. (other things will likely take the place of information… but with full and ready access to information, typical ‘power broker’ behaviors become harder)
I agree that we will still have bigoted behavior to deal with – and as information becomes more visible, so does the opportunity to be ‘bigoted at a distance’.
But should we decide our actions based on the dissonance of the bigots? Or should we decide our actions based on the wishes of the many, and deal with the bigots separately?
I also agree fully that the ‘government should be our servant’ – something the current administration seems to have forgotten (assuming it ever knew)
Ken Mareld: From an evolutionary perspective I agree. But we have an opportunity to manage the selection process – so we are not blindly at the mercy of evolutionary ‘forces’. (Damn – This is not a creo rant…)
What I mean to say is that we have at our disposal the tools (or the beginnings of tools) that will enable us to engineer a society that is either transparent or dark, with regards to information.
dark information: data is presumed to be private. Explicit controls are required on instantiation/change/deletion of data. Sharing of data between disparate datasets is contra-mandated (forbidden/disallowed/impossible). Data-mining is all-but-impossible.
transparent information: data is presumed to be public. Implicit controls are imposed on instantiation/change/deletion of data. Sharing of data between disparate datasets is expected and common, and supported. Data-mining is ubiquitous.
We’re at a turning point in terms of information access: we can choose transparency, or we can choose the dark side. For me, the path is clear. For others? Apparently more murky.
To tie this into previous discussions, the transparency that Tony is talking about is one of the reasons that I I’m open about my atheism. I’m under the (perhaps naive) impression that the more openly we demonstrate our freedom to think as we choose, the harder it would be for oppressive regimes to impinge upon that freedom. Of course, the same personal openness would make it easy for some oppressive regime to round up the undesirables, but…
Man, I’m in the middle of a webinar, so I can’t really follow this discussion right now, but it seems to be a good one.
To tie this into previous discussions, the transparency that Tony is talking about is one of the reasons that I I’m open about my atheism. I’m under the (perhaps naive) impression that the more openly we demonstrate our freedom to think as we choose, the harder it would be for oppressive regimes to impinge upon that freedom.
Brownian, I agree to a point. But I don’t think that it necessarily works that way for all things that a person may wish to keep secret. At the very least, atheism is legally protected, at least in theory. It just isn’t necessarily comparable in all situations. I also have to question whether I would agree with you if being open about my atheism was required, as in the “transparency” model, or optional, as it is today.
So basically, Tony, you’d be willing to share property with everyone who wishes to use it, let strangers sleep in your house, sleep with your wife, share your car with whoever wants it, walk around naked all day, you’d basically be willing to give up “life.” I don’t understand how a complete and utter lack of privacy could possibly bring an enjoyable existence… if nothing is private, than nothing is *yours*, if nothing is private you’d have nothing to learn, no dreams to work towards… and it would be impossible to share a private thought between yourself and a significant other, the things only lovers can share between themselves. I don’t care if it gets rid of identity theft or if it’s even plausible, it sounds like a mindless, dystopian existence, that I want nothing to do with.
Brownian:
You are right on the money. That is exactly what transparency is about (and I allude to earlier with ‘what do you have to hide’)
If we *assume* information is going to be used for nefarious purposes, and so demand privacy to avoid that …. it’s almost human nature that *some* people will seek to gain access to that data to use for some nefarious purpose or other (or maybe just to prove they *can* get to it).
If, on the other hand, we *accept* that what & who we are is essentially open – then what harm can come to us (in *real* terms?
People can ‘steal’ our identity — same as in the private scenario, so no loss.
People can ‘use our information against us’ — if that’s what scares you, go right ahead and stay hidden. I’m happy with me, and with what I do. YMMV. Again — your information can ALWAYS be discovered (see objection 1) and you can ALWAYS be outed. Secrecy for it’s own sake is not a successful worlview IMHO.
People will discriminate against me — same as 2, but so what? I’ve been discriminated against because I was catholic, then because I wasn’t catholic, then because I was scottish, then because a was a ‘white male’, then because …. you get the idea. If you refuse to participate in a particular approach to life because of fear, then I am truly sorry for you. Fear is no foundation for life.
I’m living – as much as I can – the transparent life, personally & professionally. Some things are still ‘proprietary’ – for the same reason that we keep scissors out of the hands of running children: it’s not safe *yet*!
I agree with you, kmarissa. I’m just suggesting that exercising such freedoms openly when possible may help strengthen and maintain transparency, at least from the bottom up.
I don’t know that I can make a cogent argument as to whether this is the case or not, but I’m just throwing the idea out for discussion.
David Brin’s pieces on transparency would seem to be relevant to what some want to discuss.
I’m a little more concerned about the dystopia we’re living in than about imaginary utopias, myself, but to each their own.
Zeph
I said ‘transparency of information’, not ‘utopian communist living’.
1. Transparency of information still makes me more valuable than someone else – because I have specific life/job skills they lack. (knowledge is more than information)
2. transparency of information does not eliminate ownership: I know where my neighbor lives. I know where he works. I know where they shop for groceries. I know what car he drives, and where he bought it. None of that ‘transparency’ changes the fact the those are *his* and not *mine*.
3. How can transparency of information make any difference to what/how you share with a lover? Everyone I know *knows* that my wife & love each other. They see us publicly demonstrating this by touching, cuddling, talking, kissing. Do we fuck in public? (not yet!) Would we? Not in my neighborhood! (they’re not ready for *that* yet). Would we, even so???? Like I said earlier — why the fuck should YOU care what my wife & I do together? And why would/should WE care if you did? Is what we’re doing *bad* *wrong* *immoral* *kinky* *rude* *sinning* — stop me when I hit the right button!
Stupid.fucking.strawman.
Coincidentally, the webinar I’m attending right now is about geocoding addresses for cancer surveillance.
Here’s my current latitude and longitude: 53.5426°, -113.488°.
Tony, I’m glad that you’ve been able to deal with the discrimination so successfully. We probably agree about the strategic importance of transparency about our atheism to a great degree. But, frankly, nothing in being catholic, scottish, white male, or atheist is enough to get you fired from the job without at least theoretical legal protection. Unfortunately, I have seen many other instances of employment “discrimination” that isn’t discrimination at all because there is no legal protection in place to prevent it. Your examples seem a bit black and white, where many situations are much grayer.
why the fuck should YOU care what my wife & I do together?
They shouldn’t. But it’s likely that they will, and will use that information against you. I still don’t see how you could protect against that.
By having those of us who can afford to be ‘out’ without fear of real discrimination live our lives ‘outed’, that’s how.
Isn’t this one of the ways that the GLBT community has fought for and gained a measure of acceptance and freedom from discrimination? I know we’re far from it, but I’d suggest it’s a lot easier to be openly gay than it was in the 1950s.
Can’t it be reversed? Why should You care that I care?
It’s funny that when you started out you made no mention of transparency of information, it was quite simply “NO privacy.” You’ve continually modified your original idea down to simply “transparent information.” Have you seen something wrong with your original idea?
Although I’d respect your opinion and arguments a bit more if you were less rude to me about it. But why would you care what I think? Does what I say contradict what you believe? Threaten your ideas, your power, your feelings of superiority for being the first to posit this idea on this blog?? Stop me when I hit the right one ;)
kmarrissa & Brownian & Gary:
I agree that our current dystopian reality is not at all close to the kind of envirnment where my utopian ideal of transparency would work.
But that does not mean we should not try to approach that ideal.
that does not mean we should let ourselves be directed by the mean-spirited and secretive charlatans, who voice one position while living another.
that does not mean we should accept inequity and injustice and discrimination of ANY kind when it becomes known
that does not mean we should accept secrecy as a given, and simply put up with it.
My position is fairly simply.
I see non-transparency of information as the single biggest barrier against reason and ‘equality’ in society today.
Secrecy fosters distrust of ‘others’
Secrecy fosters ‘power elites’, ‘insiders’, ‘cognoscenti’, what have you.
Secrecy fosters minimal communication, and hoarding of information
Secrecy. I just don’t like it.
I’d much rather be completely open and deal with the fallout.
Tony, I think you and I are on the same page here.
BTW, are you and Zeph secretly fans of the 80s game show Press Your Luck?
Brownian, hasn’t the GLBT movement done this primarily by showing how MANY of them there are? That will always leave those at the edges of “normality” as “freaks,” regardless of how transparent they must be.
But anyway, as you said, “those who can afford to be.” That’s great. But that’s not what we’re talking about, or at least, that’s not what Tony and I are talking about.
Okay, Tony, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. You don’t like secrecy. I, on the other hand, sometimes find it of great value. Sometimes, I actually enjoy my privacy. It gives me a lot of freedom. So I doubt we’ll ever come to agreement on the issue.
Tony,
Here we can start to agree, total transparency could be a good thing for us silly humans. We just have to get past the inherent primate reproductive paradigm of my genes are more important than your genes. As silly humans, we have made great strides towards that goal. ‘Our genes mixed with your genes give us greater survival’. It can then become, as Gandhi said, “I am a Christian and a Jew and a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Hindu” I would add atheist. The point is that we are all in it together. With information technology as it is it can go to the dark and divide us (terrorism, nationalism, pick your ism) or it can be used to expand the enlightenment that began in the 17th century. I disagree as to the short term given the existing WTO consruct, I do not disagree that total transparency will work to create less unequal relations (on small and large scales) to create a more sustainable world.
Zeph:
My original quote…
My additional emphasis.
I seem to equate privacy with information here. Wasn’t that clear?
I did not advocate any other position. Calrified later per a comment re my genitalia. (response – who the fuck cares to look – I don’t care either way)
Your comment ignored every component of my comments there and since, and took one word *privacy* and made an argument from that.
Everyone else here seems to *get* that the conversation is around a utiopian ideal of transparency of information, and the impact that would have on power relationships, etc.
You just seem to think it means anarchy.
I countered with a refutation of your claims, and stand by the comment that your post was a stupic.fucking.strawman.
IN a transparent society, private thoughts between individuals would generally stay private – because NO-ONE ELSE CARES!
Other than that, your comment added nothing to the discussion.
PZ– please be sure to hand Brownian a Molly for comment # 12 on this thread. Will write more once I’ve cleaned the spray from my screen.
Thanks.
kmarrissa:
I agree about where we are today, and I agree that I personally am insufficiently discriminated against to be a reasonable model for discrimination – but I am all I’ve got! I also agree that *current behaviors* make my utopian ideal more unlikely that I would wish.
I also like to have privacy but for me that’s simply ‘some time by myself’. I could care less whether someone else was watching or listening.
It’s always good to have multiple viewpoints, otherwise we’d all be sitting round the campfire, gnawing bones, and wondering who we were going to get to build that starship! (In other words – blue sky is good, but it needs to be grounded in reality, and move in achievable steps)
It’s been a fun discussion
Brownian: Never heard of it — but I now have the urge to google!
Yeah. That’s exactly how they did it. And they couldn’t very well have shown their numbers if they all remained in the closet.
Well, weren’t gays and lesbians ‘freaks’ until we learned just how many people they included? Again, we’d never know if they hadn’t decided their sexual identity should become transparent for the greater good?
Tony, you seem to be equating secrecy with deviousness. Also, the transparency you describe is just another name for honesty. I don’t think that a person who wants to keep their private life private is being dishonest, or deceptive. Not all secrets are harmful, and not all candor is constructive.
I understand very well that this is a discussion about a utopian ideal, although I don’t understand why you’re being so rude to me in particular. The whole idea would never work anyway, if no one else truly cared about other people’s private thoughts, then why aren’t we in this “utopia” to begin with? You will never come upon a state where nobody cares about what other people think. Humans are stuck in a mindset that corresponds to how animals live, but in a state that is very unlike “nature” in terms of morality, which is what this whole thing seems to be about. The only way it would work is if you took the “nature” mindset out of humans, but I believe (not that you care) that whether or not this is “good” in terms of reducing crime, etc, it would not be “good” for leading an enjoyable life.
in a transparent society, Tony, people are only “seen” when they’re looked at. In order for this to provide safety, someone responsible will have to be looking at every single individual all the time.
We would have to rely on others for the safety and behavior of others (for example, am I to hope that the pedophile who knows my kids name, address, and has their photos off the web will be stopped by someone who happens to be looking at THEM at the time?)
Transparency doesn’t mean that we will ALWAYS be under scrutiny, but that being seen is an option which will more easily be used against us. Because we don’t LOOK at each other unless we have some interest, for good or ill. The problem is that those in power or those with the ability and motive to look don’t always have our best interests in mind.
Something to hide? Sure. I don’t wear my money on clips around my neck where they can be stolen. I don’t have a website with my address and phone number of my kids’ cell phone and so on.
In Florida I imagine some of my old co-workers don’t publicly say they’re gay (it’s still legal for your employer to fire you over that) and frankly it isn’t anyone else’s business.
The only way a transparent society would work is in a Utopian society (which you briefly mentioned). Transparency may be a product of a Utopian society, but I argue that it cannot be the cause. Unless you believe a Utopian society is one where members who have different beliefs, different motives, do not adhere to social ‘norms’ in race, sexual orientation, religious adherence, etc simply don’t exist (or disappear)…
mojojojo: What is about ‘private life’ that in any way demands that it is ‘private’.
Unless you are performing ‘acts’ that would otherwise be embarrasing to you, then I don;t get it (but – people have commented I am rather strange in that regard).
I truly believe in being *who I am* in every way and in every place.
Does that mean I act exacly the same in the boardroom as I do in my kid’s playroom? No – but I am *exactly* the same person in b oth casaes. And will respond to a given question with the same answer in each case (couched, perhaps, in different language to suit the audience)
I agree that ‘not all secrecy is devious’. or dishonest.
My point is, that if you’re not dishonest you have nothing to lose.
And if there are no secrets, privacy is gained by virtue of your very ubiquity. IF you are ‘normal’ then nothing you do will become apparent in any way to any casual onlooker.
If you’re ‘abnormal’ – then maybe you think you have something to hide – but don’t you also have an opportunity to easily find others who are ‘equally abnormal’ (cf. Brownian’s earlier comment on Gays & Lesbians)
oops, sorry about the format of that last.
I shall close all tags before posting.
I shall close all tags before posting.
I shall close all tags before posting.
…
Dorid
I agree with your concerns, but lets take your case of a paedophile: In a fully transparent society, it’s not only the information that would be transparent, but access to that information would also be know (who checked you out yesterday?)
paedophiles would be an easy target, since they could not hide their behavior (it’s open, remember). Would they be able to ‘target’ your or my kids? Possibly, but to do so they would need to actively look for, and investigate those kids. That set of actions would not be ‘normal’, and as a parent I would be looking out for my kids (in that space) just as I look out for them in the street.
paedophiles (and similar ‘offenders’) can’t operate in an open and transparent society, since the nature of their offense requires secrecy (DON’T TELL MOMMY)
Do I think such transparency would eliminate such crime or such behavior? No!
Do I think it would be reduced to voyeurism? Yes.
And to me, voyeurism is simply another form of masturbation. It really affects the person engaged in it (especially if the person being viewed is aware that such might occur)
Would some people think it ‘icky’ – yes. Does that mean we should control societal behaviors so that voyeurism is impossible? no! The benefits greatly outweigh the risks (in my opinion).
Now, Tony, I’m curious, you keep telling me that this “NO privacy” really has to do with just information, yet your last post didn’t really seem to have to do much with “information” more than it did with public actions and behavior. And wouldn’t the whole “normal” “abnormal” behavior be negative as well? It stands to reason that if pedophilia can be deemed “abnormal,” then couldn’t anything at some point be deemed “abnormal” ? If people are looking at pedophile behavior and seeing it as “abnormal,” then whether it’s right or wrong it’s still being discriminated against, which is the very thing you’re striving to get rid of. The way you explain it makes me think that “discrimination” in some form or another will become more important in this form of society.
Mojojojo: You also said not all candor is constructive
I agree – we often say and do things that are (basically) to lubricate relationships. Who hasn’t had to be nice to the horrid aunt whom everyone hates (and says so whenever the aunt isn’t around)?
Is that necessarily good or bad? I’m not a moral absolutists, so I’d have to say that depends. In an ‘open information’ world, aunt petunia would know that we all hated her in private. But did we always hate her, and always forever? How did everyone *get to* hating aunt petunia. Is she simply a really nasty lady and could care less about our opinion?
I’d suggest that the situations where we currently choose ‘diplomacy’ over ‘candor’ are precicely the situations that foster the attitude that *a little lie is ok* or *a little secret can’t hurt* and *you don’t need to know that*.
In my oipinion ‘diplomacy’ over ‘candor’ is simply a foundation for authoritarianism. I’ll tell you what I think you should know implies I (somehow) am in a position to make a better judgement than you about some information.
Occasionally we ARE in a better position – but in such cases we’d be better served providing both the information AND our justification/reasoning, than simply ‘making a pronouncement’. I use this with my kids as well as with clients and colleagues.
With my kids, my language and reasoning needs to be in terms they’ll understand – but the topics are generally things that interest them so there is normally an approach that will work (it’s more work that simply saying -daddy says so- but more rewarding too)
With clients, colleagues – the only information I would ever withhold is information that I don’t *own* and which is proprietary (i.e. I’ve been asked/told to keep that under wraps). Otherwise – transparency is the way I work.
Old Chinese Proverb: “If you don’t want it seen, don’t do it.”
My conclusion: The Old Chinese never had to poop.
Zeph:
You continue with puerile arguments.
paedophilia was a comment of Dorid’s that I responded to showing where such concerns wmight be addressable in a society with ‘transparency of information’.
Where was that not clear?
I strongly suspect that you are simply an ass. Your comments add no value. I’ll refrain from answering you until they do.
Kseniya
I have no problem with it being seen (I’m pretty certain that you *wouldn’t* want to look)
eewww. ick. gaagh. (as hobbes might say)
Tony, not to prolong this even further (and it HAS been a fun discussion), but just to clarify where I’m coming from a bit more, there’s a little story that has been in my head for this whole thread. It’s that nasty February “hottest law students” contest story.
(WaPo story here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030602705.html, other coverage here: http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2007/03/virginia_law_we.html )
The relevance of this story to this thread, to me, is that the information at the heart of the matter (the photographs of the women) was semi-public. In some cases, it was privately posted, and in other cases, it was posted on networking sites. By being posted to the online “contest,” it was arguably made public without the permission of the women. However, unlike the case of atheists, or gays, or numerous other groups, it was in fact a “contest,” so by its very terms the targeted group was small; 14 women. As shown in the article, these women suffered discrimination in interviewing because of the online “contest” (I have received an unconfirmed report through the law school grape vine that at least one of the UVA women received NO offers). One could argue that this is sexual discrimination, but unfortunately there’s no way to prove this in court, as the interviewing process is too subjective to individual interviewers. Having “reciprocity of transparency” wouldn’t seem help that situation either, as most attorneys DO have their pictures online on public websites, and therefore have already made this information public. It just won’t be used in the same damaging way, even though it’s the same information.
I don’t think that this situation is usual at all, and I don’t think the really troubling aspects of it are privacy-related. But this IS one case where, HAD these women had control over the privacy of their information (the photographs), they wouldn’t have been put in such a horrible situation. On the other hand, if everyone’s information had been posted as in the information-transparency scenario, there still would have been a top 14, and they still would have been the ones to suffer in the same way.
With this in mind, considering the above discussion, I can easily imagine similar situations where individuals (rather than groups per se) are singled out and not hired (for example) because it is much easier for the employer to simply cross off one name from the list and go to the next. And these would be situations where there is no sort of “reciprocal” information to balance it out. Things like whether the candidate had ever sued an employer in the past, or were a stripper in his or her spare time.
These situations don’t really present the same “come out and band together” scenario that has been raised regarding atheists and GLBT people. But they are situations where the person in question would be put in a striking disadvantage due to the transparency of information, and either would have a very difficult time proving discrimination in court, or in some circumstances wouldn’t even be legally protected. This is why, when you said utopian, I think it would require the type of perfect behavior from everyone that would eliminate the need to even address whether information was public or private.
Zeph:
One more comment re normal/abnormal.
Those designations are societal
Gay is abnormal
Gay is normal.
Which is it — society decides (but I’d rather like in a society that decides the latter)
Religion is normal
Religion is abnormal
Again, I’d choose the latter.
I don’t think there would be much disagreement that sexually predatory behavior targetted at kids is anything but abnormal.
If you disagree, then I suggest you watch your back, ‘cos you are seriously fucked up.
Brownian: sorry, the above took me quite a while to write. But it probably includes my reply to your post 63. The point is, of course, it’s all well and good when there is a group of you. But sometimes, there isn’t.
kmarrissa
I fully agree there is a HUGE gap between today and my utopian world – not least in terms of behaviors that would USE that information.
Let’s be honest. IN a world of full transparency, none of today’s employers would feel comfortable hiring ANY recent graduate. However, those employers would be operating in a fully transparent world so behaviors would necessarily be different. (so might student behavior…. not!)
Personally I hope that the transition to such a world would finally get rid of the puritanical yoke that chokes interpersonal relationships in the US (and in much of the business world)
I agree fully that ethics have an extremely long way to go before such a world is feasible.
I also think that the only way to get there is to start on the road. One step at a time. And one foot after the other.
Tony,
Did you not see the portion of my comment where I state that (whether or not it is right or wrong) the basis of looking at the pedophile (whom I chose as an example simply because you used it above in the comment that sparked my idea) as normal/abnormal and in effect excluding him because he is “abnormal” according to society is basically another form of discrimination?? Discrimination has featured prominently throughout your posts as something you think this society will get rid of, yet you use a form of discrimination to show how people can avoid undesirables. Does it really matter whether or not someone SHOULD care about whether someone is gay/catholic/atheist etc? In the end they’ll still care. Instead of having gays who are afraid to out themselves for fear of being excluded, you’ll have gays who are “automatically” outed and easier to exclude. It doesn’t matter if people see this discrimination, what matters is whether or not they see it AS discrimination and whether or not they decide to DO something about it. Which is why this idea wouldn’t work in that respect, you’d simply be enhancing people’s differences.
And as someone who is supposedly so “discriminated against,” why are you so unwilling to listen to my ideas? Although you do seem to live up to your mantra of transparency, it is pretty clear to me that you are as much of an ass yourself as you seem to think I am.
This has been a *great* discussion, but I gotta run (major deliverable due in about two hours, with about three hours of work needed to complete it!)
I’ll check back later tonight.
Definitely, it would be a long way away. My point is only that, it’s all well and good to talk about coming out of the closet and banding together, but there will always be outliers in a range: top 14 hottest students, biggest sluts, worst drinkers, poorest backgrounds, etc. Example from real life: law firm doesn’t hire summer associate when it discovers she moonlights as a stripper. Are there plenty of strippers? Sure. Are there many lawyer/strippers working for big firms that could “come out” and band together? Not that I’m aware of. Transparency of info gets us nowhere, especially since even if the partners doing the hiring have gone to strip clubs, there’s no obligation that they recognize their own hypocrisy.
Let’s be honest. IN a world of full transparency, none of today’s employers would feel comfortable hiring ANY recent graduate. However, those employers would be operating in a fully transparent world so behaviors would necessarily be different. (so might student behavior…. not!)
This is true. But this is exactly why law firms do online searches. No candidate is going to be squeaky-clean, but they can avoid the “worst” this way. And as in the story, the “worst” often haven’t even done anything “wrong” themselves.
But the comment about student behavior being different–this is exactly what worries me about the transparency model. It would prevent people from doing certain things that are frowned upon by future employers (for example) but which I don’t consider negative at all, and is that what we want?
The idea is that coming ‘out’ to affect change can help other groups, Kmarissa. Susan B. Anthony fought both for suffrage and abolition. If we can learn to accept a godless individual as president or prime minister, then why can’t we accept a homosexual for the same position? The point is that fighting against discrimination of one sort should help reduce discrimination of all sorts.
That may be wishful thinking, but I don’t see how the sexism, racism, and elitism of law firms is going to be eradicated by pretending our sex, race, or socioeconomic status doesn’t exist.
Hmm. I think our only disagreement, Kmarissa, is whether A leads to B or whether A prevents B. You’ve made some good points for the former, and I’d like to think I’ve made some supporting the latter. Obviously, neither A nor Not A is sufficient to cause B.
As someone who works with health statistics, I’d like to take the opportunity to waffle by saying there must be some confounding variables we haven’t considered.
Zeph:
I apologise for blowing you off so rudely and not fully answering the intent of your comment, which your last post has made clear.
If I may paraphrase (and I’m not saying you advocate this position, merely stated it): discrimination is a necessary adjunct to a transparent society.
I would agree. But discrimination in this sense is *not* pejorative, but merely ‘selective viewing’.
For the most part, behaviors in a transparent society would be politely laissez-faire (os so I imagine). Given full access to background, etc., it would be difficult to be ‘holier that thou’. Equally it would be extremely difficult to be actively anti-social (in a disruptive sense) and activities and behaviors that were societally negative would be positively discouraged. Paedophilia (active sexual predation) is one such behavior used as an examplar – voyeurism (seen negatively today) would likely be acceptable (no hurt, no loss).
So I see discrimination in such a society, certainly – but very different from what we currently consider discrimination.
Discrimination of data will be necessary to operate in such a society.
Think of *your* discrimination every time you use the web. Why do you choose some sites over others? Why a prefewrence for some viewpoints? Why a complete disregard of whole swathes of the web.
That’s information discrimination.
Per kmarrissa’s posts: there wll always be personal discrimination – but with transparency such repeated behaviors would be obvious.
And to follow the ‘student’ thread – why would students behave any differently than today – there will allways be ‘animal house’ and there will always be ‘super preppy’, and everything in between.
Employers who are too discriminatory will be ‘selected against’ since their intake will be extremely selective itself.
Well, one problem with tony’s defense of transparency defeating pedophiles is that it essentially means I have to be extraordinarily vigilant in watching those that watch me. And likewise, they can watch my watching habits, and only target the unaware. Not to mention the false positives and false negatives – what about people curious about how easy it might be for pedophiles to get that info, because they themselves are worried? The info’s transparent, you can’t criticize them for looking, right? And what about the pedophiles that work for advertisers or masquerade as them, who do massive searches, then cherry pick the results?
Both sides can come up with ways to defeat the other – everyone that doesn’t participate becomes fodder. I don’t want to be ever-vigilant against the world, and I don’t want to pay for Symantec Identity protection ™ that I don’t even trust.
There’s a scifi short story I can’t seem to track down, called Mana, I think, where they achieve this utopian transparent society – every person has an infallible computer implanted in their brain that polices their every thought.
Tony, if there seems to be an outcry against your idea, I think it’s because you’re discussing it as a possibility when to most it’s not just utopian, it’s pure fiction. Especially in a story re: our government that tries to stifle any investigation into how it uses this data they already have.
Who watches the watchmen?
Tony,
Thank you for finally looking at and considering my ideas. Perhaps choosing the pedophile to illustrate my idea was a bad choice, but I think you understand the idea behind it? I understand your comment and it seems realistic to me, but I still think the resulting society would be less desirable than the one we have now. Perhaps this is a “lesser of two evils” type of idea? GTMoogle’s post (#85) illustrates what I am thinking very well.
Hell, yes, I’ve got things to hide. So I guess I won’t be living in Tony’s utopia.
As someone who has lived in those small communities, the main function of lack of privacy is to enforce conformity, and make “popularity contests” even more important.
See also: Panopticon.
The idea that somehow transparency will suddenly turn us all into rational beings with no evolutionary history is amusingly naive.
All:
My comments re transparency was not to ‘turn us’ into anything, nor to deny that that ‘ideal’ is likely no more achievable that plato’s ideal society…
And re transparency = conformity – that is furthest from my expectation. the most wonderful thing about globalization is that you don’t need to move to find another community (this blog being a perfect example, in microscale). As the potentialfor ‘fractional’ communities grows, and the ability to find ‘like minded’ people becomes easier, I see us drifting towards increasingly ‘vertical’ virtual communities (aka myspace friends, etc). We’re all (or most of us) complex – so we’d each likely participate in many different communities.
In such a case – the only ‘conformity’ would be to your own community – and if (as) you changed – you could find other new communities to join.
The suggestion that the ‘global community’ of tomorrow will be just like your home town of yesteryear is amusingly naive (no offense, Graculus).
Lastly – there will always be ‘bread and circuses’, and the majority of people will still be happy to be ‘told’ what to do and how to do it.
Thats human nature. Doesn’t mean that needs to be society’s nature.
GTMoogle,Zeph,et al.
I would *like* for my concept to be realistic – but likely not in my lifetime. That does not mean that *some* of the concepts are ridiculous – merely ‘unevolved’.
I stand by my earlier comment re: dark/transparent.
I’d much rather be in a transparent world.
I also agree that our current world is significantly more dystopian that I’d like, and significantly more so than it *should* be (not helped any by the current US administration’s disregard of law, due process, and the constitution)
I do understand the concerns you raise. In our current society, and with so much irrationality in government and in social leadership in general, I agree that my ideas seem distinctly ‘pie in the sky’.
I wish it were otherwise.
Instead of having gays who are afraid to out themselves for fear of being excluded, you’ll have gays who are “automatically” outed and easier to exclude.
Yeah, I understand this. I’m someone who belongs to an excluded group, traditionally, societally, and it’s not something I can “just not do” and it’s not something “embarrassing,” either. The factor that makes me part of an excluded minority is also an intrinsic and unchangeable part of my identity, and I’m a visible minority of a sort as well — I’m handicapped. There are a lot of people out there who would swear up and down and on a stack of Hitchhiker’s Guides to the Galaxy that they’re not prejudiced against disabled people, but the way I am makes a lot of people subconsciously uncomfortable.
Even assuming I know that these cryptobigots are out there and I know who they are, and they know that I know, I still can’t avoid them, and, because it’s a subconscious thing, they’re not going to be able to change their behaviour…but they will probably make every effort not to ever get into a situation where it comes up. The number of job interviews I ever go on goes way down. I don’t even get in the door, and I never find out that it wasn’t just that they got a hundred other resumes, all of which were for people more qualified than I, unless I spend half my time monitoring people to make sure they’re not being bigots in my direction. Thanks, no, I don’t want the responsibility.
So it’s not as naively simple as “don’t do anything you don’t want seen” or “don’t be something ‘abnormal'” (oh, yeah, and I’m pretty stoked at you for bringing that up, since for some of us, it’s kind of an automatic).
Interestingly, Tony, I think your utopianism comes from being in a position of almost excruciating privilege from my point of view. You’re a white, able-bodied man, are you not?
Enough said.
interrobang: yes I am (as I said before). Guilty as charged. White, male, and (somewhat) privileged.
FWIW, my best friend in college had MS — I was his colostomy bag buddy, and I got fit pushing his chair. We lost direct (physical) contact after college, but we still write (email) and do the christmas card thing.
Currently – I agree – business and society treat people with disabilities like shit. I have no idea what I personally can do – but I do make sure I stomp on any kind of discrimination that I see or hear about.
I have absolutely no qualms about hiring people with disabilities – depending on the role. It’s going to be extremely challenging for a guy with speech issues (like my buddy Gordon) to make verbal presentations. But that would not (ought not) exclude him from the sales delivery team if his other skills were up to par.
One caveat. I expect the same ‘abilities’ from everyone on my team. I cut no slack for sex, religion, race, color, handicap, height, weight, food preference, …
In the end – can you do the job? that is all that matter to me.
inerrobang:
to complete the thought. when I said ‘transparent’ I meant ‘transparent’. In everything.
“So it’s not as naively simple as “don’t do anything you don’t want seen” or “don’t be something ‘abnormal'” (oh, yeah, and I’m pretty stoked at you for bringing that up, since for some of us, it’s kind of an automatic).”
Interrobang, I simply used that example because of the fact that gay people aren’t so obviously different from “normal” people. There really isn’t any way to tell if the guy next to me is gay, unless he tells me so in one way or another. My example wasn’t an attempt to say that keeping your true self hidden is better than being embarrassed, “different”, etc. What I was thinking was along the lines of (mind you I’m not gay, so this is merely what I think, I know people will be convinced I’m wrong) at least gay people can choose when to tell the world what they are. People who are obviously “different” don’t have that choice, they’re exposed to the world from day one. I just used being gay as a way to illustrate that whether or not the feelings of what is normal/abnormal are RIGHT, even a mental “abnormality” is not something you can hide. Should some trait (ie gayness) be chosen by the society to be “abnormal” and therefore “wrong” then those people would have no chance against discrimination, much like black people, disabled people, etc. Would their lives be worse in this case? I don’t know, but I don’t think they would be better. I’d rather be gay in a world that hates gays, and be able to hide my gayness than be gay in a world that hates gays and be unable to hide. At least in the first scenario I would be able to show my true self on MY own terms, not someone else’s.
(Ahhah! Found it! http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm – go read this for a relevant, pretty interesting dis/utopia short story)
Well, I also think that you’re being too pessimistic about the dark/transparent ideology.
We’re not starting, and we’re never going to start off with a blank slate and choose one way or the other. There’s already a pretty basic definition of public and private lives, and it’s pretty functional. Really there’s very little general info that most people could even want to know that they can’t simply purchase for reasonable amounts (and vast stores of knowledge are free). While a perfectly transparent society would have advantages, we’d still need a transition path that people would agree to. (Manna takes care of that pretty effectively) Now, a completely transparent government I could really get behind…
I don’t want to sound like I’m being negative towards your ideas. However I personally don’t think I’d enjoy a complete and functional transparent society… ya know, my mom doesn’t really need to know if I’m brushing my teeth, or the details of my sex life after I leave home. Can you imagine the psychosis so many people would have, being unable to escape the attention of others? I think for the most part most people don’t have the mental fortitude to really not care about something like that. Or then again, maybe everyone would get used to it and the next generation would be fine. *shrug*
I have to stand by my statement that transparency would have to be a result of and not a cause of or precursor to a utopian society.
Yet we find ourselves social animals, and part of that always has been (and I suspect always will be) maintaining some sort of pecking order. That means there will always be people trying to bite and claw their way to the top, taking advantage of others. I know I can’t possibly watch everyone (or know everyone) who is watching me. Each of us living in fishbowls won’t make our lives any more secure. While it would be nice to say “oh, here are all the signs, lets keep an eye on this one” the fact is that it seems all this information at our fingertips can only be used to go back after whatever misdeed is done and figure out the why and how.
I have to add on to what inerrobang said as well, and disagree a bit about your stand on disability. While I know there are plenty of people out there who try to understand and are willing to accomodate certain disabilities (especially physical disabilities) I don’t see a lot of progress being made in eliminating the stigma of mental illness. While I support a certain degree of openness about mental illness, as the mother of a schizophrenic there are times when I just don’t feel it’s in my son’s best interest for people to know.
Yes, there is still a good deal of stigmatizing going on, and it is prudent to err on the side of caution. Sad, but true.
@Tony:
That’s not utopian. That’s a nightmare. Not just because (some) privacy is a comfort to ME, but because there are superfluous billions of YOU; as long as you stay out of my face I’ll happily ignore your existence, in part because I have no wish to waste my life wading through your personal data (let alone competing for food, oxygen and opportunities for biophilia). A certain amount of opacity – as much as is provided by the curvature of the earth and the odd bit of shrubbery – is natural and should be regarded as a universal right. So… Stay out of my hemisphere!
Well, reading the posts of a Utopian society and agreeing in principle is all well and good, not to take away or disrespect your opinions, Tony.
But…we DO NOT live in this perfect society, and the fact is that, strangely, governments want to know what their population are doing, even if it’s just nipping down the road for groceries. Why? well, they seem to be using the excuse of ‘World Terror’ to justify passing more and more draconian and invasive laws on the millions of us in the general public who have never been in trouble with the law, have nothing to hide, but have to suffer ID checks, searches on their private life, investigations on footwear every time we want to fly etc..and the irony? These ID schemes will do nothing to ‘protect’ us from terrorism/crime/fraud etc, because ANY determined criminal will get past ANY ID scheme if the reward/cause is enough.
The terrorists are often pictured on CCTV getting on planes, trains etc, but did that stop them from carrying out the plan?
Here in the jolly old UK we will have an ID card scheme soon, where everybody will have to prove who they are to any official that asks, thus rendering the burden of innocence on to the millions rather than the ones who are guilty – Guilty before being proved innocent. I think this is a disgrace to all those in the two world wars who fought and died so that a dictator could not force people into this situation in the first place. Today, we are probably under more surveillance and scrutiny than possibly anyone involved in the Nazi party in the 30’s and 40’s…technology has made it easier and more covert. The UK has the highest ratio of CCTV surveillance in the western hemisphere. Does this mean we are safer, and less crime is committed? No, but we have loads of footage of people committing the crimes to upload to Youtube later on…
What then is the solution? Hell, I don’t know, but the current tension because of ‘terrorism’ is misplaced and knee jerk in my opinion…after all, more people have died as a result of traffic related incidents than will ever be involved in a terrorist activity. So why must we all give away any of our freedom?
In such a case – the only ‘conformity’ would be to your own community – and if (as) you changed – you could find other new communities to join.
“Confomity” is as enforced on the blogs as IRL, and you can “move” in cyberspace a lot more cheaply than IRL, where you have to find new housing, employment, friends, etc.
There’s all sorts of details that can be argued about human psychology and the likelihood of that changing anytime soon, but what it comes down to is trust. You’d have to be able to trust every other single person in the world (all 6+ billion of ’em) with every detail of your life.
Worst … you’d have to place complete trust in the government and the corporations. Are you willing to grant that to amoral entities with no common stake?
Plenty to hide in my case. There’s nothing that I am seriously ashamed of, in the sense of thinking it means I did something wrong or something that shows me to be a bad person by my own standards … but there’s plenty that might not be approved of by some others who can make life uncomfortable for me and/or might be used against me in some tangible way. I’m sure most of us feel like this, especially living in modern societies with contested values and moralities.
There’s also times when (again) I didn’t do anything morally bad but I made dumb or frivolous decisions that would make me look foolish if they were publicised. Surely that’s also normal.
I’m surprised if anyone thinks that to have “something to hide” you have to have done something that you yourself are seriously ashamed of, or something that you yourself consider morally wrong.
I wonder if Tony also thinks that our votes should be publically displayed.
Lots of interesting thoughts.
It seems that most folks are ok on some aspects on transparency (transparent govt, etc) but not on others (*I need my space*).
What I do see is a lot of FUD regarding what would happen if some nefarious agency or person decided to use my information against me. I also see a recurring *I did something foolish that I’d rather not be known*
All good points.
But my personal opinion is along the lines of GTmoogle’s closing comment Or then again, maybe everyone would get used to it and the next generation would be fine. *shrug*
And, Graculus – why should knowing how I voted have any bearing? Why should votes be secret? You think it’s ok that your ‘public servants’ are accountable for their votes, but not *you*? Not a flame, just my opinion. I find the idea of a secret vote somewhat strange, and one of the factors that makes vote-fraud so damn easy.
to close:
I have my opinion. It seems to differ from many of you. That’s not a problem. That’s an opportunity.
If we didn’t have differences – it would be pretty boring.
There’s Calendonian. I felt sure a reference to mental illness would summon you. ;-) Would you believe I’ve missed you?
The kind of transparency Tony’s talking about doesn’t jibe well with human nature. He has addressed that dissonance, but personally I just can’t see it working. I’m reminded of this famous sentiment: “Those who sacrifice a little bit of liberty for a little bit of safety will lose both and deserve neither.” I’m also reminded of a little story called “The Dead Past”.
Two-way transparency is interesting in theory, but IMO it would be far too easy for whatever institution controled the enabling infrastructure to surreptitiously modify it to its own particular use and benefit.
Again, IMO even without that tangible threat, people still need a certain measure of privacy to feel secure; the alternative is a recipe for mass neurosis.
Tony, I think you answered one of your own questions:
And:
I assume you mean their votes cast in the chambers of whatever federal, state, or local legislature of which they happen to be a member. Well, they (ostensibly) represent us, and are accountable to us. We are not accountable to the government (or to any person or entity!) for our votes.
Good point about vote fraud, though. Perhaps the secret ballot is a hold-over from the days when it was dangerous to vote against the status quo or the powers that be.
(This is still the case in many new democracies – hence the presence of international election overseers. Maybe we need that here in the USA on a provisional basis. No system is immune from defect or corruption. It’s naive or disingenuous – not to mention dangerous – to deny that. In this era of eroding liberties in the name of “homeland” security I am quite happy to have a bit of opacity surrounding me.)
Interrobang wrote:
Exactly. I doubt that Tony would have liked to live in East Germany, a society that where high transparency (in one direction) actually was a priority.
This whole discussion of “how much privacy should there be between individuals” is a bit separate from the original subject, which was clearly government surveillance.
manicrevere:
That reminds me of some cute parts of 1984, like when the girl suggests a makeout spot is safe because “the trees aren’t big enough to hide a mike in.”
Disregarding the issue of using military satellites to look at the USA, something I assumed they were doing anyway, how useful would that be?
The satellite images from the internet are underwhelming. They always look down, mostly are in false color or black and white, the info is usually dated from hours to years, and the detail isn’t that great. They claim a ground resolution of 6 inches but my bet, that is only under rare and optimal conditions. Plus, a lot of stuff is hidden by vegetation, roofs, cloud cover, and night.
We’ve been trying to find bin Laden for 6 years, whether he is alive or dead isn’t even known. Not seeing that these satellite images are going to make much difference one way or another.
The true quality of the most hightech satellites is probably not really widely known.
30 years ago they could read license plates. In tech terms that’s eons.
On the flip side. You really have to be targetted in some way to really be monitored by a satellite. They have to be looking for something. Image satellites are mouch more useful for intel and strategic planning.
I always wonder about the license-plate thing. Granting that the necessary resolution exists, how can an overhead camera read the face of a thing that is perpenticular to the ground, and which is often partially obscured by a piece of the vehicle to which it is attached? Or are we assuming that the lens is aimed off-axis? Even then, at orbital distances, that’s quite a bit more distance (and atmosphere) to see through. Am I being too literal? Is the claim is they COULD (rather than DO) read license plates?
30 years ago they could read license plates.
Only in Hollywood. They still can’t read license plates. Resolution is four inches, give or take a bit. There are physical limits to optics because of things like water vapour and particulate. Where the satellites have been improving is in radar and infrared. I think they’ve gotten it down to 1 metre resolution.
Even at twice the resolution we aren’t suposed to know about to begin with, the best they can do is tell that a license plate is present. Infrared will be able to tell if it’s a truck or a car, but couldn’t tell the difference between a large dog and a human, or a cow and a Smart.
I also see a recurring *I did something foolish that I’d rather not be known*
I’ve already had people use public knowledge against me (playing head games becasue I was depressed over the death of my father). It doesn’t have to be anything “wrong” or “foolish” or “slightly squirmy” for people to be assholes.
So until you re-engineer humans to have the personalities of Bison Frises, I’ll keep my private life private, thankyouverymuch.
You think it’s ok that your ‘public servants’ are accountable for their votes, but not *you*?
Well, they work for me, so I have a right to know what my employees are up to *in their capacity as my employees*. The same for any business owner.. their right to know about their employees stops where it is no longer anything to do with the business.
Yeah, Hollywood screenwriters don’t seem to have heard of the Rayleigh limit or diffraction-limited resolution, and they’re always violating basic rules of physics.
(You can get resolution in excess of what Rayleigh would allow, but it only works in special cases where you can trade off something else, like scanning time or intensity, for resolution.)
“And to me, voyeurism is simply another form of masturbation. It really affects the person engaged in it (especially if the person being viewed is aware that such might occur)
Would some people think it ‘icky’ – yes. Does that mean we should control societal behaviors so that voyeurism is impossible? no! The benefits greatly outweigh the risks (in my opinion).”
Whoa. Whoa, whoa, whoa. This isn’t about voyeurism being “icky”. It’s about bodily integrity. My body is MINE and I AND I ONLY choose who sees it. (Not at all because I’m ashamed of it; I think I’m quite hot – but that’s entirely beside the point). To have this taken away from me is extremely disturbing psychologically. It is disturbing to me as a woman, a feminist, and a victim of sexual assault.
Voyeurism takes away my bodily integrity, which is especially disturbing in your “utopian” (nightmarish!) society where, in the name of full transparency, I would have no laws or protections to turn to if my neighbor installed a camera in my shower, and then, in the name of transparency, posted the videos on YouTube for millions to see without my consent. The fact that I would know this might happen does nothing to help – myself and probably many other women would simply become hermits who never took our clothes off, and where exactly is the freedom or utopia in that?
I might add that voyeurism is NOT a normal form of masturbation. It is actually considered a psychosexual disorder: http://www.minddisorders.com/Py-Z/Voyeurism.html
I entirely agree with the others who have said that you see your position from the perspective of extreme privilege. As a male, you have never had other people feel entitled to your body. Women face this all the time, and it’s an attitude feminists have been fighting against for a long time. That your “utopia” (land of male privelege?) sanctions this is absolutely horrific.
I have my opinion. It seems to differ from many of you. That’s not a problem. That’s an opportunity.
If we didn’t have differences – it would be pretty boring.
Exactly. And some of us would like to keep some of our personal information private. In a system where privacy is the default setting, we would be free to keep ourselves private, and you would be free to voluntarily provide everyone with all of your information. In your system, we would lose that opportunity, and therefore that difference. Your opinion would be the norm, but ours would have no chance to exist.
Thanks for bringing up that point, Angry Feminist.
We just had a case here in ALBQ with a guy upskirting girls at the ammusement park. He had one of those little cameras he bought at one of the “spy shops” on his shoe. Did he harm anyone? I’d say yes… and he was arrested, so the law seems to agree.
Did I mention he was a middle school teacher?
That wasn’t actually it. Any sufficiently large collection of dumbth tends to attract my attention.
You’re right, Carlie, but it has even more impact than you mention.
There’s a pretty obvious reason Sweden converted from left-hand-side to right-hand-side driving all at once, instead of gradually phasing it in over time. There are some systems that you cannot provide a smooth transition between, because they are mutually exclusive, and this is another example. Trying to phase one in while phasing the other out would be disastrous.
Similarly, even if we were to adopt Tony’s system–which he admits is utopian–the transition would have to be instantaneous. If any vestiges of the old system, where information could be used as a power advantage over you, remained, then not only would you have given up on privacy, but the time after the transition would actually be worse for everyone. Their information would be transparent, and now totally vulnerable to any vestiges of the old system, which privacy (imperfectly) currently protects against.
Ah! I see. So, is it the clamor, or is it more the gravitational pull of all that dense matter?
thalarctos: Good point, the transition would be most effective if instantaneous and complete, but without an equally smooth and complete modification of human psyche, would it work? I don’t think so. Privacy matters. Lack of privacy correlates to loss of dignity and (for example) sexual dysfunction. Or is our “utoptian” vision assuming that all those problems will be solved in the same instant as the social problems associated with inconsistent transparency?
good points, Kseniya. yes, I would agree that it is parallel–if the psychological transformation is not achieved instantaneously, then an inordinate amount of psychological cost-shifting occurs, in a way analogous to my example of inordinate economic, political, and other types of inter-individual power cost-shifting.
I think your examples clarify explicitly some of the costs Carlie referred to implicitly in pointing out that she wouldn’t be able to exercise her preferred options about how she wants to live her own life.
Thalarctos: Yes, yes, and that, in conjuction with the undeniably relevant comment posted by Angry Feminist, we have quite a stumbling block on the path from Udopeia to Utopia.
I’ve never been assaulted (sexually or otherwise, drooling intoxicated frat boys aside for the moment) but I’ve had my privacy violated on more than one occasion by a peeping tom, and though I was not physically violated in any way it was still a deeply disturbing series of experiences. I realize I’m focusing on one very personal (and arguably mundane) aspect of the larger issue – the right to keep ones body to ones self – but mundane or not, it’s an essential right and not the least bit trivial.
I don’t think many women – or men – are psychologically cut out to live in a fishbowl, regardless of the potential upside of doing so, and I believe this extends well beyond the (mundane) issue of having been seen nekkid.
For some reason, I am reminded of this bit of dialog from the Seinfeld episode “The Bizarro Jerry”:
Sigh. I wish I got to take a ride in a spaceship.
If we dont like the product or service they are providing to us (in this case, the satellites), then we shoul stop paying for it. Take away their funding. We are the customers right? We can take our business elsewhere, right?
Oh wait, no we cant! They have a forced monopoly. Hmmm, that sucks. They are holding a proverbial gun to our head and forcing us to pay them so that they can spy on us.
And WHEN exactly did everyone here think that competition, and the ability to CHOOSE where one spends ones money, was a BAD IDEA?!?!?!
you obvIously DIdn’t read the cOmmenTs, so whAT the helL ARe you talkinG about, kinnEy?
Heh… Shades of Billy Pilgrim and Montana Wildhack!
Tony, my apologies if you have answered this in a previous post (directions to posts appreciated), but exactly how transparent are you wishing society to be? Should we think along the lines of a large central database which feeds in recordings of what everyone sees, hears, feels, touches?
Is the government given certain recording, not accessing, rights not given to citizens?
OK
Everyone seems to be taking my admittedly utopian position of ‘transparency’ and using it to beat me about the head for being mysogynistic, for promoting voyuerism, and requiring an immediate ‘state change’ – no gradual transition allowed.
While I agree with your concerns – given our current societal problems – they have little bearing on my original stated position:
This was a *thought experiment*. It’s how I’d like to live.
I see many of our problems (including power politics, voyeurism, mysogyny, sexism, …) as a direct effect of our hindbrain driven need for secrecy.
When we were tiny shrew-like mammals, secrecy was good. It was a survival trait.
In a global and increasingly open society, it’s becoming a liability.
I’m not, for a moment, suggesting there are no problems with ‘transparency’. But I am seriously suggesting that (as GTMoogle suggested many posts ago) the majority of the perceived problems with ‘transparency’ would be eliminated through apathy.
Most of you are responding to this changed society with a mindset rooted on this one. That’s fine & to be expected.
With a completely different societal model, however, would come a completely different mental model of societal norms and behaviors. That’s why I see many of your concerns as less challenging than mny of you suggest (and I’m NOT being a misogynistic privileged white male in doing so).
Yes – I’m white and male and …
Lastly, to respond to archgoon’s comment
Databases would be ‘hyper distributed’ — wherever I transact, wherever I roam, that’s where I’ll be.
And why would the government (to Graculus’ comment much earlier) have any more access rights than you or I? They are *our servants* – another item that’s been (mostly) forgotten in our current society.
First of all, I never accused you of being a misogynist (nor did anyone else as far as I recall). I merely assumed you hadn’t considered the ramifications of misogyny in your thought experiment. (Hence the talk of male privilege – you don’t necessarily have to consider the female experience. Females do.)
Also, there’s a contradiction in your thoughts:
“I see many of our problems…as a direct effect of our hindbrain driven need for secrecy. When we were tiny shrew-like mammals, secrecy was good.”
“With a completely different societal model, however, would come a completely different mental model of societal norms and behaviors.”
If the desire for privacy is so deeply ingrained into our brains, and mammals have kept it through millions of years of evolution, how can it POSSIBLY be simply unlearned through a different societal model? Something much more dramatic must occur to change the entire human psyche. And if, as you suggest, the societal change comes BEFORE the mental change, there will be at least one generation (but more likely several) of completely miserable people.
In other words, your vision is only a utopia for some as yet undiscovered sentient beings that have absolutely no relation to humans or how they operate.
Additionally, I have thought it through long and hard, and still have absolutely no idea how misogyny is in any way a result of valuing privacy. I have a few ideas of why you might think so, but they are rather less generous than my previous assumptions about you, so they are best left unsaid.