posted
Just a couple of thought that might be worth exploring:
1. With technology becoming ever more widespread, and with information more and more readily available, I can conceive of a time when it will be possible for just about any group, or even many individuals, to wreak 9-11 style havoc on society if they are so inclined. Do you think there could come a time when the threats to society outweight the benefits of the privacies we now enjoy? Do you think it could ever reach the point where we find it not only acceptable for the government to tap all phone conversations, email, etc. but would even think them negligent if they didn't do so? What about bugging meeting halls (including churches, synagogs, and mosques)?
2. Do you think it's possible to have a "free" society where nothing is private? What if today everything you said or did was viewed and recorded by a sophisticated AI program that monitored only for specific threats (like potential terrorist attacks) and only alerted human authorities when certain thresholds were reached. (At that point the human authorities could decide if further human direct monitoring was needed or if, for instance, it was just two geeks talking about Die Hard III or something like that.) If such a system had enough oversight and safeguards to prevent abuse (i.e. It was either impossible to misuse the information, or at least impossible to hide misuse and penalties for abuse were high enough to deter it) do you think society could still enjoy the freedoms we now have?
3. With surveillance technology becoming more and more available and cheap, do you think there could come a time when privacy is de facto non-existent at least for the average Joe? (i.e Because spying on your neighbors would be as easy as shopping for parts at radio shack and setting up a home spy station.) Do you think that society could exist with absolutely no privacy? Remember, you'd have the ability too, as would the Police, Military, etc.
Personally, I can conceive of a fictional society where there is absolutely no such thing as privacy, although I'm very skeptical of the possibility of transitioning from society as we know it to become my fictional society. I can see some pretty obvious advantages of my fictional society. I can also see some obvious disadvantages, but I'm not sure they are really critical, or can't be ameliorated through legal means.
Anyone want to respond to my musings above? Anyone want to play the brainstorming game with me about my fictional society? Anyone want to discuss privacy, in general?
[I know this is a huge rambling opening post, so I'm not expecting to solve anything. It's just a subject I've been playing with in my head for some time and thought it might be time to ping it off some of you smart folk.]
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, let's say I'm limiting it to "external privacy". Your brain is yours (as far as you know) and there are no "thought police".
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Spying on your neighbors is a pretty easy thing (CCD cameras, directional mics and even night vision are pretty availible). Speech recognition has gotten to the point where an automation to listen for potential threats can't be far off if it doesn't already exist. And it's certainly easy for even a loosely organized group of people to wreak havoc on our society.
Remember the DC snipers and the panic they instilled? Imagine 10 such people, not arrogant enough to leave clues to see if the police will catch them, distributed across the country. It could be months catching them. The numbers of deaths might be fairly low, compared to 9-11, but the overall effect would be far more devastating.
I'm honestly surprised we haven't seen it yet as a terrorist tactic in this country.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Private communication between individuals would still be possible. Just devise an intricate code, scribble the message down on a piece of paper and as soon as it's been received, destroy the evidence.
Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Have you read Cryptonomicon? I didn't think about it at first, but it would seem to be related to this topic.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eduardo St. Elmo: Private communication between individuals would still be possible. Just devise an intricate code, scribble the message down on a piece of paper and as soon as it's been received, destroy the evidence.
Sure. How likely do you think it is that many people would adopt this? Would they bother except for the very most secretest of communications? Would the concept of having or keeping secrets even be much of a priority for a society that lived with absolutely minimal privacy?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Privacy is an illusion maintained by the idea that people get in trouble for breaking it. That's the trouble with warrantless surveillance. It's like no-fault divorce, it erases the consequences that the continued existence of civility depend on. People always have sneaked around, but there was a trust that they could get caught and suffer some consequences.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Have you read Cryptonomicon? I didn't think about it at first, but it would seem to be related to this topic.
I'm reading it right now, in fact. I'm about halfway through it. Maybe that's why this subject has been especially in the forefront of my brain lately.
Pooka, could you expound on that a little?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you want privacy? Seriously, is total privacy really that great of thing? What does privacy really give you? What are the advantages of information being private over sharing information? I don't think people really do want a lot of privacy. Most people want the government to be transparent, and businesses too. We need to track sexual predators, we need to know who is a credit risk, we want to know where people live, we want to be able to get goods and services quickly. There is no way to do these things with too much privacy. What information is it that we need to keep so private? For example, how many stories are there about Paris Hilton? How many 'sightings' of her? When her PDA was hacked all of her contacts were posted on the web for all of us to see, and we all went to go see it. OK, maybe not specifically you, but hundreds of thousands of people did. I think people like to make a huge deal out of 'privacy' at the moment because an evil conservative is in the White House and not from any real threat to their privacy.
Edited - because I am having a bad verb tense day...
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You make some interesting points Dark Knight. However, I wonder if freedom and liberty can exist without any privacy to the extent they do with individual privacy.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Have you read Cryptonomicon? I didn't think about it at first, but it would seem to be related to this topic.
I have read it, and I also know something of cryptography. To say it nicely, Neal Stephenson doesn't
To add my two cents to the post, while I can easily imagine a society with little privacy (perhaps, all computers, telephone calls, etc being monitered), I don't think a society with none could ever manage.
For instance, you would know have the ability to know all the local gossip about yourself. You would know all about your local politician's past (would you still vote for him? would you still vote?). You would know the history of all local law enforcement. Do you then trust the police to look out for your best interests then?. You would know all the mistakes a given doctor had made. Would you let him operate on you? Would you let him prescribe you medicine?
I suppose I should ammend what I have said. It's not (neccesarily) that such a society CAN'T exist. It's that it wouldn't resemble anything that we call "society" today.
(BTW, this is my first post on Hatrack! Go Me!)
Posts: 168 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don;t think it's intended as a textbook or anything... it's just a nice trreatment of the subject with a little more meat than, say, "Sneakers" (which was a great movie).
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: I don;t think it's intended as a textbook or anything... it's just a nice trreatment of the subject with a little more meat than, say, "Sneakers" (which was a great movie).
And it's very well written. I'm over halfway through (the book is 1152 pages) and I am only beginning to see how things are tying together, but the writing is immensely funny (to me) and Stephenson's way with words is delightful.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:For instance, you would know have the ability to know all the local gossip about yourself. You would know all about your local politician's past (would you still vote for him? would you still vote?). You would know the history of all local law enforcement. Do you then trust the police to look out for your best interests then?. You would know all the mistakes a given doctor had made. Would you let him operate on you? Would you let him prescribe you medicine?
I suppose I should ammend what I have said. It's not (neccesarily) that such a society CAN'T exist. It's that it wouldn't resemble anything that we call "society" today.
I think to a great extent such a society would mold the individual people within it just as ours molds us. I think as people came to know how human we all are (and what that really means we'd be able to overlook some things people do some of us now find shocking, and be much more critical of other things people do that we now overlook. Also, people in such a society might behave very differently than we do. For instance, if there were almost no possibility of having an affair without being caught, politicians would probably have fewer affairs. On the other hand, if the true extent of marital infidelity were known across the board, society might change to accomodate it somehow. (At which point it might cease to be "infidelity" per se, I guess).
At any rate, I don't think it would have to be so drastic as to become something that "wouldnt' resemble anything that we call 'society' today."
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bao, I think privacy is always something great to debate because of how both important and unimportant it is. Freedom and Liberty need transparency in a lot of areas to ensure that they will continue to exist. I think this all comes down to what specific information are you keeping private for what purposes. For instance, is email monitoring bad? I believe parents should be able to monitor all of their children's emails if they choose to. Schools, governments and business should also be allowed to monitor their employees emails if they choose to as well. They are employees at work and shouldn't really expect any privacy. Having the NSA computers monitor phone calls made between the US and suspected terrorists overseas does not bother me. When people make the 'slippery slope' arguement that it is a Domestic Spy program, which it is not, I usually counter with how many phone calls are made each hour in the US? I did a little looking but haven't found any info but I imagine it is hundreds of thousands of calls. I highly doubt all of those conversations could be monitored even if we wanted to. Plus the results would be completely meaningless if we monitored everything. It is entirely too much information. Targeted programs, such as the NSA one we have now, can work much much better. I think too many people are filled with a high sense of self importance and they convince themselves that other people actually care what they are doing, emailing, or posting. I am under no such illusions Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm guessing that by the same logic, warrantless searches without any probably cause wouldn't bother you either.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: And it's very well written. I'm over halfway through (the book is 1152 pages) and I am only beginning to see how things are tying together, but the writing is immensely funny (to me) and Stephenson's way with words is delightful.
The description of Pearl Harbor from Waterhouse's point of view and the line about Turing finding a someone to take him up on his "penis scheme" are standouts... and the whole concept of a morphine-addicted, Haiku-composing, Marine from West Virginia trying to explain to Ronald Reagan about "the Lizard" and naming his son after the hated Douglas MacArthur... and... well, there's a lot of good stuff in there. Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What information is it that we need to keep so private? ... Seriously, is total privacy really that great of thing? ... What does privacy really give you?
There's nothing in my home that needs to be private. My privacy gives me nothing tangible.
Some of your rhetorical questions just made me think about warrantless searches, I know you certainly weren't heading that way.
By what logic can can I keep my home private, if my telephone conversation or emails can be read by others?
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
For one, the ability to violently overthrow a despotic government, which many people (myself included) feel is an essential reason for the second amendment.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or the ability to organise terrorist attacks on large cities. You pays your money and takes your choice.
It is worth pointing out that the damage a small group could do was very limited, back in 1776, what with gunpowder being the best available explosive, and horses the fastest means of transportation. It would take a fairly wide-spread conspiracy to do any real damage to a government.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I can't tell if you think I'm advocating that argument or not. Those questions were taken from Dark Knight's post. I hold the view that the more individual privacy the better (to a reasonable point of course).
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bao, Your emails can most certainly be read by others right now. Whatever service you use for email can look at all your emails at this moment. There is no privacy at all using emails no matter what you are doing. Telephones are a little harder to overhear unless you are using a cell phone in which case anyone near you can listen in for a time before it hops frequencies, then they have to search a bit and find you again. A record of all calls you are making are kept by the phone company though. So in both cases you do not have privacy right now nor did you ever have privacy. My overall point is that we really don't have any privacy right now. Every purchase, every call, every email, every posting is kept by someone somewhere. Dishonest people have access to all that information right now. I am not saying that we should not just throw out all privacy laws in any way shape or form. We do need them for the reason Pooka said - to catch and punish people who use our information against us for illegal purposes. Jim-Me, privacy does not give you that. I am definitely in favor for a lot less gun control but I do know a record of every gun I purchase is kept by someone somewhere, people like a credit card company, or even the store itself. It is not privacy that gives you the ability to overthrow a despotic government.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Medical records - discrimination against people with certain diseases or conditions. Companies that won't hire someone with high blood pressure, fo example, because he might not live as long as smoeone without.
Personal relationships - do we really want our friends knowing everything that we say? Or our spouse. Huge possibilities for misunderstandings - things heard without full understanding or context.
Marketing - this is bad enough when we invite it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand that all those things are happening right now Dark Knight. I'm just not so sure that it's a good thing.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
How would you define privacy? For instance, consider someone who's been institutionalized. They're observed 24/7 by someone. But the records are confidential. There are specific limits on how far the information extends. Does that person have privacy?
Similarly, in our future society that's been super-saturated with CCDs and hidden mics, everyone will be recorded. But that doesn't mean that everyone, or anyone, will ever be seen. The greatest problem facing modern surveillance systems is how to find needles of information in haystacks of data. Having more recording devices does not necessarily mean less privacy generally, although it might mean less privacy specifically, if that makes sense.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Your emails can most certainly be read by others right now. Whatever service you use for email can look at all your emails at this moment. There is no privacy at all using emails no matter what you are doing.
This is exactly what I meant by general versus specific privacy. Does "privacy" imply that no one can read my email, or that the government can't read my email, or that no one can read everyone's email? The first case is what DK defines as privacy, but that's a pretty high bar. I'd say that I still have a high degree of privacy, even in the last case. I might even go so far as to assert that the continuing decentralization of our society gives us more privacy rather than less.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's hard enough to do to begin with, without some kind of privacy, it's probably impossible. It's not just possession of weapons-- these things require command, control and coordination.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess why it bothers me so much is that I consider privacy to be the 'default' state. One of those things that is a natural right. Kind of like right to speak what I wish. There's a few limited cases where the right to speak freely is taken away (such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre) but those cases have to be well-justified.
Privacy is similar. Anything that compromises it should be extremely well-justified. I view listening in on other's emails and phone conversations similar to trespassing (private parties) or warrantless searching (government).
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I’m sorry to bring religion into this… I ask for the theists out there (i.e. here) that believe in some kind of deity “that sees all and knows all” (and who will judge and punish people accordingly at a certain future moment). How do you feel about your privacy? If my understanding is correct and such beliefs exist, then they imply ZERO PRIVACY. Does that stop you from doing/saying/thinking “bad things”?
What I’m trying to say with this is that I think there are (a whole lot of) people who have such beliefs (even if they don’t frequent this forum). And yet look at the state of the World today. Would KarlEd’s fictional situation change/solve anything? I don’t think so. For some being punished “now and here” is less frightening/important than being punished “then and there” by the only significant power there is (for them). [Meaning: Religious fundamentalist will continue to plot their "jihad" even if it gets harder to succeed. They will continue to gladly die for their "greater cause" --> loosing "more privacy" won't guarantee "more security"]
A.
PS: Yet, I'm still not sure if "privacy" isn't overated anyway.
Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It occurs to me that we're already losing a lot of privacy purely through proximity to each other. The sheer number of people surrounding us has increased to the point that I know it affects my behavior. When I'm riding the bus, for example, I get out something to read, and generally ignore the other passengers. People speaking loudly annoy me for no other reason than I'm forced to be aware of them. I notice many other bus-riders behaving the same way when I look up to check the stops.
It says something to me about how much we actually value privacy that when we make a decision that will compromise our privacy, we go to lengths to at least maintain the illusion of it.
But is the appearance all that matters? I don't know.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a very important distinction here that I think is being overlooked.
I don't know about anyone else, but what bothers me about the Domestic Spying program isn't that it is happening, but that the Bush Administration was not being entirely honest about it happening. And if the NSA had asked Congress for permission to monitor telephone calls, I'm sure they would have gotten it, and there wouldn't be any problem.
(There may have been problems from a legal standpoint, since our justice system does not give sanctions for acts that have not occured yet. That's a different question though.)
Privacy and transparency go both ways. I have no problems with potential employers, banks, insurance companies, etc. being able to see my supposedly private credit history. Why not? Because they are upfront about what they are looking for and why they are looking for it.
Democracy can not exist without near-total transparency. If we aren't allowed to know everything our elected officials are doing, we have no basis by which to judge them, and if we have no basis by which to judge them, we have no freedom to choose them. To me, there is no balance between secrecy and security. If your security depends on secrecy, you have no security, and you do not live in a free society.
Anyone can spy on me as much as they want, as long as I know about it. Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
How would you define privacy? For instance, consider someone who's been institutionalized. They're observed 24/7 by someone. But the records are confidential. There are specific limits on how far the information extends. Does that person have privacy?
I'd say they have a degree of privacy, yes. And that's all anyone really has. No one has absolutely privacy and no one has a complete lack of it (isofar as your thoughts are still unreadable).
quote:Similarly, in our future society that's been super-saturated with CCDs and hidden mics, everyone will be recorded. But that doesn't mean that everyone, or anyone, will ever be seen. The greatest problem facing modern surveillance systems is how to find needles of information in haystacks of data. Having more recording devices does not necessarily mean less privacy generally, although it might mean less privacy specifically, if that makes sense.
It makes sense. However, I would be uncomfortable relying solely on privacy due to "needle in a haystack" type protection. I would demand at the very least some major oversight and severe punishment of those found abusing such information.
On the other hand, I think I'd be OK with a bare minimum of privacy as long as it was equal across the board.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are two good short stories that explore in detail your fictional scenario, Karl. The first is "I See You" by Damon Knight (excerpt below). It's very well thought out (a Hugo nominee), and the society that evolves after the device is invented manages to soldier on (uh, well, I think war becomes obsolete) , but my point is that people are adaptable.
Even today, there there are microsocieties where privacy is vanishingly small (the military, prisons, prep school, hospitals, nursing homes, etc.) and people in these groups manage. Plenty of them hate the lack of privacy, but most cope. And there are societies where privacy is not as prized as it is in modern Western societies, where your whole life, pretty much, is lived in the public square.
I can't remember the title or author of the second story (I think it was in one of Gardner Dozois' excellent Best of the Year anthologies), but it has a similar plot: a device is invented that allows real-time monitoring of almost any event. The main difference, IIRC, is that the past and future capabilities of Knight's device are not part of the second story. The most memorable scene to me was when a middle-aged man finds young teenagers making love in parks in broad daylight. What's the point in hiding from their parents, or anyone else? Plus, the kids adapt quicker to the new rules than older folks, as they always do.
quote:"I See You" by Damon Knight eBook Category: Science Fiction Hugo Award Nominee You Pay: $0.69 Description: A machine is invented that can view any person, place, or thing at any time in the past or present anywhere in the universe. The implications for politics, personal privacy, crime and punishment, space exploration, and historical research are mind-boggling and brilliantly explored in this short story.
EXCERPT: A high-ranking officer in Army Intelligence, watching the first demonstration of the Ozo in the Pentagon, exclaimed, "My God, with this we could dismantle half the establishment--all we've got to do is launch interceptors when we see them push the button."
"It's a good thing Senator Burkhart can't hear you say that," said another officer. But by the next afternoon everybody had heard it.
A Baptist minister in Louisville led the first mob against an Ozo assembly plant. A month later, while civil and criminal suits against all the rioters were still pending, tapes showing each one of them in compromising or ludicrous activities were widely distributed in the area.
posted
Your second book might be The Light of Other Days by Arthur C Clarke. It has a very similar plot, at least.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Sawyer's Neaderthal Parallax trilogy, the neanderthals that inhabit a parallel universe to our own live in an idyllic near-utopia. Part of the advantages of their society comes from the implant each individual wears, which collects and records sound and visual information at all times. These records are gathered in a central repository and available for purposes of proof in, e.g., criminal proceedings. In essence, nobody has any privacy, and nobody cares; in fact, they are all extremely grateful for the implants.
The books are of somewhat spotty quality, and they wear their extreme left-wing politics on their sleeve (in my opinion), but the idea that our insistence on privacy puts us at a disadvantage and gives us no great benefits is an interesting one.
Posts: 202 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Weird how the brain works. I read the first volume in Sawyer's trilogy only months ago, yet my mind wandered to a story I read many years ago. . . Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:but the writing is immensely funny (to me) and Stephenson's way with words is delightful.
This is one of the reasons I love Stephenson's books so much. I mean, besides the fact that he's a huge geek and manages to cover most of my interests in the subject matter for his books. I laugh out loud more often reading his books than almost anything else.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eduardo St. Elmo: Unless the system taps directly into your brain, there will always be some form of privacy.
Define privacy. If you are unable to have your OWN thoughts, then none of the thoughts you DO have will be private. Orwell, Plato, Aristotle, etc. What is privacy really?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
you want me to define privacy? Heck, man that's not an easy assignment. Perhaps it is only the ability to keep secrets. I mean to say, knowing that everybody around you knows only what you want them to know regarding certain subjects (most likely yourself). That's the best I can do at this point.
With the second part of your message, do you mean the ability to form original thoughts? If so, every human being has this ability, it's called fantasy. I readily admit that the ability varies from person to person, but nobody is totally devoid of fantasies.
Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I readily admit that the ability varies from person to person, but nobody is totally devoid of fantasies.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but I disagree that "fantasy" equals "original thought". In my experience, most fantasy is very far from original. If you doubt me, check any shelf in a Barnes & Noble or the Adult section of your nearest video outlet. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was watching "Enemy of the State" yesterday. It's almost like the government allows to leak what people already believe, just so they feel like someone is doing something about the big brother state. That movie is like 7 years old.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
).
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
What's the point in hiding from their parents, or anyone else? Plus, the kids adapt quicker to the new rules than older folks, as they always do.![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
