[extropy-chat] Many eyes

[Dan Clemmensen]

MB wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, John Calvin wrote:
>  
>
>><quote>
>>I have to hide anything that the powers that be decide to make a
>>crime that real should never have been one.  I have to be able to
>>hide as long as some people wish to legally run everyone else's
>>life.
>></quote>
>>
>>I agree with Samantha on this point.  I for one am not opposed to a
>>Transparent Society, I just don't happen to believe that our society
>>is quite ready to be transparent.
>>    
>>
>
>[...]
>
>I agree here also. And who is to know when some different group will
>decide to outlaw something that *was* legal - and make it retroactive?
>
>Who is watching the watchers?
>
>I am not ready to live in a fishbowl. Yet I work in a place where
>everything is videorecorded.
>
>What recourse would we have when our private lives are made public for
>public entertainment or ridicule or legal action? None?
>
>Some folks don't have enough to do.
>
>  
>
I think we have argued this point ad nauseum in years past.

Brin's "Transparent society" argues that we cannot put the toothpaste
back in the tube: existing technological trends will inevitably permit
constant monitoring of everybody. Brin argues that the only feasible
response is to explicitly enable anybody to monitor anybody else: If the 
cops can
monitor you, then you can monitor the cops. They can monitor you at home or
at work: You can monitor them at home or at work.

Brin does not argue that universal monitoring is "good." He argues that it
is inevitable, and then tries to determine the best ways to deal with the
technology.

Personally, I am neutral on privacy: I prefer to maintain my own 
privacy, but
I understand that I will not be able to do so in the future. I accept 
Brin's solution:
If I must forgo privacy, then so must everybody else, including all 
government officials,
church officials, and other arbiters of "moral behavior."

Please do not waste my time with arguments that transparency is "wrong."
Transparency is inevitable. You may as well argue against the laws of 
physics.