7 ms·

The future is a future where no semblance of privacy exists. In the year 3000: "Truth about the ugliness of the human race will finally be revealed when every

by x5n1 11y ago

The future is a future where no semblance of privacy exists. In the year 3000: "Truth about the ugliness of the human race will finally be revealed when every single detail about anyone's life is public knowledge available to all."

blowski 11y ago
The opposite of Gyges's ring. If every fact of everybody's lives, everything you ever thought was public - would you behave more ethically? It's sort of like a panopticon where everybody guards everybody else.
balabaster 11y ago
and only at this point will everyone realize we're all hypocrites, liars and cheats that will all do whatever we can get away with when we need to or it serves our purpose. We'll all have to acknowledge that life isn't as black and white as we like to pretend but is almost entirely some blurry shade of grey that only resembles our own specific set of beliefs in the most narrow of circumstances... and that any and all human behaviour is totally normal and would most likely be considered completely fucked up when applied through your own set of ideals. We're all capable of fucking up, making shitty decisions, painting ourselves into corners, getting depressed, thinking emotionally instead of objectively/logically. That is the peril of the human condition. I don't think it's fair for any one of us to pass judgment on others actions except when it comes to the physical safety of the community. So what, one group of people holds marital fidelity dear and think that any action that compromises this view is worthy of exposé. Another group doesn't believe in monogamy or lies about it... largely because to disagree with it ostracizes you from the community - makes you an outsider. Forget innocent parties that are hurt by this - collateral damage, a necessary evil to expose the cheaters. Can you even hear yourselves? Who cares? People lie, cheat and steal all the time. Politicians do it, spies do it, FBI, CIA, NSA, the police, hell, even Presidents do it if it serves their objective. Think about that. When are we going to wake up and realize that this is normal human behaviour - regardless of whether you're happy about that or accept it or not, this is the case. I agree with those who say leave this behind closed doors. If marriages fall to pieces because of this, that is between them. But to publically name and shame people because their [non-criminal and not-concerning-you] actions don't jive with your morals [Perhaps politicians would be an exception to my perspective on this] is inexcusable. Not many are going to die because someone cheats on their spouse - even if they're caught. But leaking a database of this nature has real repercussions that could cause people death or persecution for something that should only between them and their partner and was none of anyone else's business.
- throwawayaway 11y ago
  You can't generalise like that. It's a mistake to tar everybody with the same brush in supporting the erosion of privacy. Some people, rightly, hold themselves and others to higher standards. Because they do so, does not necessarily mean they support outing cheaters. > any and all human behaviour is totally normal Categorically not. Lines are drawn and accepted socially. People even abide by the rules.
  - balabaster 11y ago
    I have issue with much of what you've said: "...in supporting the erosion of privacy..." I wasn't tarring everyone with this brush. I don't support the erosion of privacy, so it would be hypocritical of me to tar anyone with this brush, let alone everyone. Much of my family for instance believes in the "I've got nothing to hide, so I have nothing to fear" argument, but my perspective is "neither did the Jews before Hitler". > Some people, rightly, hold themselves and others to higher standards. You cannot control the actions of everyone else, only yourself. Others will do what inspires them. What inspires them may or may not align with what inspires you. When it doesn't, expecting them to abide by the rules you hold dear is only setting yourself up for disappointment. > People even abide by the rules Yes, when it serves their purpose. When it doesn't, they either break the rules publicly, demonstrate to get the rules changed or break them privately to avoid judgment or being ostracized by partners, family, their community and hope like hell they don't get caught. Lines are drawn regarding all kinds of things. Let's take just for the argument's sake, speeding, or smoking marijuana, never downloading music or movies illegally - things that we can all agree, there are rules about, rules that (currently) define these activities as prohibited in many jurisdictions. Even though there are rules, and many people may argue they're dumb rules about benign activities, there are still rules. Many break the rules publicly, voicing their defiance; many others break them privately and hope they don't get caught. I'd say given your stance you never break any rules - even rules you consider dumb or counter to your own set of beliefs or don't align with your interests; you always abide by the rules and you always fall in line with the wishes of your neighbour. Of course you don't, nobody does. It's human nature to question the rules and to find loopholes, and to bend them and/or break them when they don't align with our interests. These rules, which are defined for the good of the masses, to maintain the status quo. But what happens when what's good for the masses doesn't align with what's good for you? Do you put everyone else first or do you put yourself first? You put yourself first, you hope like hell you don't get caught or called out; or you hope if you do get caught you get away with a slap on the wrist or that a reasonably competent lawyer could fight your case in court and help you avoid the charges. For me to believe that you strictly abide by all the rules, without questioning human nature, and without understanding your set of circumstances, would be incredibly naive. There are many reasons people break the law, it's not always cut and dry nor black and white. Most of the time it's incredibly grey - to the point that billions of dollars every year are spent on lawyers to argue to put people in jail or keep people out of jail based on legal technicalities, loop holes and precedence set by previous circumstances; because nothing is black and white. If it were then anyone could go to court and defend themselves and no more lawyers would be required. Some of those revered as the greatest people on earth shunned the rules to invoke great change. Some canonized as saints after the fact, but in their time considered rebels, misfits and, in some cases, criminals: Rosa Parks, Bob Dylan, Mahatma Ghandi, Einstein, Martin Luther King Jr., John Lennon, the lone protester at Tiananmen Square, Nelson Mandela, heck, even Jesus Christ - the son of man, shunned the rules and defied the status quo because of their beliefs - and many believe their rule breaking changed the world for the better.
kbenson 11y ago
I don't think so, I think it's just a matter of us learning where our prior ideas of privacy and what should and can be expected are meeting with the new reality. We can not legislate away capabilities that are fundamentally the same as what's existed previously, but have a greater effect because of the digital age, and expect those to hold[1]. Additionally, I increasingly think our interpretation of privacy has been too colored by the recent past (recent in this case being the last couple hundred years). Public privacy is largely a byproduct of increasing urbanization and the anonymity that large crowds provided. In rural areas where someone was around to witness your actions, anyone and everyone might know of it in short order. I think we will eventually settle on new norms of privacy, where some laws are strengthened, and some are weakened, people are aware of what steps they need to take to be reasonably private in the different areas of their life, and we'll settle into a more normal level of government privacy breaches (they have always existed) than the occurrences we are seeing now (which I believe it a result of our laws and expectations no longer adequately mapping to reality). 1: For example, if a government can legally place a person at a location to observe, I believe any actions to prevent their capability to automate this process (CCTV) will likely fail in outcome, if not legislation.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  You won't need CCTV. Many already carry around always-connected surveillance devices. Those devices will only grow in number and their capabilities increase.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    Yes, but I was using CCTV to illustrate and conceptually link an already existing privacy debate that's been going on for quite a while.
    - throwawayaway 11y ago
      > We can not legislate away capabilities that are fundamentally the same as what's existed previously, but have a greater effect because of the digital age, and expect those to hold[1]. If you think about genetic predispositions to certain illnesses, and technologically enabled screening for that after conception as a precursor abortion, then you can see how people will disagree with your statement here. The same principal applies to digital technology, just because people are able to do certain things, does not mean that the law will ultimately allow it.
bas 11y ago
1998 is calling: http://www.davidbrin.com/transparentsociety.html http://www.davidbrin.com/transparentsociety.html Also, from 1999, "You have zero privacy anyway, ... Get over it." (Scott McNealy - http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/01/17538 http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/01/17538)
- david-given 11y ago
  As a counterargument, I can strongly recommend reading Peter Watts' talk on The Scorched Earth Society: http://www.rifters.com/real/shorts/TheScorchedEarthSociety-transcript.pdf http://www.rifters.com/real/shorts/TheScorchedEarthSociety-t... (Sorry, PDF.) (Also, for the record, I agree with neither Watts nor Brin.)
unabst 11y ago
This sounds more like 2020. By the year 3000 there is a great chance we'll all have gotten over our fear, our conflict with government, and ourselves. Who wants to know? This is a question easily overlooked, but is crucial to observation (aka surveillance). Observation is done by an observer and done with intent. Without intent, we stop looking. I for one don't want to know or care for petty details about my neighbors. I want safety without the chore of maintaining knowledge. This might be too much to ask by 2020, but by 3000 we should have it figured out (granted we'll still here).
- shitsandwich 11y ago
  my bet humanity has another 25 years max
- bharath28 11y ago
  Interesting thought: "By the year 3000 there is a great chance we'll all have gotten over our fear, our conflict with government, and ourselves." By gotten over, did you mean we'll have given in to the fact that there will be an observer (albeit a benevolent one?) or that we'll have stopped caring about the intent of the observer?
  - unabst 11y ago
    Honestly, we may not even have a word for what we call privacy now. Or at least that would be a future I'd strive for. Our business is our business, and we love to mind our own business already. The government has played the fear card to get all this surveillance going, and now fear of surveillance (and government) is what has the resistance going. To have fear be the primary driver of our common intentions is barbaric, and humanity is still barbaric at the grandest scale. But by 3000, hopefully we'll have gotten over all of our fears. And if all Earthlings are just one tight-knit family, then surveillance of any kind would be just creepy.
- mjcohen 11y ago
  By 3000, I doubt that anything resembling modern society will exist. Look at life in the 1800s or 1700s to see what things will be like, if we are lucky.
Tloewald 11y ago
Once privacy disappears we can actually base our morality on data rather than wishful thinking. It's the transition period (i.e. now) where we have pretty arbitrary morals largely based on ancient religious texts, etc. and we're finally getting actual data on what people actually do that is the nasty part. E.g. we know that rich people have always obtained abortions, used illegal drugs, and had promiscuous sex, but public morality and social mores were constructed entirely on the fiction that this was the exception and not the rule.
- bduerst 11y ago
  Many of our arbitrary morals, even religiously influenced ones, are based on tribal culture and human biology. For example, chastising monogamous cheaters is one way to reduce jealousy and oxytocin-induced stress in a community. Following your example, anti-abortionists may see themselves as championing undefended members of society. Even in lieu of a privacy-free utopia where we fully analyze our motivations, I think we'll still have biological and tribal inclinations influencing our societal morals. (Unless this hypothetical utopia is so far in the future we've biologically evolved.)
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  I'm an atheist and have an expansive view of morality, but I still value my privacy, not least because it provides me with a small asymmetrical information advantage against institutions with which I would otherwise be unable to compete. I don't think it's the case that if we were all to wake up naked (figuratively speaking) that hypocrisy would disappear and there would be a major adjustment in our social technology. Take this AM hack; one of te first public casualties was a somewhat famous religious conservative, who had previously been in the news for committing multiple acts of incest/child molestation as a youth (the statute of limitations on which has long since expired). Despite abundant evidence of moral malfeasance and a blunt self-assessment as 'the biggest hypocrite ever', the guys followers are still lining up to defend his fundamental righteousness and condemn his detractors as being on an inferior moral plane. This is irrational, but people place a high value on their illusions and will expend real resources to perpetuate them.
  - 11y ago
wwweston 11y ago
"God looks down from heaven on the children of man to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all fallen away; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one." Psalm 53 The truth about humans has been pretty apparent for about as long as humans have been reflecting on it: we sometimes have high ideals and dreams, and at our best the capacity to even temporarily embody them. But very few people (if anyone) are consistently good, it would seem everybody does something ugly eventually.
task_queue 11y ago
Privacy for you and me, maybe. Do you think if you have any kind of real power you will be subject to that scrutiny?

by x5n1 11y ago

blowski 11y ago

The opposite of Gyges's ring. If every fact of everybody's lives, everything you ever thought was public - would you behave more ethically? It's sort of like a panopticon where everybody guards everybody else.

balabaster 11y ago

and only at this point will everyone realize we're all hypocrites, liars and cheats that will all do whatever we can get away with when we need to or it serves our purpose. We'll all have to acknowledge that life isn't as black and white as we like to pretend but is almost entirely some blurry shade of grey that only resembles our own specific set of beliefs in the most narrow of circumstances... and that any and all human behaviour is totally normal and would most likely be considered completely fucked up when applied through your own set of ideals. We're all capable of fucking up, making shitty decisions, painting ourselves into corners, getting depressed, thinking emotionally instead of objectively/logically. That is the peril of the human condition. I don't think it's fair for any one of us to pass judgment on others actions except when it comes to the physical safety of the community. So what, one group of people holds marital fidelity dear and think that any action that compromises this view is worthy of exposé. Another group doesn't believe in monogamy or lies about it... largely because to disagree with it ostracizes you from the community - makes you an outsider. Forget innocent parties that are hurt by this - collateral damage, a necessary evil to expose the cheaters. Can you even hear yourselves? Who cares? People lie, cheat and steal all the time. Politicians do it, spies do it, FBI, CIA, NSA, the police, hell, even Presidents do it if it serves their objective. Think about that. When are we going to wake up and realize that this is normal human behaviour - regardless of whether you're happy about that or accept it or not, this is the case. I agree with those who say leave this behind closed doors. If marriages fall to pieces because of this, that is between them. But to publically name and shame people because their [non-criminal and not-concerning-you] actions don't jive with your morals [Perhaps politicians would be an exception to my perspective on this] is inexcusable. Not many are going to die because someone cheats on their spouse - even if they're caught. But leaking a database of this nature has real repercussions that could cause people death or persecution for something that should only between them and their partner and was none of anyone else's business.

throwawayaway 11y ago
You can't generalise like that. It's a mistake to tar everybody with the same brush in supporting the erosion of privacy. Some people, rightly, hold themselves and others to higher standards. Because they do so, does not necessarily mean they support outing cheaters. > any and all human behaviour is totally normal Categorically not. Lines are drawn and accepted socially. People even abide by the rules.
- balabaster 11y ago
  I have issue with much of what you've said: "...in supporting the erosion of privacy..." I wasn't tarring everyone with this brush. I don't support the erosion of privacy, so it would be hypocritical of me to tar anyone with this brush, let alone everyone. Much of my family for instance believes in the "I've got nothing to hide, so I have nothing to fear" argument, but my perspective is "neither did the Jews before Hitler". > Some people, rightly, hold themselves and others to higher standards. You cannot control the actions of everyone else, only yourself. Others will do what inspires them. What inspires them may or may not align with what inspires you. When it doesn't, expecting them to abide by the rules you hold dear is only setting yourself up for disappointment. > People even abide by the rules Yes, when it serves their purpose. When it doesn't, they either break the rules publicly, demonstrate to get the rules changed or break them privately to avoid judgment or being ostracized by partners, family, their community and hope like hell they don't get caught. Lines are drawn regarding all kinds of things. Let's take just for the argument's sake, speeding, or smoking marijuana, never downloading music or movies illegally - things that we can all agree, there are rules about, rules that (currently) define these activities as prohibited in many jurisdictions. Even though there are rules, and many people may argue they're dumb rules about benign activities, there are still rules. Many break the rules publicly, voicing their defiance; many others break them privately and hope they don't get caught. I'd say given your stance you never break any rules - even rules you consider dumb or counter to your own set of beliefs or don't align with your interests; you always abide by the rules and you always fall in line with the wishes of your neighbour. Of course you don't, nobody does. It's human nature to question the rules and to find loopholes, and to bend them and/or break them when they don't align with our interests. These rules, which are defined for the good of the masses, to maintain the status quo. But what happens when what's good for the masses doesn't align with what's good for you? Do you put everyone else first or do you put yourself first? You put yourself first, you hope like hell you don't get caught or called out; or you hope if you do get caught you get away with a slap on the wrist or that a reasonably competent lawyer could fight your case in court and help you avoid the charges. For me to believe that you strictly abide by all the rules, without questioning human nature, and without understanding your set of circumstances, would be incredibly naive. There are many reasons people break the law, it's not always cut and dry nor black and white. Most of the time it's incredibly grey - to the point that billions of dollars every year are spent on lawyers to argue to put people in jail or keep people out of jail based on legal technicalities, loop holes and precedence set by previous circumstances; because nothing is black and white. If it were then anyone could go to court and defend themselves and no more lawyers would be required. Some of those revered as the greatest people on earth shunned the rules to invoke great change. Some canonized as saints after the fact, but in their time considered rebels, misfits and, in some cases, criminals: Rosa Parks, Bob Dylan, Mahatma Ghandi, Einstein, Martin Luther King Jr., John Lennon, the lone protester at Tiananmen Square, Nelson Mandela, heck, even Jesus Christ - the son of man, shunned the rules and defied the status quo because of their beliefs - and many believe their rule breaking changed the world for the better.

kbenson 11y ago

I don't think so, I think it's just a matter of us learning where our prior ideas of privacy and what should and can be expected are meeting with the new reality. We can not legislate away capabilities that are fundamentally the same as what's existed previously, but have a greater effect because of the digital age, and expect those to hold[1]. Additionally, I increasingly think our interpretation of privacy has been too colored by the recent past (recent in this case being the last couple hundred years). Public privacy is largely a byproduct of increasing urbanization and the anonymity that large crowds provided. In rural areas where someone was around to witness your actions, anyone and everyone might know of it in short order. I think we will eventually settle on new norms of privacy, where some laws are strengthened, and some are weakened, people are aware of what steps they need to take to be reasonably private in the different areas of their life, and we'll settle into a more normal level of government privacy breaches (they have always existed) than the occurrences we are seeing now (which I believe it a result of our laws and expectations no longer adequately mapping to reality). 1: For example, if a government can legally place a person at a location to observe, I believe any actions to prevent their capability to automate this process (CCTV) will likely fail in outcome, if not legislation.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
You won't need CCTV. Many already carry around always-connected surveillance devices. Those devices will only grow in number and their capabilities increase.
- kbenson 11y ago
  Yes, but I was using CCTV to illustrate and conceptually link an already existing privacy debate that's been going on for quite a while.
  - throwawayaway 11y ago
    > We can not legislate away capabilities that are fundamentally the same as what's existed previously, but have a greater effect because of the digital age, and expect those to hold[1]. If you think about genetic predispositions to certain illnesses, and technologically enabled screening for that after conception as a precursor abortion, then you can see how people will disagree with your statement here. The same principal applies to digital technology, just because people are able to do certain things, does not mean that the law will ultimately allow it.

bas 11y ago

1998 is calling: http://www.davidbrin.com/transparentsociety.html http://www.davidbrin.com/transparentsociety.html Also, from 1999, "You have zero privacy anyway, ... Get over it." (Scott McNealy - http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/01/17538 http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/01/17538)

david-given 11y ago
As a counterargument, I can strongly recommend reading Peter Watts' talk on The Scorched Earth Society: http://www.rifters.com/real/shorts/TheScorchedEarthSociety-transcript.pdf http://www.rifters.com/real/shorts/TheScorchedEarthSociety-t... (Sorry, PDF.) (Also, for the record, I agree with neither Watts nor Brin.)

unabst 11y ago

This sounds more like 2020. By the year 3000 there is a great chance we'll all have gotten over our fear, our conflict with government, and ourselves. Who wants to know? This is a question easily overlooked, but is crucial to observation (aka surveillance). Observation is done by an observer and done with intent. Without intent, we stop looking. I for one don't want to know or care for petty details about my neighbors. I want safety without the chore of maintaining knowledge. This might be too much to ask by 2020, but by 3000 we should have it figured out (granted we'll still here).

shitsandwich 11y ago
my bet humanity has another 25 years max
bharath28 11y ago
Interesting thought: "By the year 3000 there is a great chance we'll all have gotten over our fear, our conflict with government, and ourselves." By gotten over, did you mean we'll have given in to the fact that there will be an observer (albeit a benevolent one?) or that we'll have stopped caring about the intent of the observer?
- unabst 11y ago
  Honestly, we may not even have a word for what we call privacy now. Or at least that would be a future I'd strive for. Our business is our business, and we love to mind our own business already. The government has played the fear card to get all this surveillance going, and now fear of surveillance (and government) is what has the resistance going. To have fear be the primary driver of our common intentions is barbaric, and humanity is still barbaric at the grandest scale. But by 3000, hopefully we'll have gotten over all of our fears. And if all Earthlings are just one tight-knit family, then surveillance of any kind would be just creepy.
mjcohen 11y ago
By 3000, I doubt that anything resembling modern society will exist. Look at life in the 1800s or 1700s to see what things will be like, if we are lucky.

Tloewald 11y ago

Once privacy disappears we can actually base our morality on data rather than wishful thinking. It's the transition period (i.e. now) where we have pretty arbitrary morals largely based on ancient religious texts, etc. and we're finally getting actual data on what people actually do that is the nasty part. E.g. we know that rich people have always obtained abortions, used illegal drugs, and had promiscuous sex, but public morality and social mores were constructed entirely on the fiction that this was the exception and not the rule.

bduerst 11y ago
Many of our arbitrary morals, even religiously influenced ones, are based on tribal culture and human biology. For example, chastising monogamous cheaters is one way to reduce jealousy and oxytocin-induced stress in a community. Following your example, anti-abortionists may see themselves as championing undefended members of society. Even in lieu of a privacy-free utopia where we fully analyze our motivations, I think we'll still have biological and tribal inclinations influencing our societal morals. (Unless this hypothetical utopia is so far in the future we've biologically evolved.)
anigbrowl 11y ago
I'm an atheist and have an expansive view of morality, but I still value my privacy, not least because it provides me with a small asymmetrical information advantage against institutions with which I would otherwise be unable to compete. I don't think it's the case that if we were all to wake up naked (figuratively speaking) that hypocrisy would disappear and there would be a major adjustment in our social technology. Take this AM hack; one of te first public casualties was a somewhat famous religious conservative, who had previously been in the news for committing multiple acts of incest/child molestation as a youth (the statute of limitations on which has long since expired). Despite abundant evidence of moral malfeasance and a blunt self-assessment as 'the biggest hypocrite ever', the guys followers are still lining up to defend his fundamental righteousness and condemn his detractors as being on an inferior moral plane. This is irrational, but people place a high value on their illusions and will expend real resources to perpetuate them.
- 11y ago

wwweston 11y ago

"God looks down from heaven on the children of man to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all fallen away; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one." Psalm 53 The truth about humans has been pretty apparent for about as long as humans have been reflecting on it: we sometimes have high ideals and dreams, and at our best the capacity to even temporarily embody them. But very few people (if anyone) are consistently good, it would seem everybody does something ugly eventually.

task_queue 11y ago

Privacy for you and me, maybe. Do you think if you have any kind of real power you will be subject to that scrutiny?