3 ms·
These types of stories bring to David Brin's approach to privacy: http://www.davidbrin.com/transparency.html http://www.davidbrin.com/transparency.html Brin's
by loudmax 9y ago
These types of stories bring to David Brin's approach to privacy:
http://www.davidbrin.com/transparency.html http://www.davidbrin.com/transparency.html
Brin's argument is that as the technology to record everything becomes so cheap that the cost is trivial, trying to enforce privacy and anonymity in a sea of cameras is a losing battle. We're better off as a society if we allow the recording and de-anonymization of public spaces, but we should also make this information free to anyone. In return for the loss privacy in public spaces, we should demand that the wealthy and powerful give up some of their privacy as well. Obviously, the wealthy and powerful will fight to keep their privacy, but as recording devices become ubiquitous the landscape favors those pushing to set information free rather than those trying to secure it.
To relate it to the story here, rather than fighting the anonymity of private citizens who commit minor trespasses like jaywalking, we should be focusing on uncovering trespasses committed by those in power. Say, the financial dealings of Xi Jinping or Donald Trump.
- verroq 9y agoThe flaw I feel is that the entire idea of being part of the elite is that you are above the law. We already have courts and laws, however being rich and well connected offers a degree of immunity.
- trevos 9y agoCompletely disagree. Instead, we make it illegal to record people in public spaces without warning and consent. Make it a criminal offence with strong penalties, especially for the publication of people-identifying records. It should be illegal to set up a camera on one's fence along a highway and publish the license plates and times of cars passing by.
- ghaff 9y agoWhether or not it's a good thing given the advent of ubiquitous facial recognition software, that's never ever going to happen. You're basically arguing for photography being banned in public spaces. The fact that would almost certainly be unconstitutional in the US is probably the least of the barriers to implementing such a law.
- accountyaccount 9y agoI think this is nearing pure impossibility. How could you even begin to enforce it?
- CaptSpify 9y agoAs an extremely privacy-supporting individual, I can kind of see where he's coming from, however: I don't think it would work if we didn't apply it to everyone equally. I don't care what your job is, or how many "state secrets" it deals with, no exceptions. I also think it would bring ~10 years of extreme societal collapse as we would realize that most of our social norms make no sense, and those things that we demonize are actually quite common. You might also be interested in: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/this-man-has-nothing-to-hide/379041/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/this-ma...
- steveeq1 9y ago> I also think it would bring ~10 years of extreme societal collapse as we would realize that most of our social norms make no sense, and those things that we demonize are actually quite common. Like racism?
- CaptSpify 9y agoSure. I would guess that racism is indeed probably more common than most people realize. But don't get me wrong: Just because something is common, doesn't mean we should move to just accepting it. I think it would actually highlight how subtly and unconsciously racist many people are, which would help us solve that problem. I was thinking of things more like: functional drug users, sexual-practices, etc.
- steveeq1 9y ago> I think it would actually highlight how subtly and unconsciously racist many people are, which would help us solve that problem. One can make the same argument about height-ism, ugly-ism, or money-ism.
- zo1 9y agoNo, we only want to include the discrimination that we don't like. Attractive, tall and rich people are not a protected class of citizens!