Radical transparency is far worse than the current situation. You don't have an exa-scale storage array, and google does. Which one of you is at an advantage i

Radical transparency is far worse than the current situation. You don't have an exa-scale storage array, and google does. Which one of you is at an advantage if everyone has to share data with everyone else? Radical transparency is nothing short of digital feudalism, it puts all power in the hands of those that own the storage and processing. Let me now address your needlessly dystopian post one point at a time: 1. how do you make sure that no one is amassing reams of private information? You license and audit large storage arrays. Peta-scale and above will do as a start. You can detect those remotely from their power draw alone, so they shouldn't be hard to find if you're not phoning in the job. They'll show up on power grid stats more or less the same way large weed grow ops do, and we already hunt those down in most western countries. 2. The worst case scenario is that while corporations and criminal organizations continue to discretely gather private data, the rich and powerful will be able to afford the cost of privacy but the rest of us won't have a grasp on who knows what about us. Indeed, so why would we deliberately make that a reality? Taking action on data requires storage and processing capacity sufficient to process that data, which no one other than the rich and powerful has. Additionally, transparency laws are only going to reach the edge of your borders, so anything confidential that can be offshored will be offshored to bypass your laws, but only by those that can afford it. 3. For example, what happens inside of one's bedroom is private, but what happens outside of one's front door is public. This information wouldn't be available only to the powerful or well-connected, it should be available to everyone. In particular, society should keep a close eye on the richest and most powerful people. But in reality, no one except the rich and powerful has space to store footage of everyones front doors, so boots-on-the-ground journalism against the richest and most powerful people will remain exactly what it is: detect/predict first, and then selectively record. Meanwhile, you've just created a law that allows facebook drones to prowl our neighbourhoods, recording as they see fit. Are you even on our team? 4. Not necessarily on their private lives, but certainly on their finances. That's not going to work any better than it does today. Companies and individuals alike already funnel their wealth through shell companies in tax havens around the world to hide their activity. Those tax havens will not adopt your "transparency for everyone" laws, because their national income is based on hiding peoples financial activity, and your laws have just made that service even more valuable. They also won't sell you the privacy protections they're selling to the elite, because you're probably not rich enough. So all you've done is ensured that ordinary citizens can never access the financial privacy that the rich can buy off the shelf. 5. We don't need to give up privacy, but we do need to prioritize what aspects of our lives should remain the most private. Sure, but we should prioritize it with a plan of eventually restoring privacy for all aspects of our lives, not with a plan of doing a shit half-job and then going for an eternal smoko.