3 ms·
I agree, at least in the long term. However, I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. The reason we perceive it as bad right now is because it is unequal: y
by AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
I agree, at least in the long term. However, I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing. The reason we perceive it as bad right now is because it is unequal: you and I do not have access to the systems that make privacy an obsolete concept, and some other people (namely those in positions of power) have the ability to keep themselves out of that system. It seems likely that this will eventually no longer be true and society will adapt to a world where privacy no longer exists for anyone. I would wager that, looking backward, they will probably even wonder what all the fuss was about.
- nitrogen 6y agoOf all the possible outcomes of the evolution of privacy, I have zero confidence that either the public will have equal access to surveillance, or that the powerful will be equally subject to it.
- carapace 6y agoYeah. Stephen Baxter wrote a novel about the invention of the time camera ("Light of Other Days") and in it, before long, folks are screwing in public because, hey, everybody who wants to can look anyway so who cares? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light_of_Other_Days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light_of_Other_Days > The Light of Other Days is a 2000 science fiction novel written by Stephen Baxter based on a synopsis by Arthur C. Clarke,[1] which explores the development of wormhole technology to the point where information can be passed instantaneously between points in the spacetime continuum.
- rapnie 6y agoThat was a great thought-experiment elaborated to book's length. Loved it.