The Glass House: Is it time to rethink our concept of privacy?

[Oftencold]

As technology advances at a breathtaking pace, I have come to wonder if we will not have to rethink, and largely abandon our concept of privacy.

Cameras are on the verge of going microscopic, microphones can be placed just about anywhere, many teenagers think that posting nude photos of themselves is normal behavior, and we all foolishly act as though our internet and wireless transmissions are secure.

Scanners and measuring devices explore us frequently as we move about our cities. Computers consider our movements and buying habits. Research is being done into interfacing our sensoria with cyberspace.

Add to this mix the fact that technology is also rapidly advancing for terrorists and criminals. This puts enormous pressure on government and law enforcement entities of goodwill to spy on potential miscreants to stave off irreparable harm to person and property, and to spy upon the rest of us to determine if we belong to the former group.

So, in light of these and other factors that should be easily discerned by the casual observer, it would seem to me that the time for abandoning most of our expectations of privacy may soon be before us will we, nil we.

For myself, I think that true privacy in any area other than thought will be an outmoded concept in a generation or less.

How do you think society should respond, and far more importantly, will respond?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I have no objection to the government spying on anyone it feels that it needs to. I don't mind cameras in public places, government keeping records of my transactions, or even the government using dogs and thermal scanners to establish "probable cause" for a search warrant.

On the other hand, I think that if we're going to surrender our privacy to the government, it is only right and proper that the government surrender its privacy to us.

I want transparency laws. If there is a government record of any of its activities except for ongoing military operations, then it should be available to any citizen upon request. No more games, no more hiding budgets behind $500 hammers and toilet seats, and no more protecting criminality behind the veil of "national security".

 

[Wessexman]

As technology advances at a breathtaking pace, I have come to wonder if we will not have to rethink, and largely abandon our concept of privacy.

Cameras are on the verge of going microscopic, microphones can be placed just about anywhere, many teenagers think that posting nude photos of themselves is normal behavior, and we all foolishly act as though our internet and wireless transmissions are secure.

Scanners and measuring devices explore us frequently as we move about our cities. Computers consider our movements and buying habits. Research is being done into interfacing our sensoria with cyberspace.

Add to this mix the fact that technology is also rapidly advancing for terrorists and criminals. This puts enormous pressure on government and law enforcement entities of goodwill to spy on potential miscreants to stave off irreparable harm to person and property, and to spy upon the rest of us to determine if we belong to the former group.

So, in light of these and other factors that should be easily discerned by the casual observer, it would seem to me that the time for abandoning most of our expectations of privacy may soon be before us will we, nil we.

For myself, I think that true privacy in any area other than thought will be an outmoded concept in a generation or less.

How do you think society should respond, and far more importantly, will respond?

I think with privacy would die liberty. Personally I think we are the verge of a world where the technical, oppressive potential of state's makes them virtually uncontrollable by the populace.

I'm beginning to fear each new innovation in technics because it seems to bring the end of liberty that small bit nearer.

I think some change has to take place soon, some how society on a human, decentralised scale has to gain control of technics or all is lost in my opinion.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I think with privacy would die liberty. Personally I think we are the verge of a world where the technical, oppressive potential of state's makes them virtually uncontrollable by the populace.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle. That's why it's so important that these technologies be used to monitor the government, the same way that the government monitors us-- to keep the government from hiding its misdeeds. Government can't be nearly as corrupt when it's being watched, and it can't take nearly as much power or abuse that power when every step is monitored.

 

[Oftencold]

You can't put the genie back in the bottle. That's why it's so important that these technologies be used to monitor the government, the same way that the government monitors us-- to keep the government from hiding its misdeeds. Government can't be nearly as corrupt when it's being watched, and it can't take nearly as much power or abuse that power when every step is monitored.

Government without secrecy would require a radically altered model, no?

Plus, can confidentiality be maintained without secrecy? In other words, would not each individual's tax, income and government health records for instance become public domain documents?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Government without secrecy would require a radically altered model, no?

If that ain't a sad statement about the nature of our government-- and the nature of its relationship with the people-- I don't know what is.

Plus, can confidentiality be maintained without secrecy? In other words, would not each individual's tax, income and government health records for instance become public domain documents?

Well, you're the one arguing that we're going to have to redefine our notion of privacy due to emerging technologies. Fail to see how having any of these records being public knowledge is worse than having the government tracking our movements.

 

[Wessexman]

You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

I think technics and gov't can be developed in a more human scale and anti-authoritarian direction. This sort of thing has been written about by many different kinds of writers and parts of the technics is being developed by the alternative technology movement.

Lewis Mumford's Renewal of life series, of which I have only read the first which is mind blowing, deals with some of this subject. It is a complex subject and I'm far from an expert but it is worth looking into and everyone should read Mumford's Technics and civilisation imho.

I think human scale gov't and technics is about our only hope.

That's why it's so important that these technologies be used to monitor the government, the same way that the government monitors us-- to keep the government from hiding its misdeeds. Government can't be nearly as corrupt when it's being watched, and it can't take nearly as much power or abuse that power when every step is monitored.

. It is a lot easier to keep an eye on gov't when it is more of a human scale.

 

[Oftencold]

If that ain't a sad statement about the nature of our government-- and the nature of its relationship with the people-- I don't know what is.

It is a statement on the nature of Man, more even than a statement on Government

Well, you're the one arguing that we're going to have to redefine our notion of privacy due to emerging technologies. Fail to see how having any of these records being public knowledge is worse than having the government tracking our movements.

Well, if the transparency is two-way, then it isn't just the Government that can track all of your movements and transactions.

It's everyone here, the strangers on the bus, and nosy Aunt Jane. Think of her having access records to all the little impulse purchases you've ever made.

My thrust here, is mostly to raise the question of whether our society is even capable of adapting to an essentially privacy-free state, or if this would produce a schism from the past in which we emerge as a different, and alien civilization.

 

[Oftencold]

I think human scale gov't and technics is about our only hope.

The I believe that you have little cause to hope. I follow a model of thought for way governments, despots and political movements develop. It is this: men wish to be gods, and given the opportunity, the most motivated and least restrained will seek to become so.

So as the characteristics of the gods of myth become available, the power hungry among us will spend fortunes, change laws, break laws and betray their fellows to acquire them. The ability to see into the private affairs and doings of all mortals is a classic attribute of divinity.

Oddly, the one divine trait that seems to produce little temptation, is transcendent wisdom.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Well, if the transparency is two-way, then it isn't just the Government that can track all of your movements and transactions.

It's everyone here, the strangers on the bus, and nosy Aunt Jane. Think of her having access records to all the little impulse purchases you've ever made.

I trust my neighbors and my family more than I trust the government, and I feel more comfortable with them being able to look over my credit card receipts or my doctor's files than I do about the government doing the same.

And, aside from knowing that they are engaged in a number of policies that I would disapprove of thoroughly if I knew about them... I don't particularly distrust the government.

My thrust here, is mostly to raise the question of whether our society is even capable of adapting to an essentially privacy-free state, or if this would produce a schism from the past in which we emerge as a different, and alien civilization.

Privacy is a modern phenomenon. It used to be that we lived in small communities or even smaller tribes, and everyone knew everyone else's business. Even with the advent of metropolitan cities, people couldn't go about their daily lives and pursue their interests with the kind of anonymity that we take for granted today.

We will adapt to the loss of privacy just fine. What concerns me is whether or not the law will adapt to the change of social environment... or if it will take the exposure of the private sphere as an opportunity to exert even more control.

 

[Wessexman]

The I believe that you have little cause to hope. I follow a model of thought for way governments, despots and political movements develop. It is this: men wish to be gods, and given the opportunity, the most motivated and least restrained will seek to become so.

So as the characteristics of the gods of myth become available, the power hungry among us will spend fortunes, change laws, break laws and betray their fellows to acquire them. The ability to see into the private affairs and doings of all mortals is a classic attribute of divinity.

Oddly, the one divine trait that seems to produce little temptation, is transcendent wisdom.

I agree with your general gist. It is my belief that power, particularly unaccountable power will usually corrupt and causes most social problems hence my political views are based on dispersing power as far as is compatible with a workable society.

 

[Kushinator]

Of course, there will be a free market response to the increased use of government surveillance, or surveillance in general.

EnsurePrivacy.com - Counter Surveillance, Bug Detection, and Privacy Protection

The demand for these items along with corresponding capital investment will increase as homeland security grows and grows. LOL, i am willing to bet most of this counter-surveillance was first created by the military...

 

[Vader]

I have no objection to the government spying on anyone it feels that it needs to. I don't mind cameras in public places, government keeping records of my transactions, or even the government using dogs and thermal scanners to establish "probable cause" for a search warrant.

On the other hand, I think that if we're going to surrender our privacy to the government, it is only right and proper that the government surrender its privacy to us.

I want transparency laws. If there is a government record of any of its activities except for ongoing military operations, then it should be available to any citizen upon request. No more games, no more hiding budgets behind $500 hammers and toilet seats, and no more protecting criminality behind the veil of "national security".

Sounds fair to me.

:mrgreen:

 

[kamino]

Read my Signature. Any American who thinks differently disgusts me. Sorry, but you do.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Read my Signature. Any American who thinks differently disgusts me. Sorry, but you do.

Privacy is not liberty. Indeed, by allowing people to conceal their misdeeds, privacy is the means by which liberty can be abused and eroded.

 

[kamino]

Privacy is not liberty. Indeed, by allowing people to conceal their misdeeds, privacy is the means by which liberty can be abused and eroded.

I disagree, privasy is liberty, liberty from others invading my domain/home/thoughts/car what ever, which there is a clear set of rules that must be met to breach such privacy, such as probable cause or a warrent. Other then that yes, I agree, a lack of privacy will lead to an erosion of liberty.

 

[Travelsonic]

. Indeed, by allowing people to conceal their misdeeds, privacy is the means by which liberty can be abused and eroded.

Except privacy is by no means exclusive to concealing misdeeds. Nobody in their right mind, IMO, would reveal their credit card #s, social security #s, private parts (yes, I'm referring to wearing clothing if you want really pedantic), etc

 

[Jerry]

As technology advances at a breathtaking pace, I have come to wonder if we will not have to rethink, and largely abandon our concept of privacy.

Cameras are on the verge of going microscopic, microphones can be placed just about anywhere, many teenagers think that posting nude photos of themselves is normal behavior, and we all foolishly act as though our internet and wireless transmissions are secure.

Scanners and measuring devices explore us frequently as we move about our cities. Computers consider our movements and buying habits. Research is being done into interfacing our sensoria with cyberspace.

Add to this mix the fact that technology is also rapidly advancing for terrorists and criminals. This puts enormous pressure on government and law enforcement entities of goodwill to spy on potential miscreants to stave off irreparable harm to person and property, and to spy upon the rest of us to determine if we belong to the former group.

So, in light of these and other factors that should be easily discerned by the casual observer, it would seem to me that the time for abandoning most of our expectations of privacy may soon be before us will we, nil we.

For myself, I think that true privacy in any area other than thought will be an outmoded concept in a generation or less.

How do you think society should respond, and far more importantly, will respond?

Anyone who's really worried about it can use basic counter-spy devices like those found on shomertech.com, no big.

 

[Oftencold]

I disagree, privasy is liberty, liberty from others invading my domain/home/thoughts/car what ever, which there is a clear set of rules that must be met to breach such privacy, such as probable cause or a warrent. Other then that yes, I agree, a lack of privacy will lead to an erosion of liberty.

Do you have any thought left to address those who do not so much wish to invade your sacred privacy, as rend your flesh, and that of your friends, family, and neighbors? How much privacy do the dead require?

 

[Oftencold]

Except privacy is by no means exclusive to concealing misdeeds. Nobody in their right mind, IMO, would reveal their credit card #s, social security #s, private parts (yes, I'm referring to wearing clothing if you want really pedantic), etc

I believe that the idea, is that we may have to consider having less privacy, not no privacy.

I also hasten to point out, that people have far less privacy than they think they do.

 

[Wessexman]

Privacy is not liberty. Indeed, by allowing people to conceal their misdeeds, privacy is the means by which liberty can be abused and eroded.

Privacy certainly does have a relationship to liberty. Keeping things hidden from the state and maintaining individual and associational autonomy from it, which is helped by privacy often, is very important.

 

[Oftencold]

Privacy certainly does have a relationship to liberty. Keeping things hidden from the state and maintaining individual and associational autonomy from it, which is helped by privacy often, is very important.

At the risk of sidetracking the conversation, I maintain that the inception of the Income Tax removed almost all legal protection for privacy for citizens where the Government is concerned.

The government asserts its "right" to have access to everything in a citizen's life which touches upon money.

That means that practically everything in our lives is open to at least cursory government inspection.

 

[Wessexman]

At the risk of sidetracking the conversation, I maintain that the inception of the Income Tax removed almost all legal protection for privacy for citizens where the Government is concerned.

The government asserts its "right" to have access to everything in a citizen's life which touches upon money.

That means that practically everything in our lives is open to at least cursory government inspection.

Oh yes, gov't intrusions are many these days unfortunately. Personally I'd do away with income tax, a land value tax can be done locally as less authoritarianly with more far social justice being achieved because it taxes people who gain by doing now work.

 

[Oftencold]

Oh yes, gov't intrusions are many these days unfortunately. Personally I'd do away with income tax, a land value tax can be done locally as less authoritarianly with more far social justice being achieved because it taxes people who gain by doing now work.

I have known a lot of farmers, who own land and would probably want to explain a few things to you if you think that they do no work.

Governments won't give up the income tax precisely because it give them license to invade your privacy.


(I'm still annoyed at your idea that land owners do no work. What about people living on the dole, and doing no work?)

 

[Wessexman]

I have known a lot of farmers, who own land and would probably want to explain a few things to you if you think that they do no work.

Governments won't give up the income tax precisely because it give them license to invade your privacy.


(I'm still annoyed at your idea that land owners do no work. What about people living on the dole, and doing no work?)

The tax is not about farmers it is about those who gain from ground and site rent, which are created by nature and society. This is income for nothing and has many negative effects on the whole economy. I grew up in rural Dorset and I like rural people a lot, I want to move back there, so I love farmers and rural life.

Basically the LVT is based on the Ricardian theory rent which shows that:


The Law of Rent states that the rent of a land site is equal to the economic advantage obtained by using the site in its most productive use, relative to the advantage obtained by using marginal (i.e., the best rent-free) land for the same purpose, given the same inputs of labor and capital.

And that landlords will tend to absorb a lot of increrased productivity. It also recognises the fact that a lot of the value of land and its increases have little to do with what a landlord does. If your family owned a vacant plot in the middle of New York in the 1600s and kept it vacant until today the price would have soured despite you putting no labour in.

The LVT is a proposal to collect such unearned income from land while reducing taxes on labour, capital and rent from improvement to land like buildings.