PRIVACY -- PAST TENSE
The ramifications of surveillance and image recognition are quite serious, and bode massive changes in society -- especially when coupled with image capture in ever-smaller devices, greater storage and computational capabilities, and wireless transmission.
A potential future we have long been discussing now appears to be quite possible -- and even probable:
In a few years, most public spaces will be under video surveillance. Within a decade it will just be accepted that if you are not in your private home, then you are on candid camera.
And what is even more important: all that video footage will be transmitted, stored, and analyzed -- and you will be identified.
That means that whatever you do, wherever you are -- will be a matter of record.
The above is a foregone conclusion, I believe: the combination of speeding technological capabilities and security fears all but guarantee it.
The only question is who will have access to this information:
Everyone, or just the government?
I believe it has to be "everyone," because anything less than that will translate, practically speaking, into "only those with power and money" having access.
[Or those with great hacking skills.]
But this will mean that everyone will be able to find out almost everything about the public behavior of anyone else:
Crowd in line at DisneyWorld? Everyone you know will see it.
Get in a bar fight last week [or ever]? Your job interviewer will know.
Where was your spouse last night -- really? Check and see.
WHAT IS PRIVATE?
WHAT IS ANNONYMOUS?
To many people, this sounds like some nightmare scenario -- a complete elimination of "privacy."
But I put the quotes around that word for a reason: the notions we have today of what "privacy" means are not long-held values -- they are very recent developments.
After all, just a few hundred years ago everyone lived in small, close-knit areas from which they rarely traveled -- and so everything anybody did outside their homes was seen -- or at least, possibly discussed -- by almost everyone they knew.
Thus the importance of shame in curbing antisocial behavior in the past -- and the weakness of the social fabric today.
Our ancestors would be unable to comprehend the virtual anonymity we all take for granted now: we can do almost anything with the assurance that [unless, say, we are arrested] no one close to us will ever know our actions.
Many arguments against surveillance that hold "privacy" sacred can come off as merely protesting that one should be able to engage in any activity without embarrassment.
I would agree with that core notion -- but I’d add that it does not require one be able to act without identification, responsibility, admission, or acknowledgement.
Stand up for what you do.
Don’t do what you can’t stand up for.
I don’t want to beat the drum for increased surveillance, government control, and societal restrictions.
But I acknowledge that -- barring some unlikely social upheaval -- increased surveillance is going to happen.
And now is the time to debate and determine what else occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Years back I outlined a screenplay around this idea of what changes will happen in society. The basic plot covers the shift from only the government having access to the omnipresent omniscient surveillance to -- by revolution -- everyone having it.]
Comments