The future is a future where no semblance of privacy exists.
In the year 3000:
"Truth about the ugliness of the human race will finally be revealed when every single detail about anyone's life is public knowledge available to all."
In the year 3000:
"Truth about the ugliness of the human race will finally be revealed when every single detail about anyone's life is public knowledge available to all."
E.g. we know that rich people have always obtained abortions, used illegal drugs, and had promiscuous sex, but public morality and social mores were constructed entirely on the fiction that this was the exception and not the rule.
Take this AM hack; one of te first public casualties was a somewhat famous religious conservative, who had previously been in the news for committing multiple acts of incest/child molestation as a youth (the statute of limitations on which has long since expired). Despite abundant evidence of moral malfeasance and a blunt self-assessment as 'the biggest hypocrite ever', the guys followers are still lining up to defend his fundamental righteousness and condemn his detractors as being on an inferior moral plane. This is irrational, but people place a high value on their illusions and will expend real resources to perpetuate them.
We are adjusting our social values in response to advances in technology.
OTOH, lying, cheating, and betraying those closest to you will never be acceptable. I think we will simply move towards a state where open marriages are much more common.
Consider that our hangups about sex are tied to a sense of right and wrong that comes down to food scarcity (and other base needs, such as safety from predators) and reproductive rights. So we've got a bunch of people who treat sex as having moral significance owing to a survival/economic importance that no longer exists.
When sex first became disconnected from reproduction we had a "sexual revolution" where people tried to act as if the underlying rules and norms had changed overnight and there were horrible repercussions, but that's not because there's something intrinsically correct about our current (or recent past) sexual mores. Rape within marriage used to be just fine (indeed, it only became illegal throughout the US in 1993).
I'm going to push back on that assertion. There are still STDs in developed countries with plenty of access to condoms. Assuming that STD patients are not intentionally contracting diseases, it appears, at least on a social level, that condoms are not effective ways to prevent STDs in populations, at least not yet. Likewise for other forms of birth control and unplanned pregnancy rates.
I think our morals are outpacing our science and habits. And the disadvantaged disproportionately pay the consequences. Or the people who pay the consequences end up disadvantaged. Or both.
> We are adjusting our social values in response to advances in technology.
Are we? I'm not so sure. We take a very non-judgmental view of all sorts of risky behaviors. Scientifically speaking, anal sex has many more risk factors associated with it than other forms of sex. I haven't seen any studies about health risks associated with infidelity, but it's plausible (if not almost certain) that a person having unprotected sex with a secretly promiscuous spouse is exposed to STDs unwittingly.
I think you can argue for more personal freedom, but I'm going to disagree when you assert that we, as a society, have evolved past the consequences traditional morals were set up to protect against.
And indeed, a relationship has to be based on mutual agreement and trust. If both sides agree this relationship to be open, then there's no problem at all. It's only problematic if they reached an agreement when starting the relationship, but later couldn't adhere to it. If no deal, then no relationship. If there's a deal, then you'll have to follow through.
In France it is illegal to DNA test you 'own' children, and the doctors will lie to you as a policy, to avoid 'broken homes'.
Even in lieu of a privacy-free utopia where we fully analyze our motivations, I think we'll still have biological and tribal inclinations influencing our societal morals. (Unless this hypothetical utopia is so far in the future we've biologically evolved.)
But I'd like to make the argument that the central moral imperatives put forth by the bible (as well as by many other religions) would exist as moral imperatives even without religion itself; natural selection would popularize them no matter what.
The planet is overpopulated and it can't sustain that many people. In one hundred years it will be even worse, and measures more drastic than the Chinese one child per family policy will be taken.
The total loss of privacy will let the world rulers choose who gets to live and who doesn't, with ruthless efficiency and, having records of everything questionable everyone has done, no opposition whatsoever.
I guess it will have even plenty of public support.
After the purge, the statistics based morality will rule uncontested.
Additionally, I increasingly think our interpretation of privacy has been too colored by the recent past (recent in this case being the last couple hundred years). Public privacy is largely a byproduct of increasing urbanization and the anonymity that large crowds provided. In rural areas where someone was around to witness your actions, anyone and everyone might know of it in short order.
I think we will eventually settle on new norms of privacy, where some laws are strengthened, and some are weakened, people are aware of what steps they need to take to be reasonably private in the different areas of their life, and we'll settle into a more normal level of government privacy breaches (they have always existed) than the occurrences we are seeing now (which I believe it a result of our laws and expectations no longer adequately mapping to reality).
1: For example, if a government can legally place a person at a location to observe, I believe any actions to prevent their capability to automate this process (CCTV) will likely fail in outcome, if not legislation.
Some recent US court cases have reached the opposite conclusion, and decided that a right to privacy from video surveillance exists:https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/federal-court-agrees-e...
Although perhaps your standard holds, and the argument would that constant warrantless surveillance would be illegal even if done by a human.
> Although perhaps your standard holds, and the argument would that constant warrantless surveillance would be illegal even if done by a human.
That's possible. Then again, depending on what is outlawed it may run afoul of what I think is a related (and probably root) phenomenon, where something easily accomplished with little risk or cost by the average person is outlawed, and is often ignored. e.g. Jaywalking.
If you think about genetic predispositions to certain illnesses, and technologically enabled screening for that after conception as a precursor abortion, then you can see how people will disagree with your statement here.
The same principal applies to digital technology, just because people are able to do certain things, does not mean that the law will ultimately allow it.
> If you think about genetic predispositions to certain illnesses, and technologically enabled screening for that after conception as a precursor abortion, then you can see how people will disagree with your statement here.
If it was easily discernible without the internet whether the person had that genetic marker, legislating away the ability to determine it with the internet is destined to fail. The key here is whether the digital age makes it easier to expand and correlate on something already achievable through using your eyes interacting with someone.
For example, I don't believe we can usefully legislate away a company's ability to use information gleaned from the customer during your interaction with them for their own purposes. That's the equivalent of asking a fast food server to wear a blindfold. It will be worked around, because it's ridiculously limiting for little benefit. I think we CAN usefull legislate what passive information companies are allowed to share with outside entities, or require they track additional information that makes it easy for them to respond to requests for removal (such as timestamps for all information that carry through to linked info, so we can require removal specific past info and correlations derived from it).
"I see you've been looking at this porno. Would you like lube with that?".
It's sort of analogous to the friendly neighborhood general store owner Bob knowing his customer Carl is into fishing, getting an expensive but interesting lure, and noting to Carl right after his payday that he has this interesting item Carl might be interested in... I don't see legislation preventing Amazon from doing the same going anywhere.
Sharing that data with outside companies, or restricting it to specific portions of a company with many businesses might be a good candidate for legislation, and also the ability to request specific purchases and associated data or all purchase data for you prior to X be removed.
We're all capable of fucking up, making shitty decisions, painting ourselves into corners, getting depressed, thinking emotionally instead of objectively/logically. That is the peril of the human condition. I don't think it's fair for any one of us to pass judgment on others actions except when it comes to the physical safety of the community.
So what, one group of people holds marital fidelity dear and think that any action that compromises this view is worthy of exposé. Another group doesn't believe in monogamy or lies about it... largely because to disagree with it ostracizes you from the community - makes you an outsider. Forget innocent parties that are hurt by this - collateral damage, a necessary evil to expose the cheaters. Can you even hear yourselves? Who cares? People lie, cheat and steal all the time. Politicians do it, spies do it, FBI, CIA, NSA, the police, hell, even Presidents do it if it serves their objective. Think about that. When are we going to wake up and realize that this is normal human behaviour - regardless of whether you're happy about that or accept it or not, this is the case.
I agree with those who say leave this behind closed doors. If marriages fall to pieces because of this, that is between them. But to publically name and shame people because their [non-criminal and not-concerning-you] actions don't jive with your morals [Perhaps politicians would be an exception to my perspective on this] is inexcusable. Not many are going to die because someone cheats on their spouse - even if they're caught. But leaking a database of this nature has real repercussions that could cause people death or persecution for something that should only between them and their partner and was none of anyone else's business.
> any and all human behaviour is totally normal
Categorically not. Lines are drawn and accepted socially. People even abide by the rules.
"...in supporting the erosion of privacy..."
I wasn't tarring everyone with this brush. I don't support the erosion of privacy, so it would be hypocritical of me to tar anyone with this brush, let alone everyone. Much of my family for instance believes in the "I've got nothing to hide, so I have nothing to fear" argument, but my perspective is "neither did the Jews before Hitler".
> Some people, rightly, hold themselves and others to higher standards.
You cannot control the actions of everyone else, only yourself. Others will do what inspires them. What inspires them may or may not align with what inspires you. When it doesn't, expecting them to abide by the rules you hold dear is only setting yourself up for disappointment.
> People even abide by the rules
Yes, when it serves their purpose. When it doesn't, they either break the rules publicly, demonstrate to get the rules changed or break them privately to avoid judgment or being ostracized by partners, family, their community and hope like hell they don't get caught.
Lines are drawn regarding all kinds of things. Let's take just for the argument's sake, speeding, or smoking marijuana, never downloading music or movies illegally - things that we can all agree, there are rules about, rules that (currently) define these activities as prohibited in many jurisdictions. Even though there are rules, and many people may argue they're dumb rules about benign activities, there are still rules. Many break the rules publicly, voicing their defiance; many others break them privately and hope they don't get caught. I'd say given your stance you never break any rules - even rules you consider dumb or counter to your own set of beliefs or don't align with your interests; you always abide by the rules and you always fall in line with the wishes of your neighbour. Of course you don't, nobody does. It's human nature to question the rules and to find loopholes, and to bend them and/or break them when they don't align with our interests. These rules, which are defined for the good of the masses, to maintain the status quo. But what happens when what's good for the masses doesn't align with what's good for you? Do you put everyone else first or do you put yourself first? You put yourself first, you hope like hell you don't get caught or called out; or you hope if you do get caught you get away with a slap on the wrist or that a reasonably competent lawyer could fight your case in court and help you avoid the charges.
For me to believe that you strictly abide by all the rules, without questioning human nature, and without understanding your set of circumstances, would be incredibly naive. There are many reasons people break the law, it's not always cut and dry nor black and white. Most of the time it's incredibly grey - to the point that billions of dollars every year are spent on lawyers to argue to put people in jail or keep people out of jail based on legal technicalities, loop holes and precedence set by previous circumstances; because nothing is black and white. If it were then anyone could go to court and defend themselves and no more lawyers would be required.
Some of those revered as the greatest people on earth shunned the rules to invoke great change. Some canonized as saints after the fact, but in their time considered rebels, misfits and, in some cases, criminals: Rosa Parks, Bob Dylan, Mahatma Ghandi, Einstein, Martin Luther King Jr., John Lennon, the lone protester at Tiananmen Square, Nelson Mandela, heck, even Jesus Christ - the son of man, shunned the rules and defied the status quo because of their beliefs - and many believe their rule breaking changed the world for the better.
Also, from 1999, "You have zero privacy anyway, ... Get over it." (Scott McNealy - http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/01/17538)
http://www.rifters.com/real/shorts/TheScorchedEarthSociety-t...
(Sorry, PDF.) (Also, for the record, I agree with neither Watts nor Brin.)
Who wants to know? This is a question easily overlooked, but is crucial to observation (aka surveillance). Observation is done by an observer and done with intent. Without intent, we stop looking.
I for one don't want to know or care for petty details about my neighbors. I want safety without the chore of maintaining knowledge. This might be too much to ask by 2020, but by 3000 we should have it figured out (granted we'll still here).
By gotten over, did you mean we'll have given in to the fact that there will be an observer (albeit a benevolent one?) or that we'll have stopped caring about the intent of the observer?
The government has played the fear card to get all this surveillance going, and now fear of surveillance (and government) is what has the resistance going. To have fear be the primary driver of our common intentions is barbaric, and humanity is still barbaric at the grandest scale.
But by 3000, hopefully we'll have gotten over all of our fears. And if all Earthlings are just one tight-knit family, then surveillance of any kind would be just creepy.
(ok, that was a bit of an overstretch, I still would like to be paid for eventual movie royalties)
The truth about humans has been pretty apparent for about as long as humans have been reflecting on it: we sometimes have high ideals and dreams, and at our best the capacity to even temporarily embody them. But very few people (if anyone) are consistently good, it would seem everybody does something ugly eventually.