In a message dated 3/7/00 11:31:15 PM Central Standard Time, spike66@ibm.net
writes:
> How do we act differently now, knowing that we could be
> getting videotaped, any where, any time? Eventually you
> know some yahoo is going to invent a mechanical robofly that
> can carry a camera and microphone into your home, thru the
> AC vent or something. Would that affect the way we act?
> It is suddenly a privacy advantage to be a nerdy nobody.
I know others have pointed to David Brin's book "The Transparent Society" in
this thread and I echo that recommendation. Brin does a good job of
surveying the arguments for and against ubiquitous surveillance and privacy
in various segments of society and our personal lives. I THINK I disagree
with some of his conclusions, but I do hand it to him for taking the issues
head-on. (In particular, I think he doesn't do a good job of distinguishing
the issues that arise from openness in the "real world" and the ability to
maintain "data privacy": I think one can consistently reach two very
different conclusions about what's good in the two different realms).
Brin's book made me think hard about the impact that ubiquitous recording
would have on personal, business and legal ethics. On the one hand, I think
a consensual society of free individuals governed by law would be unworkable
in a world where one could not CHOOSE to conduct some of one's affairs
without observation, or at least where observation was an infringement of
etiquette, ethics and/or law. On the other, I was forced to consider just
how much time and money gets spent in legal "swearing matches" about what was
said by whom in a particular meeting or what happened when in some unexpected
event like an accident giving rise to a tort claim.
What if the default presumption was that all of one's business affairs would
be recorded by all involved? What if the default presumption was that the
operation of every piece of equipment in a construction project was being
recorded? The vast majority of litigation boils down to "who said what" and
"who hit who" type questions. If the presumption was that things would be
recorded unless the parties to a transaction agreed otherwise, people would
have to offer a damned good reason to switch off their cameras.
I can't say I've come to any final conclusions, but I have come to a much
less firm opposition to consensual surveillance.
Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com>----<gburch@lockeliddell.com>
Attorney ::: Vice President, Extropy Institute ::: Wilderness Guide
http://users.aol.com/gburch1 -or- http://members.aol.com/gburch1
ICQ # 61112550
"We never stop investigating. We are never satisfied that we know
enough to get by. Every question we answer leads on to another
question. This has become the greatest survival trick of our species."
-- Desmond Morris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:50 MDT