Re: An Argument Against Privacy was: Openness.

Hal Finney (
Fri, 20 Nov 1998 11:59:08 -0800

my inner geek, <>, writes:
> Why not use MEMS scanning mirrors with a single pixel photodetector?
> (Sort of the reverse of a laser beam scanner, on a very small scale.)

I think the same resolution problems arise when you are using a very tiny mirror. It may be that lasers have it easier since their light is coherent. I would have to do some research into these issues if you want more detail.

> Or, rather than a gnatbot, use a mite-bot, that laches onto the
> eyelashes of the enemy's weapons designers, and sees everything they
> see (even if in an HMD). Maybe they can bore into the eyeballs and
> set-up a small area on the blind spot (optic disc).
> See
> From there, maybe crawl back along the optic nerve into the brain,
> and start rewiring things. Hook up some some detector and
> stimulator networks in Broca's and Wernicke's areas. This should
> enable signal intercepts within the individuals cognition process, as
> well as enable modification of their interpersonal semantic
> exchanges.

That's the problem with these extrapolations. We quickly spin off into a neverland of inconceivably advanced technology. If there are mite-bots crawling into the brain, probably there are immune-system bots to fight them off. It's not obvious which side will win. Until we know, the jury is still out about how much privacy will be possible in the future.