Can "individuals" or "liberty" exist without privacy in a totally transparent society?
Zoltan Istvan just released a new article titled: "Liberty Might Be Better Served by Doing Away with Privacy". Rightfully this article is an opinion piece. I counter this article with an opinion piece of my own.
Zoltan asks the wrong questions
The question of whether privacy needs to change is really a question of functionality. Is privacy actually useful for individuals or for society? Does having privacy make humanity better off? Does privacy raise the standard of living for the average person?
The questions which should be asked in my opinion:
- What is an individual if even thoughts are not private?
- What is the function of society for the individual?
- What is a human in a totally transparent world or even in the current world?
- Who is the average person?
In my opinion any of these questions are more important to ask because the answers to these questions determine whether or not some of the concepts in his article even can exist. It's not a fact that the concept of individual can survive in a totally transparent society. Also does society exist to promote the individual or does the individual exist to serve society? Do we even know the current definition of what a human is? What is the average person and should society be designed to benefit the average person?
The average person globally is Asian and rural. When we look at statistics of who the average person is then a lot of us don't fit into that definition.
Zoltan's assumption #2, people have a tendency to accept each other?
A society lacking privacy would have plenty of liberty-creating phenomena too, likely ushering in an era similar to the 60s where experimental drugs, sex, and artistic creation thrived. Openness, like the vast internet itself, is a facilitator of freedom and personal liberties. A less private society means a more liberal one where unorthodox individuals and visionaries—all who can no longer be pushed behind closed doors—will be accepted for who or what they are.
This is in my opinion a blanket assumption based no zero evidence or data. As I read the article from Zoltan I can see a lot of opinion without much data to back it up. In addition I see use of concepts which may in fact logically depend on each other. For example what is an individual if there is no privacy? Can a concept such as individual even exist in a totally connected transparent society? Is there any evidence today that people are more accepted?
I don't see the data to back up the idea that we live in a world which is more accepting. In fact, if I were to look on the Internet I would see a lot of connected divided people, and a lot of persecuting of those who are perceived as "bad people" by other people. Since each group has their own definition of bad, is it possible for anyone to guarantee they don't end up on the "bad list" of some group they don't even know exists?
Looking at the 1960s as an example then we see the whole civil rights and other issues. People who didn't look normal were not accepted, were treated differently by the people who looked normal. People were judged by how they look, and given a race by the society based not on what they did but on how they looked. Then discrimination was encouraged by the very technology of the time, whether it was television or radio. Why should we believe the technology of the future will be any different when we clearly have biased algorithms?
What if you aren't normal?
If you are normal at the current point in time then you might be able to believe that greater transparency is in your interest. If you're not considered normal (whatever normal is in your society) then you might have a difference of opinion. If total transparency is designed to promote normalization and some people are more normal than others then wouldn't this possibly punish the abnormal? Do we as a society benefit by keeping everyone as normal as possible and how does it promote liberty if everyone is required to be normal in order to not be harassed by drones?
Are there any totally innocent people?
If no one can hide, then no one can do anything wrong without someone else knowing. That may allow a better, more efficient society with more liberties than the protection privacy accomplishes.
Yet if anyone lives for long enough then everyone does something wrong. In what world is it that there are completely innocent people who from birth until death never did anything wrong? And even if you don't do something wrong to most people, there are cultural differences and some demographic of people somewhere will perceive it as wrong. So everyone will have done something wrong sooner or later in a totally transparent world. Does this mean the answer is to follow everyone with drones because everyone did or could do something wrong according to anyone else? An argument can be made that given enough time and enough scrutiny every human will eventually do something wrong.
Conclusion
I'm not convinced by Zoltan's arguments. I offer some counter arguments which question fundamental concepts within his argument. I question whether or not individuals can exist without any privacy. I question whether totally innocent people exist (if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to fear), and I question whether or not society is accepting of people who are different. Any of these questions can be approached philosophically and some can be answered by analyzing the current latest data or statistics. Can liberty survive without individuality? Definitely not. Can individuality survive without privacy is the current question.
References
- https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bjx5y5/liberty-might-be-better-served-by-doing-away-with-privacy
- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362709/Typical-human-face-28-year-old-Chinese-man.html
- https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608248/biased-algorithms-are-everywhere-and-no-one-seems-to-care/
"If no one can hide, then no one can do anything wrong without someone else knowing"
and who would decide whats wrong and right? the government? HAH!
I think we all know where a society that is totally surveilled is headed:
if the mind isn't free than freedom cannot exist
the major problem is that people confuse the "human condition" with the "human nature" and this means that we have had much of the same (human condition) for 4000 years now
What right to we even have honestly ask yourself . With all these rights we still have fear in our hearts , privacy is not necessarily given to all of us, what does our constitution mean then ? @dana-edwards
«I don't see the data to back up the idea that we live in a world which is more accepting» - In EU the number of legal (and illegal) immigrants is high like never before. There are no real actions to stop or even reduce this tendention. it can be proof of the idea that we live in more accepting society.
I'd disagree. I see that as proof that people are unwise, willing to virtue signal because they want to LOOK good and APPEAR noble. This is not a sign people are more accepting. It's not true acceptance if you're always tried in a court of public opinion.
Tim Poole did a trip to Sweden and spoke with a Psychologist there about the culture on immigration. He had to blur his face and hide his voice because, even though he's well within his professional domain to speak about this, even hinting that you might think the culture is regressive and suppressing ideas is enough to potentially lose your job. Even hinting that all the migrants are bad for the country is enough to get you destroyed.
If you don't murder people because you have a gun to your head you're not being a good person. You're just keeping the gun at bay. It's not the same. And that's in a clear cut moral situation. The migrant crisis? It's not immoral to think they're being dumb letting so many in. And yet so many people treat it as if it is.
I Agree, that was unwise. And politcorrectiveness is rather overvalued today. But maybe lack of transparency in modern society and too much privacy allowed this trouble come true.
And I don't see immigrants being accepted. Tolerated might be the word you were looking for? And even then a lot of people want to close the borders and kick the immigrants out.
Yes, tolerated is closer. But question was about proof regarding acceptance level in modern society. This situation would not happened in 60-x, when society was not so tolerant as today. A lot of people would like to kick migrants out, but they will not do this.
Society as a whole isn't more tolerant today than in the 60s. That which is tolerated or "in" today was "out" in the 60s but the overall tolerance level doesn't seem to have changed. We have new groups which get persecuted today but the persecution hasn't exactly stopped. We have new groups which are more tolerated today such as homosexuals but this doesn't mean other new groups haven't replaced homosexuals in being persecuted.
So the data would have to show that humans in general are becoming more tolerant overall and it's not good enough to just look at any particular group which might go in and out of fashion.
I believe the "right" to privacy is synonymous with liberty. Privacy is not a natural right, except to the extent you can keep your thoughts to yourself. It is a civil right, though, a limited government should be restrained from invading one's privacy. A society that offers no privacy cannot offer liberty, if you ask me.
Well if you cannot keep your thoughts to yourself technologically then are you an individual anymore?
If I am still in control of my thoughts I think I am still an individual. If my thoughts are compelled I would not be. If one's thoughts cannot be kept private there would be a measure of compulsion just knowing they are publicly exposed due to avoiding persecution.
You don't control your thoughts (subconscious). You control your actions.
I do control my conscious thoughts, however.
Disagree. Right to privacy is not equal to liberty. Liberty is the right to chose whether to spread your thoughts or keep them to yourself without any negative effects after your choice. All the rest seems to be correct.
No, not correct. Liberty doesn't offer you protection from negative effects when you express yourself. It does mean you aren't to be prosecuted, or persecuted by the government, but other free people enjoying liberty are free to persecute you for taking a position. And the right to privacy is exactly that choice you mentioned, to reveal or not. However, once you have chosen to reveal you have lost the "right" to control it, so the best we can ask is that the government be prevented from collecting, or pursuing your private data.
Nice post. Very informative and useful to the reader. Makes the reader think and really introspect on these questions you pose. Good work and good content. Will continue to follow. Enjoyed your post.
I think if Istvan's vision comes about there will develop parallel societies of people who have opted out of technology: "one day, many of us will use neural prosthetics and brain implants. These brain-to-machine interfaces will likely eventually lead to the hive mind, where everyone can know each other's precise whereabouts and thoughts at all times, because we will all be connected to each other through the cloud. Privacy, broadly thought of as essential to a democratic society, might disappear."
I know that I will never implant a tech device or wear something that "connects me to the hive mind." I'd rather live without all the benefits of 'society' if that is the alternative. I won't let people spy on me or know my thoughts. Without privacy for me there is no quality of life and no freedom.
And what if the technology becomes ubiquitous and sophisticated enough that you don't even need an implant for people and machines to get inside your head? What if it reaches a point where like with circumcision, the parents do it to their children at birth? You assume everyone is going to have a choice here but that isn't a valid assumption.
I will have to align myself with some kind of powerful resistance group who develop anti-brain-tracking technology and who espouse free thoughts in ourselves and our children. If it gets so bad that you can't even resist I'd probably rather not be around.
"As I read the article from Zoltan I can see a lot of opinion without much data to back it up."
This is typical of the new Statist, the feels-over-reals, SJW crew. They don't need arguments, because they "feel" it. They just need stuff that sounds enough like arguments so that other people that "feel" like they do will think they have an intellectual basis for their pretty much wacky ideas.
are you working on government sir?
your post different from other. tag politic is a little. thank for sharing
I don't understand your question. Working on government?
I just think the people writing about politic are working/ his job on governmen
I do not nor have I ever worked for the government. I come from the perspective of a private citizen only.
Спасибо друг ! Очень интересно !