I don't think its just "privacy" as we know it, but the newfound ability to profile people.
If you had a good picture of everyone's personal life, from what they do and where they go to whom they are friends with down to personal tastes and opinions, inevitably someone gets the idea to compare your "life stats" with those of criminals, deviants, etc.
Western civilization has really become enamored with the precautionary prinicipal since the mid-20th century. "Will a new chemical harm the environment? We don't really know but we should ban it anyways." Now this might be a good thing when applied to the environmental sciences, but what about people? FWIW, this started around the time sciences and academic institutions got more robust and we could really examine all the consequences of a certain action. Sound familiar?
Assuming a person is innocent until proven guilty is a prinicipal from a different time. How will the availability of data that forecasts if a person has a chance of being a murderer or pedophile influence public opinion and politicians? And the public is so very bad at risk assessment, people become very emotional about certain things that are extremely uncommon like plane crashes, nuclear meltdowns and kidnappings and then don't want to take precautions with things that are common like auto accidents because its inconvenient.
How many innocent people do we have to cast out to save one life exactly?
Also the emotion, individualism and belief in free will present in our culture ensures that the benefits to targeted persons that could come from predicting personal behavior may go unrealized. Ironically despite being able to predict actions probably won't dispel notions that value personal accountability. Tracking and modifying harmful behavior whether its consuming unhealthy food or not disciplining your child will be harshly criticized as an intrusion of the "nanny state". Yet no doubt we'll shame people for things, after leading them into that trap. Will we use what we know to try reforming people who run the risk of becoming criminals starting in childhood or help drug users kick the habit, or will doing those things be considered "socialism"? At the end of the day, I fear that a lack of privacy will only mean people being judged without committing any crime. People will be shamed on the assumption of doing something, and treated in a punitive fashion because its convenient.
TLDR; living under the all-knowing sheeple mob sousvalliance state will be like having an abusive parent that is always absent and never helped you or taught you anything, but beats you when you do something wrong. But who cares, its social darwinism at its finest I guess.
Quote:
I honestly don't understand this "privacy" crap. If you're out in public, and you're not doing anything wrong, then why the hell should you care if you have nothing to hide?
|
Define "doing something wrong".
Privacy is self-defense against prejudice, that's one benefit.
The other is information asymettry. In any given circumstance where people are interacting or making a transaction(like buying a item at the store or applying for a job) both parties want to profit from it(like buying something on sale). Ordinary people will be at a disadvantage to corporations and the government. Not just because they lack the information(everyone could see everything), but because one side has the education and resources to analyze all those choices and you won't.
Google works on this principal, people are willing to trade superficial privacy(age, name, location, petty consumer tastes, you know phone book material we've actually been sharing all along) for nice internet services.
But what about the government? You didn't choose to exchange anything, its taken from you. In the very best case, will our government be the well-meaning if frequently irritating "nanny state" that wants to cultivate its human resource? Or will it just be the exploiter? Of course that depends on who you are. Some smart, gifted person whose got a good job and a big house and car and votes Republican might be the intended beneficiary, then us "47%" are the potential criminals, the parasites, the ones they need to be protected from?
IMO before we give up more privacy we need the ones taking it to earn trust and display their legitimacy. Or demand it. That's my solution to the supposed "inevitability". If we know everything about everyone lets be less judgemental in ways when its non-constructive. You could use this to rehabilitate rather than incarcarate, legalize drugs then keep abusers and kids away from sellers, etc. Alcoholics could be banned from drinking and the rest of us still could by giving out biometric IDs and scanners in bars. Children could be free to play outside because they won't be dissappearing. People who might be sexual deviants could be treated as psychiatric cases, because they know they won't get away with it, and we know its not their fault. And most of all, if the all seeing eye can pick out who has a gun and who doesn't, wow suddenly gun control works. Just for gods sake, keep this out of the hands of retarded "tough on crime" politicians.