Slashdot Mirror
Scott Adams Says Plenty Would Choose Life In Noprivacyville
LoLobey writes "On the other end of the spectrum from Richard Stallman, Scott Adams (of Dilbert fame) speculates upon the advantages of living in a town with no privacy whatsoever. Everyone gets chipped and tracked online. 'Although you would never live in a city without privacy, I think that if one could save 30% on basic living expenses, and live in a relatively crime-free area, plenty of volunteers would come forward.'"
Sorry, Scott. Dreams of Utopia are just dreams.
Excluding all the other numerous technical issues here, we’d probably need some kind of artificial intelligence, or something close to it first before something like this could even potentially work.
A lot of these ideas involve making intelligent decisions about people based on large amounts of data. The kind of decisions and data sources that would be hard to algorithm-ize.
The current reality is that on an individual level, no one is going to spend 5 days reading reports about you so they can sell you a better toothbrush. Marketers work in the aggregate using a set of data points. Simply put, we’re for the most part not worth the individual trouble. Unless you can train a machine to do it, I don't see it happening at this level.
With no privacy of any kind, you'd see exactly what all your neighbors look like in the shower. Whether that's a benefit or a drawback would depend on your neighbors.
I am officially gone from
I think Scott is over estimating the discount needed to get a large group of volunteers to move to Fishbowlville.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I don't think he means people would watch you in the bathroom, but huge aspects of your life would be trackable. Look at how many actual or wannabe celebrities there are, putting huge chunks of their life on TV or auditioning to do so.
SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!
I don't think this is all that outlandish. It's about equality, and in some senses, openness. If everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, was tracked, chipped, monitored, followed, & watched AND the information was 100% transparent and available to EVERYONE, then well... sure, it'd be a great place to live. In all your 1984 dystopian scenarios, there's an elite segment that isn't subject to the same rules as the masses---arguably, there exists an elite segment in today's society that isn't subject to the same rules as the masses---and it's also a "who watches the watchers" issue. IMHO, alot of the issues that currently exist stem from a lack of (perceived and real) fairness in multiple aspects of life. Even the playing field and make the surveillance universal & transparent, allow everyone to freely monitor everyone else, and I think it would result in a shockingly fair society.
Of course, in theory. I don't know if it could be implemented in practice, and therein lies the rub.
He is not the first to suggest that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_(novel)
If there were full transparency everywhere -- in government, in corporations, of rich aristocrats, etc -- that might work.
But the reality is that the powerful people and organizations protect their own privacy, and use their knowledge advantage that as leverage against those who choose transparency for themselves.
who said "in an information age, if you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything at all"
The best country to drink in is Saudi Arabia. That's because alcohol is banned, so there are no pesky laws such as drink driving laws. After all, alcohol related laws don't make sense when alcohol does not legally exist.
The best town to commit a crime in is Scottadamstown. After all, crime officially does not exist. All you need to do is go in with a fake chip, and legally you do not exist! Carte Blanche! See that's the flip side of "more reliable identification". People's identities become more trusted, but so do imposters. If it is "impossible" to fake an identity, then as a consequence, all idenitities (and imposters) must be 100% trustworthy.
It had... mixed results. Josh Harris did this with his experimental community "Quiet, We Live In Public" and then turned the experiment on himself with weliveinpublic.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Harris_%28internet%29
For a movie about him, including lengthy pieces about both experiments, watch We Live In Public
I can see somewhere where people would gladly volunteer for this. Here in the UK (and in the US AFAIK) there is a hell of a lot of monitoring of ex-offenders in the community once their sentence is over. Almost every offender has this for a certain amount of time, but those convicted of the more serious range of offences (murder, manslaughter, rape etc) can find this goes on for life. They can end up being visited every couple of months for many, many years by Police just to see what they are up to, and in many cases to check their computers etc (which can be very disheartening especially for those who are genuinely trying to turn their lives around and do nothing wrong).
How many of them do you think would volunteer to live in one of these communities? They would know that they were being tracked all the time. If they went on-line somewhere they shouldn't (FB, Second Life etc), or looking for things they shouldn't (CP, trying to track down their victim or whatever) then they would be immediately flagged up and dealt with. If they were just getting on with their lives then nothing would flag, so they could be left alone to live a normal life without interference.
I think that Scott Adams quite possibly has the right idea, but maybe the wrong target audience for this.
I think I wouldn't have so much trouble with the eroding of my personal privacy if it happened across the board. That means every cop, every politician and every businessman would also be subject to constant surveillance to 'keep them in line'. As it is, it is a little one-sided!
The obvious flaw in such a plan is: who watches the watchers? History has proven time and again that when people are given the power of controlling such information, they will use it to their own gain, and my detriment, eventually. For instance: stalkers, political candidate harassment, election tampering, home invasion/robber informants, etc.
It's not that I think I should hide my activities, it's that I do not believe there is anyone uncorruptible, who could be trusted with the information.
Yeah, people would go for the 30% discount, because people refuse to learn the lessons of history, and generally, are stupid sheeple.
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
The scheme would cost money to run, paid for by higher taxes. Offsetting any of the dubious proposed savings.
Things are the way they are because that's the economic equilibrium. Utopias/dystopias are not stable configurations.
The case that Scot Adams poses is that there would be people who would accept a bad consequence (loss of privacy) in exchange of avoiding a set of bad consequences (high cost of living, high crime).
He could also state that plenty of people would accept losing their privacy if it meant they didn't had their knee caps smashed their legs broken. Yet, in both cases that doesn't mean that losing our privacy is desirable or that people look forward to it. The only thing that it means is that considering a set of consequences, "plenty of volunteers would come forward" to choose a bad consequence if it meant they avoided other bad consequences. No shit, sherlock. I guess that would explain why bank robbers succeed in convincing bank tellers to give away the bank's cash without asking anything in return.
So, to sum things up, this comment is absurd and lacks any merit. It's yet another apology for the attack on privacy that is ongoing.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
Privacy is basically a right of self-defense against prejudice. Asymmetric (privacy voilators are often virtuous in the area violated), but privacy has more characteristics than just the information being available.
Who matters: Abuses also happen when there are a priviliged set of monitors (police) and monitoring is not publicly accessible (webcams). Monitors benefit directly but others do not.
Worse is when data is retained unreasonably long and someone goes on a retrospective witchhunt. Cyber archive stalking.
But is that a drawback or not? I don't know. I'm having trouble imagining it. I like the idea that it would kill patents though.
The White House today proposed sweeping revisions to U.S. copyright law, including making "illegal streaming" of audio or video a federal felony and allowing FBI agents to wiretap suspected infringers. In a 20-page white paper, the Obama administration called on the U.S. Congress to fix "deficiencies that could hinder enforcement" of intellectual property laws. The White House is concerned that "illegal streaming of content" may not be covered by criminal law, saying "questions have arisen about whether streaming constitutes the distribution of copyrighted works." To resolve that ambiguity, it wants a new law to "clarify that infringement by streaming, or by means of other similar new technology, is a felony in appropriate circumstances." http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20043421-281.html
from the article :"Advertisements would transform from a pervasive nuisance into something more like useful information. Advertisers would know so much about your lifestyle and preferences that you would only see ads that made perfect sense for your situation"
I've seen this argument used by people in real life. The problem is that it relies on the mistaken belief that advertisers try to sell you what you need. That is totally 100% wrong. They try to sell you the products that they have for sale - by convincing you that you need them!
A recent report on the Dutch efforts to digitize the whole country noted the current inability to REMOVE data from the system.
It followed several cases where people had been mixed up; in one case with a dangerous criminal which led to an arrest at gunpoint; and years of frustration at being flagged as "armed and dangerous" within the system.
The worst is the complete helplessness at rehabilitating yourself after a mistake has been made. Taking in some cases years to rectify matters. In the meantime them being flagged in some led to an inability to normally interact with the "system", from applying for benefits to entering and leaving the country.
Once the information had been entered, it proved near impossible to remove / correct as copies have been made to many other semi-independent databases.
Maybe Scott could find takes at 30% lower cost, but these aren't the numbers. Current policing costs ~1%.
He means of course noprivacyville where no one takes advantage of the lack of privacy. As soon as you add even one of those to the mix, it becomes a huge liability to have no privacy. On the other hand, even a little bit more privacy makes that harder to do.
Just because one car insurance company is offering a 30% discount to customers who agree to GPS tracking to prove they don't drive in rush hour traffic (and how many fit that profile?), it doesn't follow that one can save 30% on all "basic living expenses" by totally giving up privacy. As to the major living expenses: rent/mortgage, taxes, food ... no one has made a plausible claim those expenses can be reduced at all.
This is a thought experiment only, and not a well-considered one at that. If we assume that marketers are economically rational beings, the only way they would let you "save" money by giving up your privacy is if they can make more money from it than you "save." Maybe in a few cases such as car insurance that can be done by increasing efficiency, but more likely it will be done by pushing your buttons to get you to buy overpriced crap you don't need.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Folks are already voluntarily giving up privacy in droves.
Ever go shopping at one of those stores with a loyalty card? Give them your name, phone number, and address... They'll save you a few dollars here and there... And you give them the opportunity (whether they use it or not) to track everything you purchase.
And then there's all the big on-line retailers that are keeping track of your purchases and doing all sorts of data mining to recommend stuff to you.
And let's not forget the 800lb gorilla in the room - Facebook. Folks hand their personal information to Facebook happily, just for the opportunity to do a little microblogging and maybe play Farmville.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
On a smaller scale, we are already selling some of our privacy to get things we want for free . Companies like Facebook and to a lesser extent Google make their money buy selling details of what we want to people who might be able to sell us those things. In exchange we get a service that cost money for them to run for free.
The general public may not recognize this fact but I'm sure most of the folks on here do, some of them probably spend far to much of their lives evangelizing about the dangers of selling our souls to those particular devils, but for most it's an OK deal.
N.B. this user is far too lazy to write a witty and intelligent sig.
and so on ad infinitum...
Let's just go ahead and call this the modern-day Calvinism it really is: dour, bleak, conformist and joyless.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
The level of crime (especially violent crime) goes UP, not down, as government expands and consolidates. The idea that a big-government 1984-type scenario would or could eliminate crime is absolutely backwards. On the contrary, crime would skyrocket.
Look at it this way. Governments around the world are richer, more powerful, and more ubiquitous today than ever before in history. They have their hand in everything -- yet there is violent crime occurring every day, every hour, every minute. Consider the US government -- the most powerful, most expensive government that has ever existed in world history. Yet the level of violent crime has gone up, not down, as the US government has expanded. The bigger government swells, the more crime.
A huge portion of the troubles we face in society today come from the conflict between our natural and social/cultural issues surrounding sex and sexual drives.
Nature says "do it whenever and however you want and boobs aren't for sex, they are for feeding babies." Society and culture has taken a completely opposing slant that says "sex is bad for children to know about and 'harms them', boobs are not to be seen (unless they are on a male), masturbation is disgusting and shouldn't be spoken of and sharing sex should be controlled, limited and often forbidden."
I know it's awfully Freudian of me to assert that sex is the central point of everything about humanity, but since we are unable to escape our animal identity (as much as we seek to deny and disguise it) we might as well accept it.
And we are constantly at odds with ourselves idealistically and otherwise. Marketers know that "sex sells" and so they sell it in every way possible except "overtly and directly" (because that would be illegal!). Our ideals of beauty, femininity and masculinity, and our very potential as human beings are ultimately based on our perception of what makes the best sexual partner.
But what does this have to do with "privacy"? I think it should be obvious. Aside from money and resource matters (which could also be slanted to be driven by sex) privacy is almost all about sex... sex and politics... politics which have to do with greed and power... which has a lot to do with sex. Perhaps I am pushing things a little far in my connection between our sexual conflict between nature and society, but the fact remains that we as individuals for all manner of reasons are required to have privacy where our thoughts, ideas, ideals and desires which are sexual in nature.
The other aspects of privacy/secrecy are all about keeping others from knowing what you have "so they can't take it from you."
All of this points to the fact that people, in general, simply don't understand or care to understand the real problems facing humanity and where they come from. In this case, they come from religion and other artificial social constructs that fly in opposition to man's own nature. (I am not saying that opposing man's own nature is a bad thing entirely -- there is a place for asserting limitations or else we would all kill one another and there would be no progress at all.) I think that perhaps simply knowing and understanding the realities of what we are doing to ourselves would actually be enough. Then we wouldn't have situations were young teenagers become child pornographers and marked for life as a sexual criminal for exploring their own [natural] sexual interests.
Privacy (and secrecy) is all about this. People on the surface might think they are willing to give up all privacy "for a better life" but they actually don't understand the full depth of what they would be giving up and what they are taking for granted.
Here's the truth about "People". They are all sick.
So of this 30%, expect it pretty soon to be thinned out by the ones who are having affairs, bunk off work/school early, gamble, go for a sly cigarette or hand shandy or visit to the local sex shop, synagogue, mosque, bookie etc. This, pretty much, means everyone. The only folks unaffected will be the ones that don't care or who are good at hiding things (ie Psychopaths).
Here's what you will end up with:
Fred Phelps and Co.
Charlie Sheen.
Child Molesters.
Well done Mr.Adams. You've just become your own cartoon strip.
Plato said that democracy leads to tyranny.
I don't actually have much problem with computers knowing everything about me - it is when people get information that I worry. I use GMail, and it posts "targeted" ads alongside my mails. Very occasionally, they are of interest, mostly I can see the keyword they are responding to, sometimes I just wonder WIHIH. But it doesn't worry me. And the same applies more generally. I intend to obey speed limits: I have no problem with a computer checking that I do so. If I have strange sexual tastes, i have no problem with a computer knowing it - it may even be able to guide me ("people who viewed what you just viewed also..."
It is purely when it gets into the hands of people that I get nervous. And that includes "legitimate" users such as law authorities, Because they will judge me: it is what people do. And their values will not be my values, so they will judge me by values I do not understand. (As a geek, I am not much of a "people person", so I often don't understand other people's values).
So if this 100% surveillance is totally automated, I don't have a problem. By all means, track where I go for traffic purposes. Measure how much I pee - what do I care? Correlate automatically my this against my that - feel free. But DON'T TELL ANYBODY! Because they WILL judge me (as I, if the situations were reversed, would judge them. Nobody, but nobody, can help being at least somewhat judgmental.
Of course, there have to be exceptions for investigating crimes. And I grudgingly accept that - a system of warrants etc. The trouble is, once the data is in a computer, it is too easy to release. In physical searches, the process of getting a warrant and doing the search was laborious and obvious enough that it tended to be self-limiting: you knew you were being searched, and could protest. Not that there were no abuses, but that the abuses were small enough that the benefits of the system outweighed the costs of the abuses.
But with purely electronic searches, it is too easy to set the search too wide, and to easy to do searches without the object of the search knowing. about it. And I am cynic enough to say with absolute confidence that if the system is capable of being abused, it will be abused - by the over-zealous, by the nosy, and by the criminal.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
I imagine there would emerge some element of a class divide. Sure, you commoners get no privacy, yes. But the politicians? Well, they would argue, they need their lives to be kept secret as a matter of national security. Managers of companies of sufficient influence would find some way to maintain secrecy for the sake protecting their commercially sensitive information. And everything - absolutly everything - relating to children would end up made secret to protect them from the pedophile bogeymen. It would end up, I imagine, in a situation where everyone has no privacy in princible - but those who have some level of money or influence would have no problem getting themselves excluded. Or, equally bad, where no person has any privacy - but the only organisations able to access the monitoring data would be government and corporations, who would be quite happy to make sure it stays that way.
It's an interesting thought experiment, but it's not just a city without privacy, it's a scifi city without privacy. He explicitly says that he imagines a place where all he describes is technically possible; and much of it isn't and won't be in the forseeable future. And as far as science fiction goes, it's not that exciting a text.
He's also trying very hard -- comically so -- to imagine every consequence as being positive: "Advertisements would transform from a pervasive nuisance into something more like useful information." Sure, Scott. And while total surveillance would result in an increase in solved criminal cases which would probably reduce some kinds of crime, others would still exist: many instances of violent crime are committed in the heat of the moment, others are the result of negligence. Neither would be affected by total surveillance, although I'm sure you could come up with some scifi handwaving argument, like saying that the tendency to assault somebody can be determined from genetic traits and previous surveillance like observed shouting or threatening behaviour. And so on...
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
I see having a steady job is just about the same thing. There are other presumably more exciting things I could be trying to do with my life, but I don't want the risk until I actually have some solid investments/savings to back me up if I end up not being able to make any money out of them.
which is totally what she said
I wonder which diverticulum the 30% savings number was pulled from. Oh wait, TFA mentions a single company lowering AUTO INSURANCE rates by 30%. Then the author goes on to equate this with a 30% savings in "basic living expenses". Must be nice to be a comic strip author, where your only living expense is auto insurance, apparently. Hmm, maybe Scott Adams is secretly running the Fed...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Before everybody get's their panties in a bunch, the key line from TFA is this:
So don't take it too seriously. Scott Adams isn't proposing this as a good idea, attacking your privacy or making excuses for attacking your privacy. He set up a premise and explored what he thinks the consequences might be. You can disagree with his conclusions, but try and keep some perspective.
With that sort of logic fail, we can safely conclude that Scott Adams has been killed and replaced by a PHB cloned to look like him.
If 1=-1 and you add 1 to both sides you get 2=0, not 1=0
Speed up pc http://www.speeduppctool.com/ Speed up pc tool Speeds up your pc and fixes other computer registry errors. Other advance features helps to fix hard disk errors, optimize ram, cleans junk files, defrag hard disk, start up manager and speeds up computer boot up time.
like there's a choice. privacy? that's when you're not being surveiled in your house, molested at the airport, spied on by your righteously fear based neighbors, or interrogated (or much worse) due to your opinion/beliefs/growing spirit? who needs that stuff? the holycost comes first, we all know that.
ALL MOMMYS, GET YOUR BUTTS TO THE MIDDLE EAST, JAPAN, DC, LA, GA, NY, FL ETC.... WE'VE HAD IT. WE'RE DYING HERE.
This could work only if those in charge as well as all the corporations would also be completely transparent.
'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
And as we know, nothing bad ever happens in prison because of the constant surveillance.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
All people in Noprivacyville have no privacy, but some have more privacy than others.
Sure, a cute idea. But not one that ever actually can be implemented.
We already live in Noprivacyville - everyone else calls it the Internet.
Another side-effect of "noprivacyville" is actually related to how I misread this title. Originally I saw, "Plenty would choose life (as in, "be pro-life") in Noprivacyville". And there's the problem: plenty of people would be pressured into living a false life due to peer pressure. What if Noprivacyville is 85% Christian? Would you want to be labeled atheist? Life in this hypothetical town sounds lovely as long as you're in the majority (in every category), but it sounds dismal for everyone else.
...there were plenty of sick fucks around.
"Crime" being defined as "people doing things without permission"...
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I think some people would not only give-up privacy, but also choose Serfdom, if they lived under a beneficent lord or king or dictator. Trading freedom for security & ease-of-life. In fact that's pretty much how Romans lived from 50BC through 500 AD, and it seemed to have worked.
There is a broad spectrum of this, with anarchy on one end, and 1984 on the other. Many of us choose to give up certain freedoms to make our lives easier. For instance, I signed away certain rights so I could borrow money for a house. The simple act of having a job to get paid, paying taxes for shared infrastructure & protection, and even getting married (or similar long-term relationship) in exchange for a more stable life are all examples of giving up freedoms in exchange for happiness and ease of life. We're all doing it constantly, and have been since humans first started to band together for protection.
Philosophically speaking, it's an interesting question.
Noprivacyville sounds to me like one big focus group. Sure, everyone in the center of the bell curve would be happy there, but all the interesting people out at the 1-5% margins would surely leave, either from persecution or bordom. Some of these interesting people are deviants and you would see the crime rate drop, as is suggested by TFA, but the creative and innovative people would have no incentive to try something new because what everyone likes is already known. And even if an intrepid individual dared to offer something new and exciting, no one would be willing to try it because they would all be waiting for enough people to click "Like This" to know that they too can like it. Moreover, businesses wouldn't bother marketing products to these interesting people. If you want proof of this, just look at the music industry circa 2000 (i.e., before anyone with a laptop could produce an album), or the rapid decline in the quality of indie flicks once the big studios got involved, or whatever nonsense is popular on whichever "social networking site." The old cliche that everything was great before it went mainstream reflects the engine that drives innovation and creativity. That and disaster.
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
I like the idea that it would kill patents though.
You're confusing patents with trade secrets.
This would not kill patents; in fact patents are specifically intended to make what you're doing transparent. Anyone can look it up and read a clear description of your patented process. They just can't mimic it until the patent expires.
Some would choose Beneficent Serfdom (Score:-1) by commodore6502 (1981532)
MODDED "overrated"
No comprehende'. How can a message that is already a -1 score be overrated??? Maybe the moderator was trying to drop this post to a -2.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
you're being obtuse. if you can save 30% on something in theoretical land due to factor X then X(somethingelse) might be as valid. I don't know that rainbows would be cheaper but insurance and... ammunition would be cheaper, possibly other things.
suppose you walk around town with a big sign above you saying: ...
- I carry 10 000 dollars in cash
- I don't do any sport
- I don't carry any weapon
Now imagine what happens next
Why yes, because being spied upon was the best part of being part of citizen in DDR/USSR.
People who have money, fancy stuff, food and a feeling that they can say whatever they want can take surveillance. But, the first second they get burnt these people are the first to cry out for civil rights. They want them, but someone else should fight for them.
HTTP/1.1 400
But I don't see the connection between no-privacy and cost of living discounts and crime. Prisons lack privacy yet crimes still happen. As far as cost saving? If I know your vices, your living habits, your consumption behavior I will charge you more for that Rum, the doughnuts, you name it cause I know you need is not elastic.
Hope is the currency of fools
And I thought I just had to switch to GEICO...
AJ Henderson
This city of no privacy wouldn't need much of a police force because no criminal would agree to live in such a monitored situation.
Bad workers would end up voluntarily moving out of the city to find work.
Studies have shown that peer pressure has a huge impact on <conservation> [not only: replace with anything you imagine]
Every circle has a periphery periphery that's formed by the points the farthest from the mid-point. The current social tendency is to eliminate them and... inherently form another periphery. We've seen it in the history many times.
Advertisements would transform from a pervasive nuisance into something more like useful information. Advertisers would know so much about your lifestyle and preferences that you would only see ads that made perfect sense for your situation.
Since when "making sense" relates with marketing? (capture the attention? yes. Stick a message in mind, even subliminal? Yes. Create/maintain, if possible, an "addiction"? Wow, of course. Making sense? God forbid it, the people may start thinking "Why the hell do I need a new X every Y months?")
As a consumer, you'd know where to get the best prices.
Choice based on prices only? Goodbye competition!
When you considered applying for a new job, you'd have access to the latest employee opinion survey for that business.
Goodbye, start-ups. Sorry, no historical references, won't work for you
Confusopolies wouldn't be tolerated in this city.
Confusopolies??!!! Say, for example, the company will publish the documentation of the trials for a new drug. Me, Joe Sixpack, am expected to clearly understand what are the consequences of the drug, isn't it? 'Cause if I can't understand it, is should be a confusopoly: out of the city with them, they are clearly belonging to the periphery!
I know you don't want to live in that city. I'm just curious what sort of price, in economic terms, and in convenience and in social benefits, we pay for our privacy. My guess is that it's expensive.
Sure... would you try to count the cost of living in a county in which the "Tyrannical Majority" is the rule of life, where risk taking and innovation is a "fringe", where the marketers are free to "spin the facts" abusing the lack of privacy and using an "information deluge" as a mean to "inform the prospective buyer"?
Based on the episode of "Top gear", I'd recommend Scott Adams to move his pale urban ass in the red-neck country of Alabama to have an experience of this life-style. He shouldn't even give up his privacy to have a taste of it (actually, I reckon he must not give away his privacy if he wants to stay alive)
My guess is that it's expensive.
Moreover, I find it insanely oxymoronic and cognitive dissonant to live and think a "consumerist society" (aka "economy of waste") and still be worried about "the cost of maintaining the privacy".
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
I highly doubt that such a society would do anything but destroy itself or become some type of authoritarian society, probably both. Those with influence (Politicians, Police, Rich) tend to find some way of exempting themselves on some security grounds, we'll call them the "Haves". That exemption makes those individuals very difficult to bring to justice, so some of them abuse the privilege to commit crimes against the lower echelons. Eventually some in the lower echelons (Have Nots) of the society realize whats going on and are upset about the injustice, so a black market is formed to even the playing field (maybe chip jammers and or cloners in this case). The Haves of the society create ever increasing restrictions on the Have Nots to try to keep them in line. Eventually the society implodes either by way of the a mass number of the Have Nots of the society realizing whats going on and rebelling, or the Haves of the society imposing so many extreme restrictions that the Have Nots loose all interest in contributing to society and the economy fails (USSR anyone?) One only has to look at our current judicial system to realize that this would happen. Your average person can be throw in prison for months or years for something as simple as growing a plant. Yet the "Haves" often get little or no punishment for even serious crimes such as theft, assault & murder.
If total transparency is in play all crime stops dead in its tracks. Every little action would be recorded and available for all to see. Every conversation would be permanently held for all to review. The savings to society would be enormous. Even a doctor prescribing a test too frequently would raise alarms. Lawyers who get poor results for clients or who charge unusually high fees would be outed quickly. Teachers would have every word and action saved fro all to review. The school bully could not get away with the slightest offence. Salesmen would be restrained to the simple, plane truth. Adultery would tend to vanish. Even a high school girl flirting with two boys would quickly be exposed. All in all it sounds great.
I can't imagine what it would be like in both gender directions as we freely have access to each others browsing and chat logs.
Actually, I can - people wouldn't browse or chat about the things they want to. So, it's a great society if you're willing to give up many of the perfectly legal things that you want to do. Save a few bucks and give up your identity because you must conform to the norms or be an outcast. Aren't there already cults that people can join if they want to live like this? They're pretty cheap to live in from what I understand, maybe the author can go try one out for a while and let us know if it was worth it.
It is a false equivalence. There is no privacy in prisons, yet crime is rampant.
So many commenters apparently did not RTFA. So, let me make a summary of Scott Adam's position, as stated in TFA:
I know you don't want to live in that city. I'm just curious what sort of price, in economic terms, and in convenience and in social benefits, we pay for our privacy. My guess is that it's expensive. (...) I get it. This is just an economic thought experiment.
As such, he brings a very interesting proposition:
(1) Privacy has a price, in terms of a society's economy and institutional efficiency;
(2) If that price were made clear, how much would you be willing to pay?
Put it that way it seems a fair conclusion that, left to market forces, in the end privacy will lose. Because the price of privacy is unevenly distributed in society -- some people will gain nothing ("I have nothing to hide") some people will gain the world ("I really really really want to smuggle these cuban cigars") -- and those opting for privacy, once a minority, may well be discriminated as "having something to hide".
To those that can't imagine how the lack of privacy can help, let me remind you of two examples that are paying off very well for our willing exposure:
Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
Advertisements would transform from a pervasive nuisance into something more like useful information. Advertisers would know so much about your lifestyle and preferences that you would only see ads that made perfect sense for your situation.
But as the standards he was comparing to were either ad hoc rule by all citizens (a minority) with no checks or balances on the one hand, and arbitrary rule by a king on the other, and we have a subsequent 2400 years of political history to draw on, his views on the matter are pretty much worthless.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Psh, I saved 30% on car insurance in just 30 minutes by switching to some guy in an alley.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
... the no-privacy also applies to all corporate CEOs, and all their corporate meetings and email.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
If allowed to move into "noprivacyville" i would quickly take to nudity. Within a week, they'd amend the snot out of that idea.
This is slashdot. Saying "of Dilbert fame," on here is about as redundant as People writing, "Victoria Beckham (of Spice Girls fame)."
If everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, was tracked, chipped, monitored, followed, & watched AND the information was 100% transparent and available to EVERYONE, then well...
I've been interested in this approach to public surveillance for some time now. I consider myself a strong privacy advocate and I absolutely don't condone any encroachments of privacy in the home or personal communication, but I also try to be realistic about expectations of privacy in public places.
An analogy: if you're relying on a crappy cryptographic protocol for security, that's often worse than no security at all, since it gives you the illusion of safety and leads you to put sensitive data places where it can be cracked. When I hear people decrying government-operated surveillance cameras on public streets, I sympathize and often agree with them, but I also wonder if they have the same sort of illusion of privacy when they're on the sidewalk, camera or no. The government isn't collecting any information with that camera that wouldn't also be accessible to a crank with a window to look out of. Granted, the government has a lot of power to collate and abuse that information, but even that observation seems to assume the absence of a sufficiently dedicated network of private cranks with access to a sufficiently large number of windows. These days, that might be a poor assumption.
So maybe it would be a good thing if we did have surveillance cameras in public places so long as they were streamed to the Internet where anyone could watch. I wouldn't say I'm especially comfortable or happy with the idea, but it might be the net best choice. Some sort of crowdsourcing, whatever problems it might invite, would at least give the cameras some chance of being used to catch actual criminals, which statistically the government is not succeeding at. And it would give us a more realistic understanding of modern privacy and encourage the voting public to have a clearer discussion about where the cameras don't go. It would suck that $person can watch you walk into $embarrassingplace from their desk, but they can already do that if they've got a gossipy friend with a smartphone who's in the right place at the right time.
"This algorithm runs in constant time. Come on, 2,147,483,648 is a constant..."
>This city of no privacy wouldn't need much of a police force because no criminal would agree to live in such a monitored situation.
This is already false.. The UK has a huge amount of closed-circuit TV camera's but it has made no dent in crime even though people are getting filmed as they do it. Crime, like shit, happens. Even a panopticon wouldn't stop it. It might be easier on the police to find a criminal but the number of murders for example wouldn't go down.
>because every car would be aware of the location of every other car, every child, and every pet. Accidents could be nearly eliminated.
Or, your car drives you into a river and you drown.. because computers crash and have bugs.
An interesting thought it this. People like to do things that aren't 'proper'. For example, the reason why most people don't want the rest of the world to know about their sex life is because various things that people enjoy are seen as improper. (Censorship of sex proves this). But what if everything of everybody is out in the open? After the initial shock that your dad likes to wear diapers and get spanked by your mom, I wonder if it's like a nudist colony, i.e. after a while you don't even notice that other people are naked. With all the taboo's out in the open, how long do they remain a taboo, and extending that, would we still feel the need for privacy?
Instead of taboo's like sex, let's talk about trivial criminal activities. I cross the road sometimes when the light is red but traffic is absent. This is technically a crime, and as such I wouldn't really like it to be out in the open because I could get a fine. But what if everybody's trivial crimes are out in the open. Would it even still be enforceable when everybody does it?
But only if the no-privacy rules extended as far as the bedroom, bathroom, etc -- and plenty of hot chicks lived there, too!
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
This is why people invented God. The God module apparently knows everything (no privacy), is beyond all coercion (no need to watch the watchers), metes out punishment accordingly (for all infractions), and rewards those who comply with the law (please enter heaven).
I'm told that in days of old, he/she/it used to even deliver on-the-spot fines (smiting people).
Everything old is new again. People just want a mechanical god.
And you'd get 10% of it, while the "designer" (God bless their entrepreneurial spirit) would take 90% of the profit and live on an island with his harem :).
(go ahead, try it https://www.google.com/history/)
I tried it. I have to install a toolbar for it to track anything. I have not installed that toolbar, so nothing is tracked. This is "opt in" tracking.
"Plenty of people" do it is the WORST justification ever.
Plenty of people do all kinds of stupid shit. Look at our political leaders. Plenty of people like that show "2 and a half men," Plenty of people smoke crack daily.
This guy should get back to drawing Dilbert.
Aside from the argument that lack of privacy is the only way to enforce equality for all, there are many examples of people who live in small towns (which lack the privacy of larger cities) and prefer that connectedness to life amongst many people to whom they are less connected.This is an excellent example of people giving up privacy in trade for other benefits.
Privacy (in many cases) boils down to anominity - some people like to be known and are willing to make the trade off. Being known allows people to help you find things you are interested in. Most privacy issues boil down to people wanting to get away with things whilst still being known i.e. everyone wishes cameras were everywhere to catch killers, but most people do not want their every move on video.
...but I've got plent to be ashamed of. I can explain a bomb. I can't explain some of the shit on my hard drive." -- Marc Maron
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
This would not kill patents; in fact patents are specifically intended to make what you're doing transparent. Anyone can look it up and read a clear description of your patented process.
Really? If I can access your research and have a better idea how to solve a problem you stumbled on just at the end of it, what stops me in applying for the patent ahead of you? What would be your motivation for research then? Only the satisfaction that you saw your research being set into practice? If so, what's the point of using the patent system as a motivational factor?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
If that guy sits in your back seat with a pistol and a sign saying "I'll murder anybody who damages this car." I think you've made a sound investment.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
There are other presumably more exciting things I could be trying to do with my life, but I don't want the risk until I actually have some solid investments/savings to back me up if I end up not being able to make any money out of them.
Ah, yes, the American dream. Good luck (because you do need it: no risk, small reward).
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
I might be willing to give this a try if this means I setup xray machines outside the modelling agency and public masturbation becomes normal. Think of the bandwith we'll save, forget blocking youtube.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Why, thank you Mr. Franklin. While Im not sure you meant to equate privacy and liberty, I centainly do.
This would not kill patents; in fact patents are specifically intended to make what you're doing transparent. Anyone can look it up and read a clear description of your patented process. They just can't mimic it until the patent expires.
Actually, it would. In most of the world, you cannot apply for a patent on anything which has been publicly revealed before the date on which the application was filed. If there is zero privacy, then an invention can only be kept secret if it remains in your thoughts; as soon as it is put into a document, it is likely to be public. There is a loophole for the US and Canada, whereby the original inventor can apply for a patent up to one year after publication of the invention. It is expected that the loophole will be closed sooner or later, but if everything you do is non-private, then proving one is the original inventor is could become quite challenging.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Scott Adams' thought experiment could only work in an Anarchist society (i.e. absolutely no government of any kind). If each and every individual is independent and self-enterprising, then this would work for the very reason that those who choose to be watched could benefit from the system without anyone of authority (note: authority does not exist in an Anarchist society) abusing the system, and those who choose not to be watched wouldn't be in a position to abuse the system to begin with.
I was skeptical of Mr. Adams' blog post at first, but then I saw that most elements of it that actually make real sense and would contribute to solving many of society's most pervasive issues. Kinda sad that the only reasons why this concept would utterly fail is that law, politics, and class stratification exist.
-1 point for humanity as we know it
The Transparent Society from Wired explored an idea like this.
It might make it very difficult to apply for a new patent, but it would not "kill" patents. All existing patents would still be valid and enforceable, and properly-documented work could prove that you were the original inventor.
Really? If I can access your research and have a better idea how to solve a problem you stumbled on just at the end of it, what stops me in applying for the patent ahead of you?
The fact that I'm the original inventor grants me the right to file the patent, and as everything is completely transparent (at least in this hypothetical world) everyone knows that my work pre-dated yours and you were copying my work. You can't hide the fact that you are accessing my research...
Crime will be there no matter what. People will find ways around it. Look at all the cameras we have, doesn't stop crime, locked doors, don't stop crime. They are all just deterrents.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Privacy is more than a luxury, it is a way for societies of culturally distinct folks to get along. The previous presumptions that the system could work if there were some way to prevent abuses of power by an elite - maybe by some method of transparency and accountability towards how much time those in authority spend in the bathroom together - these presumptions are in turn neglecting a horrible and common other source of injustice, that of the majority will.
A dominant large group could easily force cultural, spiritual or philosophical conformity - even while maintaining nigh complete transparency itself.
"We know you went into the bedroom with Jim on Fasting Day!" ... meh)
"You have been taking tainted literature in the bathroom with you." (Not even pr0n, it might be a bible, or worse - a biology text.)
"You are not wearing acceptable undergarments" (maybe only a few are O.K., or only a few are proscribed,
"You have been talking with Jim - you know he is currently 'muted'. "
"You have not spoken to an adviser in 6 months"
These forces are not muted by transparency. Such an environment has little or no defense against massive social pressure, whether by cults, fitness regimes, monster high-school cliques, fads, fashions or any other transgression of a cultural more held by the majority community.
I'm just addressing this one point - the myriad issues that others have raised are theirs to enjoy.
proles and animals are free...
Really? If I can access your research and have a better idea how to solve a problem you stumbled on just at the end of it, what stops me in applying for the patent ahead of you?
The fact that I'm the original inventor grants me the right to file the patent, and as everything is completely transparent (at least in this hypothetical world) everyone knows that my work pre-dated yours and you were copying my work. You can't hide the fact that you are accessing my research...
Haven't you heard that the USPO is moving from "first to invent" to "first to file"? Me filling a patent based on your work with my "polish" sooner than you would be still within "playing by the rules of the game": while it may not please you, it would be still legal.
Or do you think that "everything is in the open" suddenly will make the people more moral and their behavior more ethical?
The only rational and ethical way to solve it it would be a collaboration work: me helping you to get over your difficulty, others contributing their bits and pieces and everybody building new structures on top of the existing ones. But in this case the patent laws become a serious hindrance: this is why I do agree with the GGGP post when saying "I like the idea that it would kill patents though"
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Mod a 0 as "overrated" and it becomes "-1 overrated"
Flamebait or Troll at least implies some creativity.
The verb for removal of privacy is DOX. As in, I dox, you dox, Anonymous doxes. Fortunately Scott although irritating us (like Scott of SUN with his "get over it" comment about loss of privacy) has not truly earned the effort. And Dilbert is adequate mitigation. But, we're watching, and recording. Just not publishing.
He isn't the other end of the spectrum. Because there are those who want to pierce YOUR privacy (not merely not care if their privacy is gone).
So the situation is not a straight line with RMS, SA at either end, but a triangle with RMS, SA and Advertising/governments/corporations at the three apexes.
Life is multi-dimensional. Stop making it one-dimensional.
So? They'd just have to move back to "first to invent"... the main problem with it was that it's too hard to figure out who first invented something, which is a problem that doesn't exist in our hypothetical transparent world.
People would want to live in this relatively crime free area until they find out that something they do behind closed doors is considered by someone else, immoral, a crime, undesirable.
Following up on the grocery store "discount" card analogy a previous commenter made, assuming our society starts to move in this direction those who want to protect their privacy will actually pay a tax on top of everything else. Like the grocery store cards, you're not actually getting a discount. Prices are marked UP. I remember when my local grocer went to this system about 10 years or so ago, all the prices were jacked up and you needed their discount cards to get normal value.
Eventually, everyone wanting to stay off the grid or maintain privacy will be hounded with opt-outs, additional expenses, or mandatory "come to our office and fill out a form" hurdles that will deter them.
BTW, I bought a house about 4 years ago and ever since I've been bombarded with advertisement, via mail and blind sales calls. My mailbox was stuffed with home improvement flyers the first time I checked it, so I have to assume that all the banks, title companies, and mortgage servicing companies pimp your info out as soon as you start the application process.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
right. It would work if everyone was honest, forgiving, and open-minded. Oh wait. I'd think you'd end up with mob rule and mob morality. Or high school. There would be the cool people who see themselves as perfect and all their little lackeys and everyone else would get screwed. Think about the things tabloids and gossip programs about celebrities bring up, constantly questioning a person's character over petty garbage.
Besides, what is crime anyways? Just harm to one's well being? In that case, I'd rather get mugged once in my entire life then spend my whole existence kept in a cage.
So? They'd just have to move back to "first to invent"... the main problem with it was that it's too hard to figure out who first invented something, which is a problem that doesn't exist in our hypothetical transparent world.
Maye. I'm quite tired. You are hitting down every example that I put up but refusing to address the fundamental that in a "everything in the open" patents acts even more as a hindrance that a promoter for invention, by promoting the individualism over the collaboration effort.
Last chance: assuming that I see your work got in a dead-end with high chances you will stay there (e.g. because you are missing a whole body of knowledge in another area) and say I would know how to get over the obstacle, what is my incentive to help you? I can wait for you to give up, wait for some years, use what I know about your work and patent all by myself: it will be a known fact that you gave up.
Or, if you choose to publish your incomplete work (non-patentable, because there is not yet a viable proof of concept), even better... cite your work and still patent my prototype. You say that you'll be knowing that I restarted your work from the point you stopped? What can you do? Rush even faster to patent now with my contribution but without me? Then you'll be the bad guy and me the "hurt party" - equally un-ethical.
What's the cause of all the above? The fact that a monopoly over the result of an invention is an incentive good enough to promote egotistical motivation over collaboration.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Let ME rephrase it: I want a Fire Breathing Dragon too. And a Lightsabre. And a spaceship.
None of them are going to happen. There WILL be exceptions.
If you're going to talk about hypothetical situations like "there will be no exceptions", then nobody is going to sign up for this noprivacyville because it doesn't and will never exist, so how can they sign up for something that doesn't exist? Might as well put yourself down for a preorder purchase of a Fire Breathing Dragon...
I'll believe it when I see it.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
in a "everything in the open" patents acts even more as a hindrance that a promoter for invention, by promoting the individualism over the collaboration effort.
No; human nature does that. The patent system is not the cause; it is only a by-product.
As an example, in Florida, native American populations used to live in Chickee huts with open sides. No privacy there, unless you wandered off into the swamp. I suspect that life in a place like that provided the ultimate in small town mentality, with everybody knowing everybody else's business, enforcing conformism. They would not have had 'big brother' in the impersonal distant government sense however. And this would have been the hunter gatherer environment that human nature was presumably shaped in. So I don't think it's a given that humans have a strong innate requirement for privacy, much as some of us, myself included, might like it.
It all boils down to how much one is allowed to be 'different'. Being different can mean being creative and innovative, thinking outside the box, or it can mean being a sociopath of some kind. In theory the 'good different' would be tolerated and the 'bad different' would be suppressed or corrected, but in practice, it would be different. (Taking a cue from the purported aphorisms of Yogi Berra.) There are enough anecdotes about people who were positive movers and shakers in society who were tormented by teasing, bullying, and the like as children to make me extremely skeptical about that. Of course, if only big brother had access to your private life, then only big brother would be putting all the pressure on to conform. Keeping you from complaining that the nuclear power plants or the off shore oil wells aren't safe, that the chemical warfare weapons really do exist and start properly stored, you know, that kind of thing.
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
Oath of Fealty, Niven and Pournelle. Generally a positive view of the idea, but bear in mind Pournelle tends toward the authoritarian anyway.
... In all your 1984 dystopian scenarios, there's an elite segment that isn't subject to the same rules as the masses---arguably, there exists an elite segment in today's society that isn't subject to the same rules as the masses
And unfortunately, they seem to be the ones making the rules. <Sigh>SSDD
Maybe we should give it a try. After all: Freedom is slavery.
I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it. -- Groucho Marx
in a "everything in the open" patents acts even more as a hindrance that a promoter for invention, by promoting the individualism over the collaboration effort.
No; human nature does that. The patent system is not the cause; it is only a by-product.
Well, you are right... and, in the terms of "human-race club", tautologically so.
But tell you what: much easier to strike down the patents law than is to modify the human nature. And, since in "all on the open" utopian world, trade secrets doesn't exist anymore and patents encourages individualism on the expense of a quicker collaborative invention process, I argue that in such a world patents law makes too little sense.
Remember? Patents were introduced as a "lesser evil to act as a counter-balance to trade secrets". If the "trade secret greater evil" doesn't exist anymore, the next "greater evil" (there's always a maximum) becomes... patent laws. Why should I keep them in place?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Privacy, much like security, are largely illusions we use to fool ourselves into thinking nobody will learn our secrets or cause us harm. I'd gladly give up privacy because I already assume I have no true privacy. Add financial/social incentives and the deal just gets sweeter. The only people who need privacy are people who have things to hide or are embarrassed about who they are and what they do.
Look around. There are countries like Singapore, Dubai, Brunei where the state is all powerful and people are happy because crime is low, livelihood is plenty and life is easy. No one gives two hoots there about democracy or privacy. Economic freedom matters a gazillion times more to most people that political.
For after all: if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to hide.
So, I find the article very speculative based on his precived notion of human behavior, on top of that it isn't so much a lack of privacy as a ubiquitous sensor environment which is a step further then no privacy. Having no evidence to back up my claim, I personally would counter argue that people who agree to live with no privacy would be less likely to feel burdened by social pressures of conformity. So he suggest that privacy would only exists in the bathroom or the bedroom which is based on his feeling of the limits of openness, but I doubt that would be the case.
Under the suggested system it would be easy for other members of society to know what type of social vices you consume. Because everyone knows you indulge in these vices which there is no reason for obscenity laws. (Depending on your social views this might be a great thing) Neither, in favor or against I envision a much more open world where its harder now to regulate by law what can and can't be done, because lets face it we all know it occurs. In other words by the presence of ubiquitous sensors monitoring every moment of our lives we must assume anyone can tap in to the feed at any time not just the body in control of the sensors. So, why attempt to preform anything in private no matter how taboo it is in our world.
I figure the type of people who would want to live in this environment would be more socially extreme then just looking for a cheaper safe place to live. I imagine the surrounding cities somewhat bricking in the area and looking down on those who visit. I think a social stigmata would develop for the outside world to engage with people from the town. The more I type the more I feel I am suggesting that with out privacy society would crumble and that isn't really my point, but instead that I do not believe a private society could co-exist in piece with a non-private society.
Momento Mori
David Brin's book - The Transparent Society talks about this kind of city/state/nation over 12 years ago.
In general since the commonfolk will likely lose privacy the goal was to make sure the elites do to.
http://www.davidbrin.com/transparent.htm
It would help the government eliminate those that are against them and those who would dare challenge their authority. What a great idea! When can this be applied to all of society?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I already live in a "relatively crime free area" without being chipped and tracked.
You have been deemed a "Traitor of Alpha Complex" by The Computer
When my wife sends me to the store to buy tampons I always wind up buying one package of the store brand, and several brand-names precisely because I have little idea what she wants.
If there was no advertising, I would be much less likely to buy the brand names in part because I would have no reason to think she might prefer them (or "think" that she prefers them.)
Advertising sets up a situation where there are multiple false realities, sometimes to the point where even a reasonably informed person cannot navigate to the truth. 4 out of five doctors who smoke recommend .... It was not so long ago that such advertising was prevalent, and I'm not sure the drug advertising today is much better, might be worse.
I have gone through this all as well. The grand parent either really sucks at their job, or is just lying out their ass. You are NOT supposed to store credit card numbers from mag stripe, and if you are ever audited for PCI compliance and they find out that you are storing them, you will be shut down.
http://www.pcicomplianceguide.org/pcifaqs.php#myth16
You can also take a look at page 15 in this document https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/documents/pci_ssc_quick_guide.pdf which clearly states that you are NOT allowed to store magnetic data. Period.
Its industry "illegal" because you will not be able to take credit card numbers if you do this. So effectively, its like the bank is shutting you down and blacklisting you. You are playing a semantics game maybe but semantics are not going to save your sorry ass.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
And given yourself a very good reason not to hit anything while driving ...
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
"if one could save 30% on basic living expenses, and live in a relatively crime-free area, plenty of volunteers would come forward."
that description sounds like prison to me. inmates paid with actions, not paychecks. and when you have nothing to steal, who's going to steal from you?
the next "greater evil" (there's always a maximum) becomes... patent laws. Why should I keep them in place?
Patent laws protect you as much as anyone - if little old unheard-of you invents the next iPhone, Apple can't just steal it and crush you with its market share. Inventors will never allow you to destroy the patent process entirely; they have too much invested in the system.
In Norway, tax returns are public information. And in 2008 they were even online.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/frenzy-of-snooping-as-norway-puts-all-tax-records-online-510577.html
Talk about transparency...
I just saved a fortune on my car insurance by switching to a nudist commune!
It doesn't seem to be very popular, in spite of all of the recruiting bonuses!
I see a lot of people stating that they would live in such a place if the scenario were practically perfect. Even if every politician, cop, etc was wired 24/7 for audio and video, I would never choose to be part of such a society. I don't care what my fellow citizens are up to 99.99999% of the time. What I do care about is keeping what I do private, even when my actions are legal and moral. It simply isn't any one else's god damn business what I do behind closed doors as long as I'm not hurting anyone.
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
Why bother? Right now, you can save 15% by switching to Geico
It does neither. It says that in the current real world, you can get 30% off your car insurance by letting them place a GPS tracker in your car. He then uses it as the basis for a thought experiment for how much money people could save by living in no-privacy city. He expressly does not try to compute the savings. The final line is "I'm just curious what sort of price, in economic terms, and in convenience and in social benefits, we pay for our privacy. My guess is that it's expensive."
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Um, he didn't say, "Ergo, if we give up privacy it would give 30% savings across the board!"
He said, "What *if* we were promised a 30% savings across the board - would some give up privacy? Also, just how much might the savings be?"
It was exploration of a concept. The word "essay" comes from words meaning "trial", "attempt", or "test", and in fact it's often still used this way. Not every blog post needs to be making an argument, and foisting one on it and complaining that it's not logical is your problem not Scott's.
I once dated a girl who read Brave New World and couldn't understand that it was a dystopia. She thought it sounded pretty good.
I once lent Heinlein's very right-wing but well-written SF book, 'Starship Troopers' to my nephew. Mid teens, he thought it was a great society model.
He didn't join up when he graduated, though.
And don't mention the movies. Please.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Does anyone else think about Adventureland, The Count, Pirate's Island, Mission Impossible, and Voodoo Castle whenever they hear the name Scott Adams?
I was hoping "Noprivacyville" was the name of a new text adventure.
Also, I see from the Wikipedia entry that he was co-designer of Buckaroo Banzai... I keep meaning to find a copy of that (and presumably an emulator to run it on, unless there's a PC version I can use DOSbox for.) and now I have a good excuse! It was designed by a designer whose works I know I enjoy!
This sounds a lot like the central premise of "Oath of Fealty", where people choose to live in an arcology (high density living - 250000 people in a single large building) and be observed at all times when outside their residences (and sometimes inside, if a panic button is pressed). The book is a fascinating study of the idea, and makes it sounds really attractive.
You also apparently equate 'temporary' with 'permanent'.
The very notion that some people would wish a utopia in which their needs are taken care of, and all they would have to to is submit to a total loss of freedom and constant monitoring indicates a severe lack of comprehension of human nature.
The world is like it is because people are like they are. This is absolute truth. Injustice and cruelty and autocracy and all the evil we can handle? And somehow by giving up our freedoms to 100 percent monitoring, it'll all be good? No human nature will impose itself? The very act of constant monitoring means that the system is a failure. If humans could live without crime there would be no need to chip them and monitor them. Furthermore, such a population would be ripe for exploitation by those who would exhibit the same human nature that made them want to give up their freedoms in the first place.
Freedom isn't free. An old cliche' but true.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Look what happened when LifeLock's Todd Davis posted his SSN publicly. Now imagine that everybody's SSN was available publicly. What could possibly go wrong?
This reminds me the TV series "The Prisoner".
People there had no privacy and no responsibilities. Although they didn't seem happy but rather numb.
Of course they were sent there not by their choice. Transparency was one sided. Supervisors weren't observed by rest of the community. Unfortunately this is more realistic.
Scott Adams made a new game? Noprivacyville? Sweet. Can't wait to play it.
Be seeing you...
You're confusing patents with trade secrets.This would not kill patents;
Am I? I was thinking about the absolute novelty requirement but I see in the USA you could still slip the quick and easy stuff through. Not much point in that. The only IP that would remain after 20 years of full transparency would be trademarks. Copyright would have to go because I must have access to whatever creative work you are observing.
As others pointed out, we'd have to return to a first-to-invent system rather than a first-to-file system, but if anyone who wanted to see the unfinished research of an inventor could do so, so also there would have to be some way to tell that they were looking at it, i.e. nobody could secretly copy off of someone else's research in a no-privacy world. There couldn't be any question of who invented something first, and the original inventor could safely complete the research and file for a patent, because anyone who tried to steal the idea, complete the research and file a patent on the idea first would be prevented from doing so. In effect, any idea would be "patent pending" as soon as it was first laid onto paper.
Since the patent system is an open system anyway - you file the complete process and anyone can look it up, they just can't duplicate it - I don't see how a no-privacy world would prevent the patent system from continuing to operate. Trade secrets, on the other hand, would be killed - in a no-privacy world there wouldn't be any such thing as a secret formula or recipe.
I love arguments like these, where there's insults pitched at the dissenters all the way through. I'm going to describe a perfect environment where I'm worshiped as a god and sodomizing babies is illegal. I know you might not like it because you don't think I'm a god or perhaps you like sodomizing babies, but it's just a thought experiment.
Having read various bits of utopian and dystopian texts, I've decided the difference between the two is whether or not you're the one describing the utopia.