Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scott Adams Says Plenty Would Choose Life In Noprivacyville

Posted by timothy on from the depends-on-the-neighbors dept.

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.'"

7 of 467 comments (clear)

  1. There will always be an Edgar Friendly by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sorry, Scott. Dreams of Utopia are just dreams.

    1. Re:There will always be an Edgar Friendly by ArhcAngel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is anyone really stupid enough to believe that the rule making process would be non political and unbiased?

      In a word...Yes
      In fact I suspect there are quite a few.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    2. Re:There will always be an Edgar Friendly by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But the Edgar Friendly's are, by definition, always on the margin. The second someone like that actually gains any real power, they almost always just become the new boss, same as the old boss. Totalitarian regimes are usually replaced by equally, or even worse, Totalitarian regimes. One day you're Robespierre leading the revolution against the evil monarchy, the next you're Robespierre leading the Terror.

      The sad truth is that true democratic revolutions, ones that don't devolve into either anarchy or some sort of corrupt totalitarian regime, are relatively rare in history. Most Edgar Friendly's either lose, or they win only to end up just as repressive as their predecessor.

      Much as some may find it distasteful, a lot of people would actually like to live in San Angeles, especially if you were raising a family. I used to think such a Stepford community was pretty disgusting myself. Then I had kids.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  2. The reality is asymetric privacy/transparency. by ron_ivi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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"

  3. Re:Sure, if it includes EVERYBODY by killmenow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is precisely what I was thinking. I wouldn't mind having no privacy so much if the people who had control and power also had no privacy. If every government official, every corporate executive and every law enforcement officer had 100% of everything they do and say tracked, monitored, and freely accessible to every person in the country.

    No more secrets, Marty..

  4. Why does no privacy mean safe from crime? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is a false equivalence. There is no privacy in prisons, yet crime is rampant.

    1. Re:Why does no privacy mean safe from crime? by JustinOpinion · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Indeed.

      His take on advertising also jumps to conclusions:

      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.

      This is a fallacy I've tried to point out before. If advertisers know everything about you, that doesn't mean they will only show you ads for things you care about, or ads you find pleasant/funny/good. The point of advertising/marketing is to shift your purchasing behavior, and being pleasant will not always be the best way to achieve this. Ads that are repetitive, annoying, boring, or otherwise unpleasant may be "effective" from a marketing standpoint. E.g. people hate seeing the same commercial over and over again (sometimes more than once in a single commercial break!) but it's no accident: they know that they can increase brand recognition by searing their jingle/logo/etc. into your brain.

      And advertisers have huge incentives to show you ads for things you "don't care about". In fact advertising things you really care about is mostly a waste: you're too well-informed and opinionated to sway. To bring up the stereotypical example: males may not care about tampons, but advertisers still want them to see tampon ads, because sooner or later that guy is going to have to buy tampons (e.g. his wife asks him to pick some up on the way home) and the company wants the guy's default, uninformed choice to be driven not by careful research but by advertising and brand loyalty.

      Basically, the goals of the advertisers and the goals of the consumer are not aligned in any way.

      The same is true of many of the other examples presented in the hypothetical. It's somewhat assumed that people will use the pervasive information in fairly logical and reasonable ways. But that's not how companies or people operate. Companies are effectively predatory. People are often illogical. For instance giving people more information doesn't always lead to better decisions. Studies have shown that people get overloaded and make sub-optimal decisions beyond a certain level.

      Basically, the gains that are described as a result of "no privacy" would only occur if all the participants were very good, honest, smart, and balanced. But if you're using "very good, honest, smart, balanced people" as a starting axiom, then the "no privacy" thing isn't really necessary, since a good society will evolve in any case. The problem is that in reality people are variable, illogical, and somewhat selfish. We need to design societies that take into account human behavior, not societies that idealize it.