Vint Cerf Thinks Privacy May Be an Anomaly
Nerval's Lobster writes "Vint Cerf, widely considered one of the 'founders of the Internet,' told an audience at the Federal Trade Commission's Internet of Things workshop that privacy could be considered 'an anomaly.' That workshop, held Nov. 19 in Washington, DC, explored (via speeches and panel discussions) how the proliferation of sensors on everything from cars to household devices is fundamentally changing how people live and work—while raising questions of how to best maintain privacy and security in an environment where more and more things are 'watchers.' 'The technology that we use today has far outraced our social intuition, our headlights,' he added. '[There's a] need to develop social conventions that are more respectful of people's privacy.' Current social behaviors, such as instantly posting images from smartphones to social networks, can result in a whole lot of embarrassment—and maybe even penalties, if data and media happens to catch someone in the act of doing something illegal. Cerf currently works at Google as chief Internet evangelist, which would make him uniquely positioned to comment on these sorts of issues even if he hadn't co-created the TCP/IP backbone that supports the modern Web. (Back in April, he told an audience that, if he had to do it all over again, he'd construct the Internet in the mold of Software-Defined Networking — but that's a whole different, tangled discussion.)"
...I can monitor exactly what the people in charge, whether it's government or corporations, do at any point in their life we can start talking. Until then, keep out.
This can be an unpleasant a way to live, is a lot like prison, and is very different from the past.
Indeed, and it's not surprising that some have used the panopticon metaphor to describe the society that is being built.
However, there is another possible outcome: instead of pretending that people don't make mistakes, people don't have sex, people don't use drugs, people don't say "naughty" words - perhaps society will move to stop pretending about these things and then passing around a photo showing Joe hitting a bong won't be any more scandalous than passing around a photo showing that Joe has black hair. Some day it might even be possible to admit that Joe has a penis, without yelling "SHAME!" at him.
The "alien observer" would be humored by the degree of Puritan ethos in our society that we won't even admit to (if we can even recognize it). I think he'd be saddened, though, that we get men in black dresses to meter out revenge to people who get "caught" doing those things. If mass communication gets our society to stop doing those unkind things, perhaps it won't actually be a bad thing.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I disagree. Whether it's a negative or a positive depends on what you're doing. Yes if you want secrecy or privacy, it's a negative. But if you want collaboration and to share knowledge, it's the greatest boon mankind has ever seen. When I was growing up, I could only speak with my relatives in Korea just once every month or so because international phone calls were expensive. Now we can share photos of our daily lives with each other immediately.
To me, the obvious solution is for social norms to change. It used to be that if you committed a faux pas, it was quickly forgotten if minor. Only if it were a major transgression of social norms (e.g. child porn) did knowledge of it become widespread (because of it spreading by word of mouth) and your reputation ruined.
Now because of what you point out, even a minor faux pas (e.g. the Star Wars kid video) can become widespread. The solution isn't to ban the distribution of a video of a minor faux pas. The solution is for society to recalibrate its norms and judge the faux pas based on the seriousness of its transgression, not based on how widely distributed it is.
People aren't perfect. They're human, and will make dumb mistakes. If someone accidentally hits reply to all when sending out a vitriolic email, that doesn't mean they're a bitter and bad person who should be fired immediately. It means they're a human being who responds emotionally from time to time. If you expect perfect behavior from people, you'll end up with what we have in politics. Nobody is perfect, and when you require perfect behavior the only people who can qualify are those who have no qualms about lying about having perfect behavior. Consequently all our politicians are liars.