Slashdot Mirror
Big Brother is your Friend
Brin's ideas are interesting (he wrote a book about this recently, for those truly curious), but the point where he loses me is when he thinks that the rich, powerful and/or famous are somehow going to let the cameras into THEIR lives. I think the result of pursuing Brin's "Utopia" is that all the po' folk will get put on camera and then when they say to the rich, "Okay, now it's your turn", all you'll hear is laughter. GIVEN that the rich ARE NOT going to end up on camera, the sensible thing is to lessen the information gap by opposing putting the poor on camera either.
I can add a neat link, too: Surveillance cameras in New York City, or some of them anyway, courtesy of the New York Civil Liberties Union. Oh, and if you truly want to see what Brin's future looks like, I highly recommend Lacey and His Friends, by David Drake. That's the real outcome of the growing trend toward the surveillance society, and it's not Utopia - it's Dystopia. Jamie adds: Another sci-fi book that deals with ever-present cameras is The Truth Machine. -- michael
No cameras on the rich? Not strictly true, once we accept that the fact we are going to be 'on camera', then I am sure some journalists going to set up 24/7 lookouts on the rich and famous. What is worse, in my opinon, is that not many people realised that this is going on, that they are being monitored one way or other. And the technology advances means that the cameras are getting smaller and smaller, hence harder to notice. I remember seeing this show once that set up this test. 4 cameras were hidden, disguied, in a store. And a few persons are challenged to find them. To help them, they can actually see the output of the cameras. They are given ten minutes. Even the guy who is a security consultant could not find all the cameras... just a thought...
In order for Brin's vision to occur, you need technology that isn't here quite yet, but could probably happen in the not-too-distant future.
Specifically: cheap miniature cameras combined with some kind of computer and broadcast capability. If you could make all that small enough to fit into a pair of sunglasses (perhaps with variable darkness of the glasses as well or maybe a display so you could "zoom" in on things, etc.) then the average citizen could record and/or broadcast *everything* that happened to them.
Combine that with cameras mounted in public places that broadcast their images to whomever wants it.
Then add in easier access to other surveillance technology, such as infrared, that radar that can see through walls, high resolution satellite cameras, etc.
Since the rich and powerful are more interesting, they're the ones that would end up with various cameras (or whatever) that would make it possible to monitor everywhere that they go as well as their general location inside of a house, etc. That means that it would be very difficult for the rich and powerful to meet somebody to talk with them secretly.
I'm still not convinced that this would be a good future, though. The ultimate in inhumane prisons is the one where somebody can always see what you're doing. Without *any* real privacy, we'd all eventually go mad. (though, if you "went postal", everybody would know that you'd bought a gun and were carrying it with you right then...)
- The Boston Lunatic
Brin's postulate seems to revolve upon the idea that all that happens does so for the benefit of the state. This seems a disturbingly common idea these days: witness Clinton's portrayal of tax cuts as a "loss" to the state that must be "financed"; the state is the central consideration in all things; all that is, belongs to the state...
On a more practical note, I don't think surveillance will ever be anywhere near as egalitarian as Brin seems to believe. Does anyone doubt that if the governor goes to the police and asks to see the surveillance footage of your house, he will get his request, whereas if you go to the police and ask to see the footage of the governor's mansion, you will be laughed out of the station? Or even that a request coming from Donald Trump will be granted more consideration than a request from Joe Blow? Any tool in the hands of the state unavoidably becomes a tool of privilege.
And you think that it's a good idea to require registration for /.?
Universal surveilance will not stop crime. What does embezzling look like? Most spys look like normal people.
And of course the police will spend as much time looking at the cameras in the ghetto as the ones in shopping malls... The NAACP will threaten to pull their funding if they don't, all-powerful political orginization that it is. And no one could possibly think to use the omnisurveilance for selfish reasons, such as blackmail, stalking, or voyeurism. I mean, the ethical fortitude of our police force is incredible!