Comment on this entry
On Surveillance and Privacy
We are in for a time of major decision-making as the Moore’s Law of Cameras (sometimes called “Brin’s Corollary to Moore’s Law”) takes hold and elites of all kinds are tempted to utilize surveillance in Orwellian/controlling ways, often with rationalized good intentions.
...
Complete entry
COMMENTS
Posted by Valkyrie Ice on 09/07 at 04:28 PM
I'll be honest here, selling "sousveillence" is really a matter of HOW it get sold.
For example, think about how cameras are going to be used. Why do they exist on cellphones to begin with? How do people use them? And then I look at how they are going to use them in the future.
I understand the use of "lifeblogging" but try to explain it simply, and most people are horrified.
But there's one development in the works that will sell "always on personal cameras" in a way that more or less guarantees people will not only embrace them, but scream for them.
VR is going to require 24/7 always on recording through an enormous variety of sensors, It will require methods of validation of a persons location at all times, provide second by second gps records, all to enable people to access VR ANYWHERE through their VR enabled smartphones.
And the first time someone uses their "vr trail" to provide an alibi, or as evidence in a trial, it will sell their use for "legal recording devices" that can ensure an "easy win" in court, or provide a "surefire guilty verdict", then on to it's use as a deterrent to getting mugged, or sexually harrassed at work, and before long, it will be considered such a vital necessity that not having one would be seen as "acting suspiciously."
Simply put, we're going to develop a "transparent society" not because we want one, or because we've managed to "sell" the idea, but because people will demand VR, will demand their "entertainment" and will be seen as a "bread and circuses" distraction. It's going to develop whether we start from the Top or the bottom, for reasons that no one will even associate with "transparency" or watching big brother, but because people will have other uses for cameras, and transparency will evolve from it.
Posted by Karl Hedderich on 09/10 at 03:43 PM
Hi Mr. Brin,
Your book transparent society is an excellent read that altered my world view. That said I am dubious about its real world feasibility for a couple of reasons.
1. Proprietary knowledge and hidden knowledge in the form of corporate R&D and state secrets would create loop holes that would enable substantial information asymmetry.
2. Symmetrical access to raw data would not solve the issue of asymmetrical data interpretation ability. Sophisticated data mining techniques may not be usable for most people because of a lack of technical ability.
I would love to hear a good proposal for preventing a security state from using its state secrets privilege to shield itself from the enlightenment ideal of checks and balances. It certainly doesn't seem to be working terribly well here in the US.
Cheers,
Karl
Posted by Valkyrie Ice on 09/10 at 07:15 PM
@Karl
While I'm not Mr. Brin, this is a subject I have researched and written extensively about as well. I hope he answers you as I would like to hear his take, but these are my thoughts on the subject.
You won't stop a security state by expecting it to stop keeping secrets. You have to force a change via changing society to accept accountability, which then demands accountability from it's government, which then demands accountability from it's military and it's corporate sectors.
All "corruption" in government stems from a lack of accountability and a quest to become even more unaccountable. The "security state" is one seeking to avoid any and all accountability from it's subjects, and as such, depends on control of information to control the populace. This is nowhere more obvious than in the current conservative efforts to prevent any of it's "supporters" from actually knowing the truth about what is going on politically, by "spin doctoring" every single issue in an attempt to prevent any honest debate from occurring.
And despite this, such reporters as Jon Stewart are able to still present the truth in a manner in which the extent of the this "spin doctoring" hypocrisy is readily apparent to anyone who even casually seeks the truth. It takes a deliberate effort on the part of the conservative "base" to stick it's fingers in it's ears and ignore such obvious manipulation, and near constant attacks against all sources of factual information to even pretend that they have any agenda but that of further empowering the wealthy.
The problem is that these efforts are of little importance. Even if the GOP returns to power, it will simply hasten the collapse of the current status quo, and speed up the collapse of the corporate "state" that is desperately seeking to prevent the evolution of society towards a more egalitarian model in which scarcity and "state secrets" are no longer a consideration.
"Corporate secrets" have no need to exist in a world in which accountability is paramount. Simple registration of the R&D would ensure that it would be safe from "corporate thieves" because any corporation that sought to steal the research would be immediately caught and held accountable. The same goes for "state secrets". If you have a single world wide government based on universal accountability there are no reasons to have "state secrets" anymore.
As for symmetrical access, the assumption you make is flawed. No technical ability would be needed for a individual to use the same data mining techniques. There already exist numerous programs that allow the casual user to access the same tools used by large research programs and marketing firms. This is likely to become even more common in the future as "Digital Assistant" narrow AIs are likely to become common, and such programs would require such abilities as a standard function.
Posted by Karl on 09/10 at 07:44 PM
@Valkyrie Ice
Thanks for the reply. I have read your comments on previous articles and generally found myself agreeing with them. In this case I think that there would still be issues in enacting a transparent society.
Even if we did have a world government there are still conceivable situations in which state secrets would be viewed as valid (impending cataclysms, alien contact, various black swans). In the meantime while we wait for a world government (which could take quite a while) our government will continue to increase the information asymmetry.
Even if we had the hypothesized digital assistant asymmetrical interpretation would still place significant limitations on how functionally transparent a society could be. New knowledge and techniques are rarely user friendly. Even if we had virtual assistants that were really good at taking new techniques and making them user friendly some things will require more resources for their execution than all but the most powerful actors could wield. A hypothetical example would be if some company develops a quantum computer along with an algorithm that can beat every other conventional computer at pattern recognition. Even if you knew enough about the specifics of quantum computing you would still lack the hardware to carry it out on (at least for a while). Further the sheer volume of new technical literature ensures that some of it will go unnoticed by the majority creating at least transient effective opacity.
Posted by Mike Treder on 09/11 at 01:26 AM
David asked me to post this on his behalf:
Valkyrie... the thing you are talking about is not VR but AR... Augmented Reality, as I portray in EARTH and in my next novel EXISTENCE... virtual overlays upon the real world. This will not only require TruView goggles but nearly omniscient cameras.
I disagree about persuasion. The public could be offered A.R. that passes thru and is mediated by some "safe and trusted" central authority... that can meddle with it, any time it likes. Unless we are persuaded to want and demand lateral, open tansparency.
Karl nobody contends that individual citizens in the middle class will ever be equal in their power or info access to elites of government, finance, corporations, nations or criminality. People who claim that I am forecasting such equivalence miss the whole point.
What matters is that AGGREGATES of citizens... joining million member NGOs or interest groups... can mobilize resources equivalent to most elites. We know this because such NGOs have steadily grown more potent and perceptive across the last 100 years.
If the GENERAL architecture and legal framework is transparency/accountability friendly, then this trend can continue and citizens worried about ANY concern may aggregate and pool their money/influence/attention in ways that make secret conniving potentially hazardous for elites, who will risk betrayal by their henchmen.
No, I do not predict TOTAL equivalence of power... just enough of it so that the momentum is in favor of accountability, over time.
David B.
Posted by Valkyrie Ice on 09/11 at 02:53 PM
*giggle* and Mr Brin puts it better than I do.
I tend to Use VR to cover VR AR Lifeblogging and Mirrorworlds because the typical person I talk to has no concept of the difference between them. Yes, AR is the "Overlay mode" but when that overlay mode will include fully virtual "Avatars" and fully virtual "Objects" as part of the day to day "Visual field" most people can understand what I mean when I say "Immersive Audio Visual VR"
As for omniscient "Cameras" I recently wrote an article on H+ Magazine on the progress we are making towards Quantum Dot "camera/displays" in which any surface can be "painted" with a self arranging QD "ink" like they use to create OLEDS today. These ODs will turn any surface into a display that simultaneously can capture incoming visual data at the same time it is outputing it. This will enable us to control nearly every aspect of an object except shape, and inundate our world with "cameras".
http://hplusmagazine.com/editors-blog/quantum-dots-future-vr
I've also just had published an article on the likely use of "quadcopters" as personal remote telepresence units, with binocular cameras stereo microphones and an internet link.
http://hplusmagazine.com/editors-blog/fly-your-pov-around-your-own-personal-quadcopter
Both of these trends are going to put billions of cameras everywhere in our world. And as Mr. Brin points out, it's going to take a "The Masses" against the "Elites" kind of mentality to make sure that we get an accountably society in all directions, and not just one in which the bottom is accountable to the top without reciprocation.
However, I'm less pessimistic about the ability of the "safe and trusted" central authority to successfully control content. In the era of TV, the FCC could successfully control content, but as we moved to cable, and now to the internet, that ability has been overwhelmed. Even if the "Net Neutrality" fight is lost, the very design of the internet works against centralized control. Time and again over the last few decades, we have seen that censorship is only limited in it's effect because as one route get's closed, typically several more open up. While it is possible that some "content control" can be instituted, the odds against it lasting long before it is hacked, routed around, or just obliterated by a concerted "pirate" attack is small. Our world computer systems are already wide open to skilled hackers, and no security system is foolproof. DRM should show you exactly how hard it is to prevent "access" with it's Billions and Billions spent for negative return.
Is there an enormous amount of work to be done before a transparent society exists, yes. Will we always be struggling between an "elite" desiring zero accountability while demanding total accountability from the non elite? Yes. It's genetically programmed into human behavior to create pecking orders. But the more accountable we become as a species, the easier it will become to enforce accountability on those seeking to avoid it. Even if we lose that fight in the short run, and "Big Brother" becomes a reality, it's existence will be short lived.
Why? Because it's a simple matter of numbers. There's always waaaaaaaaaay more of "us", than there are of "them", and history shows that no tyranny can exist long before the abuses to it's masses cannot be tolerated, at which time "Elite" heads end up on pikes.
Don't get me wrong, I much prefer a peaceful path to transparency, and I believe the "worst case scenarios" so often talked about are highly unlikely to occur, but in the event that "Everything goes wrong", history shows that the eventual outcome is ALWAYS the same.
Posted by Big Brother on 09/14 at 01:39 PM
Humm...must keep an eye on those crocuses.
Croci even. Do they look like apostrophes today?
A very interesting discussion here. What would longevity to do Valkyrie's argument that masses topple tyrannies?
Posted by Valkyrie Ice on 09/14 at 04:41 PM
@BB
Not a damn thing. Longevity would probably even speed things up because a lot of the "waiting for the problem to die off" mentality that too many apathetic people use to justify not taking any action would no longer apply.
Would Cuba have tolerated Castro if they knew the only way to be rid of him would be to depose him? Would N Korea tolerate Kim Jon Ill for eternity? No.
Tyranny depends on control of information, and regardless of how tight they make the controls, leaks will always exist, expand, and create alternate networked pathways for the transmission of information. No longer having the option of "waiting for god" to solve the issue would likely force such "alternate" information networks to form faster, and lead to far more direct action taken against the "tyrant" sooner than might be the case presently.
This is one of the reasons I see transparency as an inevitable end state, regardless of what interim path it may take. The social forces that lead to tyranny have been the same through all of human history, and the social forces that end them have always followed the same course. It is put up with until the abuses exceed the benefits received by the majority of the populace, at which time sufficient numbers will use the willingness of the masses to "keep their heads down " and remain "uninvolved" to overthrow the majority of the oppressive "elite". They will in almost every case be funded by "dissatisfied" elites who see "changing the status quo" as more personally beneficial than maintaining it. These "Dissatisfied Elites" will also typically become the new government.
Look around, I'm sure if you really think about it, you'll have a pretty good idea who such "Dissatisfied Elites" could be in our current day, and who is solely interested in maintaining the status quo. Watch over the next decade, and you'll likely see them making more and more profits, and more and more effort to break the "status quo".
There will always be these social forces at work in the human race, unless we chose to radically change our instincts. Because we create "pecking orders" we instinctively create "elites". These elites will always seek ways to accumulate higher "status" and so long as they remain unaccountable, this instinctive behavior will always lead to this cycle of increasing tyranny/revolution/social advancement/increasing tyranny.
Transparency is the sole means to ensure accountability. In a small tribe, there is no real privacy, merely social "invisibility". Any activities from an individual that harmed the tribe would be immediately known, and punished. Everyone was accountable.
We will never reach this level of accountability again, but knowing that precise, accurate, records of your actions are permanently archived, from multiple sources, and that any action you take will be subject to judicial review at any trial you may be subjected to will insure that the overwhelming majority of our politicians behave themselves, with the swift discovery and punishment of the few that don't serving as discouragement towards the gradual move towards unaccountability and tyranny that starts the cycle.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Add your comment here:
| 
IEET Blog