What will happen when EVERYTHING is recorded?

[Tricky]

Look at what we're seeing in Iran. It is a very repressive country, yet people on the street with nothing more than a cell phone can change the course of events by recording the government atrocities. They can mail them via satellite to news stations. Look at the Rodney King affair. Riots occurred across large parts of the state because some amateur videographer caught a brutal beating by the police. Look at Mark Sanford, caught because one of his mistress's former lovers had her e-mail tracked.

Is there anything that is unavailable to public scrutiny these days? Yes, probably so, but as time passes, it will become less and less. Video cameras are so cheap and so compact and recording space is so plentiful that if you wanted to, you could record almost every minute of your lives. Suppose (and I got this idea from David Brin) that you affixed a tiny camera to your glasses and had it feed a continuous recording device? Suppose everybody did something like that? Could our current technology handle it? Maybe not, but we're not far away.

So what happens when everything is recorded? Will it mean an end to most crime? Will it mean an end to privacy? And most importantly, will this be good for society or bad? Certainly we can't argue that reducing crime is good. But at what cost? Is it worth it? Can we learn to live in a truly open society where nobody has secrets that can't be discovered by a determined hacker?

It is indeed a brave new world, but not the kind Huxley envisioned. It is one where all information is available. How will we handle it?

 

[RandFan]

It's a great question. Kurzweil holds an optimistic view.

 

[gumboot]

All you need to do is look at the internet for your answer. Already the internet contains vastly more information than any one person is capable of processing, so adding more information is unlikely to make any difference.

How have we handled the internet? It enables some to become more informed, better critical thinkers, and generally smarter. For others it reinforces their paranoia and their fantasies.

 

[Tricky]

It's a great question. Kurzweil holds an optimistic view.

That's an interesting take. I like optimism like that, but I don't deny the problems it may hold for society. However, these are problems that society has overcome in the past.

When I was young, there were still a number of houses that did not have telephones. From talking to my mother and grandmother, I learned that for a long time, people resisted having phones in their houses because they felt it was an invasion of privacy. Why should somebody you might not even know be allowed to invite themselves into your room? As time went by, the benefits of "instant communication" outweighed these concerns.

Today, there are many people, including my wife, who feel that talking on a cell phone in a restaurant is incredibly rude. Well, sometimes it is, if they are shouting into the phone, but I feel like the benefit of not having to listen to electronic conversation is not enough of a burden to outweigh the benefits of being able to talk to people when you need to. While I do find that the dangers of cell phones while driving presents a serious problem, I would say that it is not because of privacy, but because of distraction.

Now I find that I cannot even go into a public toilet without hearing half of a conversation from the next booth. Rude? Probably? Inevitable? Also probably. Manners will have to change, like they did for my grandmother. I will have to get used to it.

And I will also have to get used to the possibility that nothing I say is ever truly private. I can't say that I like that possibility, but you know what they say about genies and bottles.

 

[Just thinking]

So what happens when everything is recorded? Will it mean an end to most crime?

Not likely ... just look at the plethora of crimes already caught on video tape. Knowing that most convenience stores/banks have cameras doesn't seem to persuade good behavior. And let's not forget the number caught on Dateline: To Catch a Predator.

Will it mean an end to privacy?

Not an end ... but surely less of it.

And most importantly, will this be good for society or bad?

Since too many people are irresponsible, I feel more private information in public hands is not a good thing.

Certainly we can't argue that reducing crime is good. But at what cost? Is it worth it?

Well, from what I said above, this is more of a strawman argument in what it assumes to be the result.

Can we learn to live in a truly open society where nobody has secrets that can't be discovered by a determined hacker?

Without getting too philosophical ... No.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Look at what we're seeing in Iran. It is a very repressive country, yet people on the street with nothing more than a cell phone can change the course of events by recording the government atrocities. They can mail them via satellite to news stations. Look at the Rodney King affair. Riots occurred across large parts of the state because some amateur videographer caught a brutal beating by the police. Look at Mark Sanford, caught because one of his mistress's former lovers had her e-mail tracked.

Is there anything that is unavailable to public scrutiny these days? Yes, probably so, but as time passes, it will become less and less. Video cameras are so cheap and so compact and recording space is so plentiful that if you wanted to, you could record almost every minute of your lives. Suppose (and I got this idea from David Brin) that you affixed a tiny camera to your glasses and had it feed a continuous recording device? Suppose everybody did something like that? Could our current technology handle it? Maybe not, but we're not far away.

So what happens when everything is recorded? Will it mean an end to most crime? Will it mean an end to privacy? And most importantly, will this be good for society or bad? Certainly we can't argue that reducing crime is good. But at what cost? Is it worth it? Can we learn to live in a truly open society where nobody has secrets that can't be discovered by a determined hacker?

It is indeed a brave new world, but not the kind Huxley envisioned. It is one where all information is available. How will we handle it?

Doesn't that belong in Conspiracy Theories?

 

[Tricky]

Doesn't that belong in Conspiracy Theories?

LOL. Well, you may joke, but this is another example. One of the big reasons that conspiracy theorists can't seem to convince many people is because there are so many people with camera and video evidence that shows them to be wrong. While some of it is used and heavily edited by them to try to prove their case, the vast majority of it shows that it was exactly as it apppeared to be: Terrorists flying plane into buildings.

This is another reason why I think we can live with this change. Real truth is out there. People may try to manipulate it, but the objective truth, especially when there is so much of it, will become obvious.

But I don't want this to become about 9-11. I want it to be about the affects upon society of having privacy removed by having video everywhere.

 

[Hokulele]

I want it to be about the affects upon society of having privacy removed by having video everywhere.

Once privacy becomes a valuable commodity (and western civilization may be getting close), there will be numerous entrepreneurs who will be more than happy to provide it. For a price.

 

[Tricky]

Once privacy becomes a valuable commodity (and western civilization may be getting close), there will be numerous entrepreneurs who will be more than happy to provide it. For a price.

I don't doubt that you are right. There will be the equivalent of Swiss Banks in private getaway places and such. But can they truly find a way to evade the cameras that are everywhere? Wouldn't an enterprising reporter take a room in one of these places with a camera in his ball-point pen and use it to expose secrecy and thereby make his journalistic name? The hidey holes are getting smaller. The only people who will have secrecy are those that nobody cares about. Oddly, the Twitter revolution shows that many people don't want much secrecy at all. They want their every thought to be transmitted and recorded. I find that strange, but then, I've not completely acclimated myself to this world.

 

[rsaavedra]

Obviously not everybody would wear a camera to record any significant % of their daily lives. For instance, noone that will abuse someoneelse's rights would, noone that will knowlingly betray someone else would, and no criminal about to break the law would. Unless they have very little common sense, or there is a specific interest in keeping a record of such doings, for whatever reason. But that would be the exception rather than the rule.

Surveillance cameras and/or people recording events pretty much anywhere is a different thing, and much more likely as the present already shows.

 

[OneShotKi11]

I feel i will always have privacy. Unless i am doing something exeremly interesting and worth recording, or involved in something exteremly crinminal there will be no reason for anyone to invade my privacy.

To many people on earth to publicly expose them all and ruin their private lives.

 

[Hokulele]

But can they truly find a way to evade the cameras that are everywhere? Wouldn't an enterprising reporter take a room in one of these places with a camera in his ball-point pen and use it to expose secrecy and thereby make his journalistic name?

Considering what few lengths Bill Gates had to resort to in order to be married in private on Lana'i, I would say that money can buy any amount of privacy, especially when you are dealing with what is essentially a captive economy (and yes, I do know many of the details, including the lawsuits after the fact). As it is usually those with the most money who fall under such scrutiny, they are probably pretty safe. For the rest of us, there are less reasons we would need to take such extreme steps, and many less extreme steps that can be taken.

On a different note, having been to a few other Pacific islands where privacy is no problem at all (and yes, it did involve exactly what you are probably thinking), and having been to Japan where privacy means witnesses in the double digits, I can certainly state that cultures can easily adapt to either extreme without loss of personal dignity. It is amazing how the Japanese can see things without noticing them.

But, to your OP, I feel somewhat POE-etical.

O, Tempora! O, Mores!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Look at what we're seeing in Iran. It is a very repressive country, yet people on the street with nothing more than a cell phone can change the course of events by recording the government atrocities. They can mail them via satellite to news stations. Look at the Rodney King affair. Riots occurred across large parts of the state because some amateur videographer caught a brutal beating by the police. Look at Mark Sanford, caught because one of his mistress's former lovers had her e-mail tracked.

Is there anything that is unavailable to public scrutiny these days? Yes, probably so, but as time passes, it will become less and less. Video cameras are so cheap and so compact and recording space is so plentiful that if you wanted to, you could record almost every minute of your lives. Suppose (and I got this idea from David Brin) that you affixed a tiny camera to your glasses and had it feed a continuous recording device? Suppose everybody did something like that? Could our current technology handle it? Maybe not, but we're not far away.

So what happens when everything is recorded? Will it mean an end to most crime? Will it mean an end to privacy? And most importantly, will this be good for society or bad? Certainly we can't argue that reducing crime is good. But at what cost? Is it worth it? Can we learn to live in a truly open society where nobody has secrets that can't be discovered by a determined hacker?

It is indeed a brave new world, but not the kind Huxley envisioned. It is one where all information is available. How will we handle it?

When I read about the computer programs that were leading the Iranian regime straight to the protesters I had an image of our brief honeymoon with the freedom the Internet has given us ending instead in a totalitarian control of information.

Let's hope the program writing rebellers are as good as the program writing oppressors.

 

[applecorped]

Let's hope the program writing rebellers are as good as the program writing oppressors.

Most everyone has a price.

 

[Richard Masters]

Look at what we're seeing in Iran. It is a very repressive country, yet people on the street with nothing more than a cell phone can change the course of events by recording the government atrocities. They can mail them via satellite to news stations. Look at the Rodney King affair. Riots occurred across large parts of the state because some amateur videographer caught a brutal beating by the police. Look at Mark Sanford, caught because one of his mistress's former lovers had her e-mail tracked.

Is there anything that is unavailable to public scrutiny these days? Yes, probably so, but as time passes, it will become less and less. Video cameras are so cheap and so compact and recording space is so plentiful that if you wanted to, you could record almost every minute of your lives. Suppose (and I got this idea from David Brin) that you affixed a tiny camera to your glasses and had it feed a continuous recording device? Suppose everybody did something like that? Could our current technology handle it? Maybe not, but we're not far away.

So what happens when everything is recorded? Will it mean an end to most crime? Will it mean an end to privacy? And most importantly, will this be good for society or bad? Certainly we can't argue that reducing crime is good. But at what cost? Is it worth it? Can we learn to live in a truly open society where nobody has secrets that can't be discovered by a determined hacker?

It is indeed a brave new world, but not the kind Huxley envisioned. It is one where all information is available. How will we handle it?

In terms of privacy, it will simply make certain common taboo behaviors more acceptable, I think.

 

[Modified]

Wouldn't an enterprising reporter take a room in one of these places with a camera in his ball-point pen and use it to expose secrecy and thereby make his journalistic name?

Or, someday, just mount a few dozen cameras to the heads of flies and let them loose. Though perhaps by that time, computer animation will be indistinguishable from real video, so all video will be suspect anyway.

 

[Tricky]

Considering what few lengths Bill Gates had to resort to in order to be married in private on Lana'i, I would say that money can buy any amount of privacy, especially when you are dealing with what is essentially a captive economy (and yes, I do know many of the details, including the lawsuits after the fact). As it is usually those with the most money who fall under such scrutiny, they are probably pretty safe. For the rest of us, there are less reasons we would need to take such extreme steps, and many less extreme steps that can be taken.

I suppose. If you have a WHOLE lot of money and if you plan far in advance. But even rich people have a hard time keeping long-term privacy, as Jackie Onassis and Princess Diana discovered.

On a different note, having been to a few other Pacific islands where privacy is no problem at all (and yes, it did involve exactly what you are probably thinking), and having been to Japan where privacy means witnesses in the double digits, I can certainly state that cultures can easily adapt to either extreme without loss of personal dignity. It is amazing how the Japanese can see things without noticing them.

LOL. Certainly we can have all the privacy we want by simply redefining "privacy". As for me, I would have little problem adapting to those styles of "privacy", as I am not by nature prudish or reclusive. It would more likely be my neighbors who insisted I keep up the fences.

But, to your OP, I feel somewhat POE-etical.

O, Tempora! O, Mores!

He was just a Poe boy and his story's seldom told...

 

[geni]

Firstly it's never going to happen. Oh we have the capacity to record all highly used public places but away from the main streets it becomes impractical. So there will still be areas where things can get planned privately.

This allows for deniability. Protestors stop getting beaten up by uniformed polic and and start getting attacked by counter protestors. Police then move in to break them up and a few people get hurt. It happens.

Criminals simply operate away from where they live so if someone does happen to see them no one knows who they are in any case.

 

[YoPopa]

Criminals simply operate away from where they live so if someone does happen to see them no one knows who they are in any case.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Is this a prediction based on your hunches? It is certainly not the current case in general.

Your average meth addict doesn't have time or money to travel very far for his next source of income and Bernie Madoff hardly relied on anonymity to make his scores.Thus it has always been. I see no reason to think the future will be that much different from the past.

Looking at the OP from my own perspective on protection I welcome the day when I can record my home and property 24/7 and when I can record every wink and nuance of a conversation with an investment advisor.

 

[realpaladin]

On the OP... we will be running out of diskspace and I will have mucho stock in Seagate.