Who Needs Privacy?
Saturday, September 26, 2009Here’s an old column from a Canadian, Robert J. Sawyer, who reflects on the glories of a world with no privacy – in the name of anti-terrorism and individual “security.” It’s a great example – and reminder – of post-September 11, 2001 lunacy. His idea:
But imagine a permanently activated recorder: a small implant, say, that keeps track of your whereabouts using signals from the satellite-based Global Positioning System. Suppose the implant constantly broadcasts your exact location to a centralized facility. At that facility — call it the Alibi Archives — you would have your own personal black box, keeping track of your movements.
No one but you, or, if you disappeared, your family or the police, could access the contents of your black box.
His motto concerning the desire for privacy is, essentially, “get over it.” According to him, it is privacy that has been responsible for all of the horrific crimes in human history. He even blames privacy for Hitler’s Final Solution.
Your life is his science fiction. His bio states that he “explores the idea of a constantly monitored society” in his science fiction books. He states, “The message of history, most spectacularly driven home on September 11, 2001, is that preserving society as a whole is much more important than preserving an illusory personal freedom. And if our species is going to survive, we must wake up to that fact.”
clark says:
September 26th, 2009 at 11:34 am
“get over it.” this is more than a motto, it’s a fallback final reply for many issues essentially saying, “might makes right.” Is this the modern version of a Federalist – the opposite of liberty? These are the worst kind of people. I’ll take baggy pants wearing, video game as art, Linux using rude people over this type any day, so long as they’re not anti-liberty, “get over it” Federalist. This type of Federalist is what pushes my buttons, makes me ill. If anything, it’s this Federalist mentality that gave rise to Hitler and slavery and all the other wack job tazer-crazy bad things that happen in the world. Live free or die, he’s anti-American too.
cousin lucky says:
September 26th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
I harbor two opinions about this. I was raised pretty well and I am aware of a thing called moral and personal responsibility. This keeps me reasonable, trustworthy, kind and out of the legal system. ( I do not need to be watched because I am not nor do I have any intention of doing something wrong. )
On the other hand I see people every day that should not be free to commit their crimes upon society as they do every day. I call these people ” human parasites ” because they do not contribute a thing to society. They Rob, They Steal, They take, take, take in between their stints in Jail.
These people are failures; if I had my way I would take them to the middle of the ocean, chop them up and feed them to the fish. I would not be bothered with providing them with three hot meals and a cot every day!!
Jay says:
September 27th, 2009 at 3:33 am
Sawyer’s philosophy on privacy is a common theme in science fiction. The trouble begins when science fiction authors begin believing in and espousing their own fiction in the public domain; it is often akin to ill-informed celebrities advising their fans on politics, as if their fame somehow validates their beliefs. Nevertheless, Sawyer’s argument is flawed.
Sawyer seems to believe that government is (or will be) inherently noble and won’t abuse its authority when it comes to monitoring its citizens. History has proven again and again that government always seeks to control its citizens. A lack of privacy protection from intrusive, power-hungry politicians, who we need to be protected against, can only lead to rampant abuse. A “black box” that could be used for alibis or to find missing persons (read as: “police need unfettered access to this technology so they can protect our children”) can also be legally misused by government to watch, harass, and victimize those who would dare to speak against the oppressive policies of a ruling majority. It is not necessarily corporations who would wilfully abuse such a technology — although they undoubtedly would find means to profit from it — rather it would be lawyers and prosecutors under the guise of public safety, for the betterment of society-at-large.
A black box society would be intolerable, anti-liberty, and I suspect unsustainable. Cultures would crumble under the weight of such an oppressive technology.
But hey, as long as we’re protecting the children, and ourselves from ourselves (which is was government does best), it’s all right. Right?