I’ve commented some at Bruce Schneier’s blog. Bruce does a great job of writing about cryptography. He also covers privacy issues and, unfortunately, isn’t nearly as thorough. To be sure, it is a thorny problem and it seems to bring the ideological kooks out of the woodwork. This makes “rational debate” quite difficult.
My concern is that changing technologies are presenting new privacy issues that are being ignored. For example, while video cameras have been around for a while, digital technology continuously reduces the cost — virtually to zero. Storage and network capacity grows exponentially, and we now have the ability to link all video cameras into a large network. We also have the technology, using facial recognition, triangulation, and other new approaches, to recognize individuals on camera and link them into a centralized database.
Without any constraints, we could be headed towards a dystopic future depicted in Orwell’s 1984 or Neal Stephenson’s Snow Crash. In these worlds, video surveillance is covert and pervasive, and those in power have the ability to use this information to their advantage. Is this an unrealistic scenario? I think not.
Anyway, in Face Recognition Comes to Bars, I stated what I thought was obvious:
One point that I have not seen raised much, if at all, is that humans have a deeply-ingrained fear of “being watched.” After all, for thousands of millenia [sic], being watched often meant being stalked by a hungry predator or a vicious rival. So it’s no small wonder that we’ve developed an acute sensitivity to and healthy aversion to this situation.
In The Future of Privacy, I echoed this notion:
The reality is that humans hate to be watched, and that for our entire existence, we have gone about or daily business confident that we were not being watched — and we were mostly correct in that assumption. (And when we were incorrect, bad things followed …)
My point, which I expressed in my comment, is that we have a natural, emotional response to the idea of “being watched”:
I think this underlying fear is what drives our visceral and emotional response to covert or pervasive video surveillance. Personally, my stomach turns at the thought of an Orwellian future in which, the moment I step outside of my home, all of my actions are recorded, logged and aggregated.
In other words, setting aside the fact that there are logical arguments for restricting how this kind of information is handled (i.e. the great potential for abuse), there are emotional reasons as well.
Imagine my surprise when, after pointing these comments out to my father, he said my statement is “paranoid.” Ironic, too, since I also wrote in my comment:
When this feeling is persistent, isn’t that one of the classic symptoms of paranoia? To subject the entire populace to pervasive surveillance seems like a kind of torture — even without considering the potential abuses.
For the record: No, I don’t think that I am being watched. I’m not paranoid, yet.
I find it ludicrous that anyone would actually question the notion that we have evolved a sense of anxiety about being watched. It’s in our vernacular! But, I guess the onus is on me to prove my point. I would love to hear any evidence in support of this notion, or to the contrary. In the meantime, perhaps I should check out some psychology papers …
#1 by honnold on March 14th, 2006
Hopefully, the visceral respone will prevail. Sometimes I go pee pee and I don’t want to be watched.
#2 by Michael Birk on March 14th, 2006
Hey, you took psych … show me the research! After you pee, that is.
#3 by honnold on March 14th, 2006
It’s a very difficult topic to research because we feel watched as an evolutionary instinct. ‘Psychological evolution’ is a new fad and I think it is too speculative to be science. Perhaps the more pressing question is, how can we be exploited because of this and how do we stop it? Asking for research from a psychologist is like asking for a hamberger from Macdonald’s….mmmm, yummy, I know what half of it is.
#4 by honnold on March 14th, 2006
I forgot to say, yes, our privacy is being violated daily and I don’t know the solution. Maybe this blog will save us.
#5 by Michael Birk on March 14th, 2006
Heh heh, well I didn’t really expect you to dig up some research.
If you’re seriously asking about the problems I highlighted, at the crossroads of video surveillance and database technology, unfortunately I don’t have an answer. The first step, I suppose, is to raise awareness. Once the technology is fully realized, there will be entrenched players who have an interest in maining their position, and violating our privacy in the process.
My guess is that the system will first be enabled by government mandate. For example, the Amber Alert system could be extended to search a massive network of video cameras for the kindapper/terrorist/escapee. That, in and of itself, is enough to get me worried. But surely, private interests will also be involved.
#6 by honnold on March 14th, 2006
I’ll help with the awareness (check it out people!!!) anytime. Keep me reminded. You have a very good and scary point. I can get ANY UofI book delievered to my campus mailbox, research is no prob, do it all the time!
#7 by Michael Birk on March 14th, 2006
The truly scary thing is that there are many other similar technologies looming over the horizon. We truly need to have our “right to privacy” clarified and secured.
I suggest we start by selling tin-foil hats!
#8 by honnold on March 14th, 2006
Clarified and LEGALIZED. There is no secure. I think yoda told me that.
I’ll post it here in hopes that it is stolen (to test privacy) and makes Mikey’s blog famous:
The cook that says “Bam!”, he has his own line of spices. Why not put a chip in the spice container (that he already sells millions of) that says, “Bam!” when you shake it? I know this blogger could do it in his spare time.
#9 by Michael Birk on March 14th, 2006
That’s more brilliant than adjustable sunglasses!
#10 by honnold on March 14th, 2006
Dedicated to this blog.
#11 by Josh on March 15th, 2006
This is especially chilling in today’s political environment where things like habeus corpus and due process are under direct attack. The President can already do what he likes if he can justify it under “defending the nation”.
At this rate, signing up for a “Save The Pandas” newsletter will get your phone tapped.
#12 by The FLY on March 22nd, 2006
Looks like a system similar to this, may be coming to New York City.
#13 by Michael Birk on March 30th, 2006
And let’s not forget Dillingham, Alaska!