Privacy is only for the rich?
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Movanet
I call it "privacy gap":
As privacy is ineffective, inefficient, expensive and has the potential to create social gap, shall we deny privacy at all and exchange it with transparency instead?
(Hat Tip to Kerry B Collison)
A growing "privacy gap" is the third problem. In the future, privacy is going to be expensive. You can protect an RFID tag, for example, by using passwords to make access difficult. You can do something similar with satellite imagery. If you do not want your roof or swimming pool to be photographed, you need to shield them, but it will cost you money. This means privacy will eventually belong only to the wealthy.Privacy is eroding, that is undeniable. But, there will still be privacy for those who can afford it. The law cannot prevent people from shielding their private lives if they are able to do so. But for those with no financial capabilities, then it is not the obligation of the state to provide them with privacy.
As privacy is ineffective, inefficient, expensive and has the potential to create social gap, shall we deny privacy at all and exchange it with transparency instead?
(Hat Tip to Kerry B Collison)