In Brin’s envisaged society, which he describes as “diamond-shaped,” there’s an emphasis on mutual transparency. This structure contrasts with the traditional “pyramid-shaped” hierarchy, where the few at the top have significant power and visibility into the lives of the many below. In a diamond-shaped society, power, and surveillance capabilities are more evenly distributed. The ‘wide middle’ of the diamond indicates a robust, empowered middle class, with the upper and lower points representing the elite and the less fortunate, respectively.
Sounds great, right? Except that while sousveillance can be seen as a tool for empowerment and accountability, it also raises serious privacy concerns. The widespread ability to record and share information about individuals, including those in positions of power, can lead to privacy violations and other ethical dilemmas, bringing us right back where we started from.
This isn’t me saying that I endorse or support the idea that privacy is inherently dangerous in the modern world. Nor do I take the opposite viewpoint, that privacy is somehow sacrosanct and a fundamental human right. Under the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), it most definitely is. The declaration says that the right to privacy must protect individuals from unwarranted interference with their personal and private lives, ensuring they can express themselves freely and maintain their autonomy. Still, just as there’s a middle ground between freedom of speech and (at least in Canada) hate speech, I feel like there’s a middle ground here and that the ground is always busy shifting under our feet.
I’ve gone back and forth on whether privacy is a good or a bad thing and how we might examine the concept with more nuance, but let me try to wrap this up. It’s been pointed out to me, somewhat forcefully, that it is misguided to assume that privacy is a luxury that can be sacrificed in the name of national security or global safety, and that maintaining privacy often goes hand-in-hand with that need.
Remember the United States’ dragnet surveillance programs, revealed by Edward Snowden in 2013? I know, a lifetime ago. That bombshell demonstrated that mass surveillance could actually be counterproductive to national security. These programs not only violated the privacy of millions of innocent citizens but also strained international relations, damaged the global digital economy, and undermined trust in democratic institutions. In contrast, targeted, evidence-based surveillance, conducted under strict judicial oversight and with adequate transparency, was said to be a more effective and sustainable means of addressing security concerns.
Like spying, I suppose. 007, you know what to do.
And that’s just it. Snowden’s bombshell simply brought an open secret into the light. Most people I knew, myself included, shrugged and thought, “well, of course this kind of surveillance is common,” then went about our lives, watching the fallout with little surprise. Perhaps the real answer is somewhere between “you have no privacy” and “sousveillance“. Somebody is watching and listening. Make no mistake.
Maybe we should all be watching and listening.
Maybe the amount of privacy we need, and deserve, is to be found in the knowledge that, when the situation calls for it, we have no privacy.
What do you think? Please, feel free to leave a comment and continue this conversation here. Or, even better, share this post on your own social media feeds and discuss it there.
