Not necessarily. If literally everybody is open to the same level of scrutiny of their lives, how quick will they be to judge others, lest they in turn be judged?
I think its more likely that the judgement will spread in a highly non-uniform manner that reflected existing social biases with some people being vastly more negatively affected by having their secrets exposed than others.
Given equal access to the sources of shame of all three, would we really expect society to apply equal judgement standards to a mother, a billionaire asshole white guy, and a black guy from the inner city?
My interpretation of the argument was that taking privacy away from those who had it wouldn't necessarily cause harm because in some aggregated way everyone would have something to lose and so people would be tempered against 'throwing the first stone'.
I think that notion is false because the negative effects of the loss of privacy will spread unequally and opportunity created for those to exploit the unequal consequences against their foes.
Very quick, it turns out. Judging others is a deflective tactic against being judged yourself. "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" is great spiritual wisdom but most people don't abide by it.
That's sorta my point. If no one had any privacy, then any time you judge others you open yourself to being judged. It's like punching someone in the face, you could do it but they'll probably punch you back.
So yeah, maybe you could make a big deal about congressman so-and-so having a diaper fetish or whatever, but then people will probably want to look into your porn browsing history.
They've just been punched in the face, they can't reasonably punch back. (Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth).
I know it seems like universal surveillance could level the field and make people less likely to judge, but in practice it doesn't work that way. You say "people will probably want into [the judger's] porn browsing history", but in reality, they don't. The preemptive strike generally wins, and counterstrikes generally look like defensive posturing. So removing all privacy just gives more power to the bigger asshole.
Just had a conversation about Amazon facial recognition with a friend last evening.
Imagine ten years in the future: you did something to upset the local police officer. Maybe you didn't pick up a can like he ordered. In any case, imagine he takes a photo of you with his body camera and then using Amazon's machine learning, they're able to find likeness of you doing "illegal" things and immediately write you a ticket. Resist more? Maybe Amazon can dig deeper and find out the faces you are around often and dig out treasure trove about someone.
I agree. Without universal enforcement, universal surveillance is pointless. This is why I was glad to see TSA selecting old women on wheelchairs with oxygen masks for searching while boarding onto airplanes because what we had before that was not random searching at all. It was profiling.
I'm amazed nobody in New York talks about NYPD reflective vests in a car's dash. Clearly, the car owner is communicating that the car belongs to a police officer to avoid a ticket. Anyone who does this does not belong in our police force. However, people just don't care about it.
Given equal access to the sources of shame of all three, would we really expect society to apply equal judgement standards to a mother, a billionaire asshole white guy, and a black guy from the inner city?