[carapace]

Hmm. It reminds me of how Peter Thiel and Hulk Hogan sued Gawker into the ground. The whole thing, from Gawker outing Thiel onwards, was sordid, but I feel that it was made much worse by Thiel acting in secret.

Maybe, if everything the powerful do is just as watched as the little people, that balances things out a bit.

I'm not postulating some utopia: I think what we'll get is what I call the "Tyranny of Mrs. Grundy":

> Mrs Grundy is a figurative name for an extremely conventional or priggish person, a personification of the tyranny of conventional propriety. A tendency to be overly fearful of what others might think is sometimes referred to as grundyism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs_Grundy

E.g. the Chinese "social credit" system. If that applies to the powerful communists as well as the masses then it might actually work, if not, it's the genesis of Morlocks and Eloi.

[harimau777]

Just to make sure that I'm understanding you: [1]

You are saying that there are two issues here:

1. A power inequality that would be created if the regular people's secrets are known but powerful people's secrets were not.

2. A lack of privacy would allow people's private actions to be judged and punished by society if they fail to conform.

You are then arguing that giving everyone access to the data/surveillance would solve the first problem but not the second.

If I am correct in my understanding, then I think that's a very reasonable argument. Although I'm concerned that even problem #2 alone could create a dystopia.

[1] I know intention can be difficult to read in text so I want to make clear: I truly mean this as confirming that I am following your argument, not as an indirect way to say that I think you are wrong.

[evgen]

Don't want to presume to answer for the prior poster, but one possible solution to the second problem on your list is to consider the second half of the assertion in the context of radical and ubiquitous observation.

Assume the dystopia: with my smartphone I can tap in to the network of smart dust that blankets the world and can view and hear anything that is happening anywhere. We tend to consider this from the viewpoint of the observed but invert it and consider the constraints upon the observer/judge. Imagine how difficult it would be for people to judge and punish you for this lack of conformity if it is trivial for you to show a similar collection of mistakes and 'bad' behavior on the part of those who would judge you and if you can know who is watching you at any time (because you can watch them watching you.)

It is not quite a complete solution, but it seems to me that people tend to focus on one side of an imagined power relationship without necessarily asking if that power structure could be maintained in the new environment.

[carapace]

The sci-fi novel "The Light of Other Days" explores a little bit the social mutation that might occur in the complete breakdown of privacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Light_of_Other_Days

[carapace]

Cheers!

Yes, you've got it.

(I don't know about giving everyone access, but the folks who do have access should be subject to the system in a way that is self-correcting.)

As for whether the result will be dystopian or otherwise, I have no idea, really. I once wrote:

> The true horror of technological omniscience is that it shall force us for once to live according to our own rules. For the first time in history we shall have to do without hypocrisy and privilege. The new equilibrium will not involve tilting at the windmills of ubiquitous sensors and processing power but rather learning what explicit rules we can actually live by, finding, in effect, the real shape of human society.