11–20 of 96 posts
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/noahdyer/a-year-without...
Philosophically speaking, the idea of a society where every actioned is monitored, recorded and made available, is a potentially interesting thought experiment.
That said, I find it rather difficult to feel too excited, for this specific campaign.
Incidentally, this article is paid for by Metlife.
I like it btw - I agree that dealin with loss of privacy means asymmetry in knowledge unless we make things transparent.
Sounds like the person is an exhibitionist. My best take away from the article is the insightful statement by the author: "Every one of us is entrusted with information that our family, friends, colleagues, and acquaintances would rather that we kept private."
New technologies like Google Glass are going to make this guy's dream a reality. I suspect people with glass will behave differently when wearing them than when not.
Reading this reminded me of the adage, "Character is who you are when nobody is watching". Can you imagine being this guy's child and reading him talk about how "Yeah, maybe if people were watching me then I would have tried harder to spend time with my kids last summer". It's not that he wants to spend time with them, he's just worried about how it looks to other people. The truth hurts, but that doesn't mean that t…
So, is that some kind of loophole? How does he justify that in his twisted logic? Everyone else knows, so it's okay?
Besides the obvious flaws, shouldn't it also go the other way?
The government hides tons of things, from classified documents to internal memos. What about that?
Reading this reminded me of the adage, "Character is who you are when nobody is watching". Can you imagine being this guy's child and reading him talk about how "Yeah, maybe if people were watching me then I would have tried harder to spend time with my kids last summer". It's not that he wants to spend time with them, he's just worried about how it looks to other people. The truth hurts, but that doesn't mean that t…
And? I don't understand why the reader must assume it would be good for people to act with complete information. Privacy is required where trust is absent because people in the abstract are not responsible or empathetic enough to warrant the risk. Ask any celebrity if privacy is a barrier to equality. This isn't pessimism either; I could see privacy not be needed but only if the protection from harm is replaced by other protections embedded in the culture or environment.