

magine a scenario where everything about
you is presented in stats - a) 55% probability of Mr. X
being bald by 30 years, b) 40% probability of Type II
Diabetes by 40 years, c) 80% probability of being
suicidal. Would you want designed babies? (Wonder if you
shall be able to relate to them like your parents to
you!) Would you want the System to know everything
you've done since the day you were born? Would you
like to be File AK-IND-79? Would you want to be in the
"Minority Report" world? - Alik Khanna,
Smart Analyst Inc. (business employing financial analysts
in India); internet user since 1996rivacy will become a luxury, not a
right. It will be "transparent" who the
"have nots" are. - Kerri Karvetski,
freelance writer and advocacy specialist e
are headed towards control by those who control the
technology. We are headed towards losing autonomy and
privacy. These trends will be justified by appeals to
our fears. - Benjamin Ben-Baruch, senior market
intelligence consultant and applied sociologist,
Aquent, General Motors, Eastern Michigan University;
internet user since 1980
agree, but the black market of hacker services to erase
or change some personal information, will be an option
too. - Mario Rios, TDCLA (Tecnologías del
Conocimiento, an e-learning group), Chile; internet
user since 1997 he global statement that
"everything will be more visible to everyone"
is extreme. But the value of the system knowing your
preferences and activities will definitely moderate
people's interest in keeping everything private and
will incent users to want the system to store and act
on private information. The issue will be much more
about controlling the use of private information and
learning a new set of rules for respecting individual
interests in such an integrated environment. -
Stewart Alsop, investor and analyst; former editor
of InfoWorld and Fortune columnist; internet user since
1994 he benefits are enormous in enabling
communication across an inter-connected planet. The
potential problems this may give rise to in areas such
as privacy do need to be addressed carefully though,
and the benefits will only be as great as our
governments and societal attitudes allow. If we do not
learn to behave more compassionately and sensibly as
global citizens, no amount of connectivity will make up
for this (although it may help to bring it about). -
Ian Peter, internet pioneer, helped develop the
internet in Australia and the Asia-Pacific region in
the 1980s; maintains a project on the future of the
internet – the Internet Mark II Project; internet
user since 1986 rivacy has been asserted as a right
within the modern western paradigm that has come to
dominate our perceptions of what "ought" to
be. In fact, privacy is not a right but a state of
engagement with the world. Technologies that interlink
people (whether they be telephones, ships, or computing
and the Internet) bring people into proximity and thus
into a realm of less privacy. - Matthew Allen,
associate professor of internet studies at Curtin
University, Australia; president of the Association of
Internet Researchers; internet user since
1992 ransparency does indeed build a better
world. However, the statement needs to be qualified,
since the same technology allows the dissemination of
propaganda on a vast scale. Society needs to understand
that successful communities are based on trust - trust
in leadership, trust in information, trust in
neighbours. Technology must be developed to reinforce
that trust. - Adrian Schofield, head of research
for ForgeAhead (focused on ICT research and consulting
in Africa), South Africa; a leader in the World
Information Technology and Services Alliance (WITSA);
internet user since 1994
generally agree. However, privacy remains important, so
I tend to think that we will find ways to limit the
invasion of it. Data mining techniques and other kinds
of analysis will make the globe more similar to a small
town than it is now, in much the same way that the
deployment of the Internet has pushed the development
of McLuhan's global village. One characteristic of
a small town is that "everybody knows
everybody's business", which is to say that
gossip and other activities betray confidences and
otherwise invade the privacy of the people in the town.
That will be one side of the gobal village. - Fred
Baker, CISCO Fellow, CISCO Systems, Internet Society
(ISOC) chairman of the board; Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF); internet user since 1987 es there will be greater transparency in
some areas (especially in the short to medium term).
However technologies to create privacy/observation will
also be developed as a response. The world will not
necessarily be a better place - in place of secrecy
there will be massive information pollution. That is
finding relevant and correct information will be
difficult due to the large amount of irrelevant and
incorrect information around. - Bruce Edmonds,
Centre for Policy Modelling, Manchester Metropolitan
University, UK; internet user since 1992 hat do you mean better? The marginalized
will be even more marginal and those people with
genetic "defects" will not have health care
available unless rich. Conformity will be de rigeur
because any deviation will be noted in the nets, even
non-participation will be something that will be
data-mineable. - Alec MacLeod, associate professor,
California Institute of Integral Studies; internet user
since 1989 he collection of information does not
automatically translate to a loss of personal privacy.
I don't believe the perceived erosion of privacy is
a data collection issue. I think it's more of a
reflection of the general erosion of trust in public
and business institutions, and the fact that legal
guidelines are often years behind the abilities of
current technologies. The primary threat to privacy is
not due to technological advances, its more
attributable to the erosion of ethical principals. Yes,
technology might allow me to read someone else's
mail. However, I don't do that because I know
it's not right. - Robert Lunn, Focalpoint
Analytics; worked as a senior research analyst on the
2004 Digital Future Report: Surveying the Digital
Future, produced by the USC Annenberg School Center for
the Digital Future he costs unseen will outweigh the
benefits perceived. Included in those unseen costs are
an emphasis on "sameness" for fear of being
perceived as different; fueled by increasing government
intrusion into private lives. - Michael Castengera,
teacher and consultant, Grady College of Journalism/
University of Georgia; Media Strategies and Tactics
Inc., a media consulting firm; internet user since
1992 ransparency is likely to good for the
society only if the ability to peruse the collected
information is evenly distributed. Given that data
mining is likely to remain relatively expensive,
increasing transparency is likely to shift power even
more towards those that have more power already now. A
crucial aspect would be to empower people to control
and "correct" any information collected about
them. This is currently a pressing problem in the US,
and a potential problem also in the EU. - Pekka
Nikander, Ericcson Research, Helsinki Institute for
Information Technology; past member of the Internet
Architecture Board; internet user since
1987 agree that "public and private
lives will become increasingly "transparent"
globally," but I disagree that the benefits will
outweigh the costs. Once lost, personal privacy is
difficult to reclaim. - Scott Hollenbeck, director
of technology, VeriSign (provider of global
infrastructure services for telecommunication, content,
Internet, and Ecommerce services); active director in
IETF; internet user since 1988
disagree only because the statement is worded with such
certainty. I think this issue is very much up in the
air. I don't subscribe to very much technological
determinacy - what humans do with the tools they find
themselves using will matter. And unpredictable events
will matter. If the Chinese model of censorship at the
level of the router proves viable and is adopted
worldwide, then the asymmetry of transparency will
greatly favor centralized state powers. Will they use
it in democratic ways? - Howard Rheingold, internet
sociologist and author; one of the first writers to
illuminate the ideals and foibles of virtual
communities; internet user since 1990 t's often said that the desire for
privacy is a mile wide ... and an inch deep. Everyone
wants it, but few are willing to give-up anything -
e.g. access to credit, credit cards, etc. - to get it.
We lost our "privacy" as soon as government
and company agents learned how to keep citizen and
personnel records. What's important is to make sure
that the government and corporate leaders have no more
privacy than private citizens and employees! People
don't want to a phone's caller-id to give their
identity to anyone they're calling. But they want
to see who's calling them on their bedroom phone.
They can't have it both ways. We lost our privacy
to computers, the first time the neighborhood gossip
got online. A case can be made for the proposition
that, increasing lack of privacy has BENEFITTED
diversity and tolerance. After all, when you know that
20% (or 80%!) of the others in your community are doing
something, it becomes more acceptable. - Jim
Warren, internet pioneer (founding editor of Dr.
Dobb's Journal), technology-policy advocate and
activist, futurist; internet user since
1970 hings have never been private, anyway.
The most important thing about transparency is it shows
how transparent people have already been, all along, to
the institutions that mean to control them. –
Douglas Rushkoff, author of many books about net
culture, teacher, New York University; internet user
since 1985 he cost of unlimited transparency will
not simply be privacy; it will be autonomy, freedom,
and individuality. The personal lives of prisoners are
transparent. So, too, is the world of the Borg. -
Marc Rotenberg, executive director Electronic
Privacy Information Center; internet user since
1978 t
is hard to say, tremendous amounts of pure trash flow
within the net and other communications systems. On the
other hand it allows people to verify information much
quicker than anytime in human history. In a very
complex, ever changing world the individual will have a
much harder time creating a world view and be ever so
more jealous of keeping it once created. All
information will be filtered to support the world-view
armor and thus, even though the information is out
there - it will not be accessed. Overflow of
information creates anxiety not knowledge. Fear and
ignorance are the cornerstones of hatred; ignorance can
be overcome by information technologies but not the
fear, and the rapidly changing world will exacerbate
the fear. - Amos Davidowitz, director of education,
training and special programs for Institute of World
Affairs, Association for Progressive Education;
internet user since 1994 he truth(s) shall set you free? -
Tunji Lardner, CEO for the West African NGO
network: wangonet.org; agendaconsulting.biz; has held
various consultancies for the World Bank and United
Nations as well as being a resource person and
consultant to the UNDP African Internet Initiative;
internet user since 1988 he trick is not to do anything you'd
be ashamed of. - Bob Metcalfe, Ethernet inventor,
founder of 3Com Corporation, former CEO of InfoWorld,
now a venture capitalist and partner in Polaris Venture
Partners; internet user since 1970 might be more sanguine about a
transparent society if the current U.S. political
climate were less threatening. - Reva Basch,
consultant for Aubergine Information Systems (online
research expert); internet user since 1973
am convinced that as transparency becomes increasingly
visible as an issue to the general public, solutions
will be developed to handle the problems it causes
while at the same time maintaining as much as possible
of the information infrastructure. This relies on a
number of technologies such as identity, web of trust,
etc. that we have a crucial need to create very soon. -
Robin Berjon, W3C and Expway; internet user since
1996 ransparency and privacy aren't
antithetical. We're perfectly capable of
formulating widely honored social contracts that
prohibit pointing telescopes through your
neighbours' windows. We can likewise have social
contracts about sniffing your neighbours' network
traffic. - Cory Doctorow, self-employed journalist,
blogger, co-editor of Boing Boing; born in Canada and
now lives in London; EFF Fellow; internet user since
1987
think that privacy will remain important to people all
over the world, but they will have many more choices as
to what they are public about. Information will be more
readily available, but as those windows into personal
information are opened, new gates and barriers will be
designed. So while a lot will be more visible to
everyone, it won't be "everything." -
Michael Gorrell, senior VP and CIO for EBSCO; internet
user since 1994 y
largest issue with this prediction is that it smacks of
the phrase "Those who have nothing to hide have
nothing to fear." We wear clothes for a reason;
there are some things we shouldn't know about each
other and which for our own mental health should remain
private. Unless one's intent is to be an
all-knowledgeable god, having access to the
"what" doesn't necessarily give you
access to the "why." The fallacy is that by
using your network to find out what I've bought
that you automatically think you know WHY I bought it.
For example, was he just buying fertilizer for my farm,
or was he building a weapon? - William Kearns,
assistant professor at the University of South Florida;
internet user since 1992 hile there may be more transparency, it
is not clear that this will always be a better world
because of it. The world will be better but there needs
to be continual protection and advocacy of privacy. -
Jim Archuleta, senior manager, government
solutions, Ciena Corporation; internet user since
1989 t's hard to know whether my response
is "Agree" or "Disagree." I think
there will be higher degrees of transparency, but this
will arise from a change in social norms and ultimately
come from voluntary compliance with the new social
norms. Look at taking cell phone calls. A decade ago,
no one would have interrupted a personal conversation
to answer a ringing desk telephone. Today, however,
people provide lots of transparency into their lives by
answering their cell phones anywhere and everywhere.
It's being done so often that it's becoming
culturally acceptable. And, even if you don't
answer your phone, it's still OK to SMS someone
even while your attention was assumed to be elsewhere.
IM "away" messages and more ... all make me
believe that people will continue to surrender certain
parts of their privacy for what they perceive to be
benefits of interaction. However, I'm a staunch
believer that we need to retain the "off"
button. People should be able to opt out of
transparency, and I believe they will do so
increasingly as a form of vacation or holiday or
de-compression. Some new name will attach to this
phenomenon. ("Turning-off"?) - Glenn
Ricart, executive director, Price Waterhouse Coopers
Advanced Research; member of the board of trustees of
the Internet Society; internet user since
1968 People will have
less privacy, but may re-gain anonymity through the
sheer volume of data. There will be conflicts with
people/groups who wish to use knowledge to control and
people who wish to expand their capacity to choose. -
Willis Marti, associate director for networking,
Texas A&M University; internet user since
1983 agree only if a new radical democratic
politics emerges which removes the risks of such
transparency, such as not being disadvantaged because
of sexual preferences. - Mark Poster, professor of
film and media studies, University of
California-Irvine; studies the ways social
communications have changed through the introduction of
new technologies; internet user since 1983 e
can devise a world that allows privacy, while also
allowing transparency. That is a better solution than
driving "states" to establish shadow worlds
in which they monitor, and investigate... thus,
something like public WHOIS data for those who register
and use top level domains for web sites provides
transparency to other Internet users. Hiding the
information about who has registered a domain name only
makes it critical for law enforcement to have powers to
investigate who that is. Making the data public, but
limiting its use can achieve the goal of transparency.
Many users don't realize that their cell phone
providers "know" where they are. They might
choose to turn off their cell phone if they knew that.
My personal perspective is that I want the choice. And
I want it to be informed choice. So, we have some work
to do to understand privacy in an always-on,
always-connected world - and to devise informed
choices. - Marilyn Cade, CEO and principal, ICT
Strategies, MCADE, LLC; also with Information
Technology Association of America (business alliance);
internet user since 1986 overnments can already do it. Wider
transparency will serve as a check on governments and
on business. - John S. Quarterman, president
InternetPerils Inc.; publisher of the first
"maps" of the internet; internet user since
1974 echnology will only make the world a
better place if it can also allow us to solve the more
important problems of overpopulation, imbalanced
distribution of resources and global warming. -
Cliff Figallo, online communities architect,
SociAlchemy; internet user since 1985 estate: Transparency builds a much worse
world, at the expense of privacy and security. The
benefits will not, or hardly, outweigh the costs. The
situation will be dramatically worse in societies
(countries or not) in which democratic governance is
weak. - Alejandro Pisanty, CIO for UNAM (National
University of Mexico); vice chairman of the board for
ICANN; member of United Nations' Working Group for
Internet Governance; active in ISOC; internet user
since 1977 he "little village" notion of
privacy is attractive, but unproven. While I'm
quite comfortable with it, I'm not sure that the
world will be interconnected enough in the next 13
years to make this happen effectively and positively. -
Ross Rader, director of research and innovation,
Tucows Inc; internet user since 1991 he phenomenon of social computing tears
down geopolitical boundaries and this helps open up
dialogue between nations and religions. Racism in the
U.S. is greatly reduced as individuals find common
bonds, but a new rift becomes unavoidable from an
economic lens, as the retirement of the baby boomers
has exhausted the nation's resources. - Peter
Kim, senior analyst, marketing strategy and technology
team, Forrester Research; internet user since
1993 f
course, there will be winners and losers. Information
about individuals may threaten some individual
liberties. - Rashid Bashshur, director of
telemedicine, University of Michigan; internet user
since 1980 revolution will occur pushing this type
of knowledge of an individual out for a number of
years. As a result, it may happen, but it is unlikely
that it will happen before 2020. - Mike McCarty,
chief network officer, Johns Hopkins; internet user
since 1992 nswer is almost a test of optimism
versus pessimism. Individualized GPS means that we will
be less likely to die lost in a frozen tundra - however
we will not be able to "get lost" for awhile
either. Fudging or embellishing our past will become
more difficult as video and digital records are
available to show actual events, not transmitted stored
memory with negative or positive enhancements that are
common to the human psyche. - Ed Lyell, pioneer in
issues regarding internet and education, professor at
Adams State College; internet user since
1965 es, just as many people (myself
included) have no interest whatsoever in reading the
"blogs" of other persons, almost all of whom
lead very dull lives, so, too, will a high degree of
"transparency" about who's doing what
with whom will soon tire most people. Until just a few
weeks ago, practically no school or university in
Brazil ran censoring software on the institutions'
main server, the belief being that if adolescents have
free access to pornographic sites, they quickly
discover just how dull that type of content can be, and
they, of their own volition, soon stop visiting such
sites. Prohibiting access to pornographic sites only
stimulates surreptitious procurement of them.
Unfortunately, legislation requiring such censoring in
educational institutions has just been introduced into
the Brazilian Congress, and may even stand a chance of
being approved, which would reduce transparency and
augment negative behavior patterns. - Fredric M.
Litto, professor, University of Sao Paulo; president,
ABED-Brazilian Association for Distance Education;
internet user since 1993 he average person's life will become
an open book to governmental agencies, financial
service companies, etc. But the rich and powerful will
always find ways to be less transparent. For instance,
lobbyists now have to register every six months.
It's done on paper and it takes about nine months
for anyone to be able to find out what someone is
lobbying for. That could be changed by having lobbyists
register every three months and do it electronically
and publish the results immediately on a system similar
to Edgar. Wanta bet that happens by 2020? - Joe
Bishop, VP business development, Marratech AB; internet
user since 1994 think the cost to privacy to be greater
than we expect. - Robin Gross, executive director,
IP Justice, civil liberties organization that promotes
balanced intellectual property law and defends consumer
rights to use digital media worldwide; internet user
since 1988 he analog here is credit information.
People give up some personal privacy for the
convenience of more convenient or automated
transactions. - Robert Kraut, Human Computer
Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon
University etween "Agree" and
"Disagree" I'll pick "Agree,"
but I think it's more accurate to say it COULD make
the world a better place overall. The difference
between the Open Society and the Police State is
political, not technological. - Seth Finkelstein,
anti-censorship activist and programmer, author of the
Infothought blog and an EFF Pioneer award
winner rivacy is a thing of the past.
Technologically it is obsolete. However, there will be
social norms and legal barriers that will dampen out
the worst excesses. - Hal Varian, professor at
University of California-Berkeley; Google; internet
user since 1986 he world is not average, and the
benefits and costs will not be evenly distributed. -
Esther Dyson editor Release 1.0, investor and
adviser to start-ups, and member of many boards,
including Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Global
Business Network; former chair of ICANN (Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) board;
internet user since 1985
am sympathetic to this view, and note that David Brin
articulated it best in his book, "the Transparent
Society." Portions of it will come to pass, but
the description you offer is a utopian overstatement.
It underestimates the intrinsic flaws in the
technology, and the capacity of clever people to
subvert the system for selfish ends. The sensor society
will be a mixed bag of real benefits and real cost in
terms of lost freedoms. That said, we must press for
transparency at every opportunity. The only way to
control Big Brother is for all the little brothers to
watch back. The most we can hope is that we will be
able to find a reasonable balance between privacy and
the need to know. - Paul Saffo, forecaster and
strategist, director, Institute for the Future; serves
on many boards, including the Long Now Foundation;
Internet user since 1978 iving all people access to information
and a context to understand it will lead to an
advancement in our civilization. - Tiffany Shlain,
filmmaker and founder and ambassador of the Webby
Awards; internet user since 1987 his is an illusion typical for Stalinist
totalitarians and their contemporary followers from
post-democratic Bush-era USA. Bush administration is
known for their Orwellian dreams of total surveillance,
tortures and concentration camps to keep people in
detention without any form of judicial trial, but for
people such ideas give no advantages over privacy,
truth and democracy. - Wladyslaw Majewski, OSI
CompuTrain SA, ISOC Polska; internet user since
1989 ithout transparency there can be no
"level playing field"; competitive and open
environments build economies and communities. This, in
turn, enables everyone to have a fair chance to succeed
and prosper. - Chris Sorek, senior vice president
of public communications, SAP (provider of
client/server enterprise application software);
formerly with the International Federation of the Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies in Geneva, where he
directed global communications activities; internet
user since 1980 rivacy is already highly compromised,
and in the name of the "greater good" no
doubt will continue to be so. How we manage our privacy
and rights to redress misuse and error in data
collected/filed/ misused/abused etc., is a critical
issue to be continually monitored and redressed locally
and globally a set of digital "human rights"
will need to be formed perhaps. That said, I do
prescribe to the school of thought that says if I
don't want something I do/say to become public then
I really shouldn't do it. - Cheryl Langdon-Orr,
independent internet business operator and director for
ISOC-Australia; internet user since 1977 isagree. Privacy will be seen more and
more as a basic human right and there will be growing
pressure to define this in an international instrument
or convention and to have states enforce it through
national legislation and regulation. - Robert Shaw,
internet strategy and policy advisor, International
Telecommunication Union (ITU); internet user since
1987 t
is true that lives will likely become more
"transparent." Primary amongst the pros is
the fact that corruption and corrupt practices (be it
at the governmental or corporate level) could be
severely affected by more transparent lives. What does
concern me though is the expense of privacy - it may
take a bit of the fun out of life. - Rajnesh D.
Singh, PATARA Communications & Electronics Ltd.,
Avon Group, GNR Consulting, ISOC Pacific Islands;
internet user since 1993 t
will NOT be a better world. It will be an Orwellian
world! The benefits most certainly will not outweigh
the costs. - Sharon Lane, president, WebPageDesign;
internet user since 1990 he global village metaphor holds here.
In villages everybody knows everybody else's
business. The security lies mainly in that, in a
village, you know who's trying to find out about
you. Governments and privacy advocates need to work to
ensure mutual transparency. - John Browning,
co-founder of First Tuesday, a global network dedicated
to entrepreneurs; former writer for The Economist and
other top publications; internet user since
1989 n
agreeing, I am optimistic about the ability of the
public to maintain control of the information that is
generated, despite the current trend in secretive
government information control. If the public has
control, the benefits will outweigh the costs. If
powerful groups have control and use of the
information, it will further greed, discrimination, and
infringement of privacy. - Christopher Johnson,
co-founder and CEO for ifPeople, Inspiring Futures;
internet user since 1995 his one is hard to disagree with - there
can be many advantages to having this transparency for
many individuals. And in many ways, this is happening,
certainly on the Internet and the Web, but even at
brick and mortar stores. Time is certainly something
that people value (and often lack), and transparency
can save time, but most people are unwilling to give up
privacy to save time, and I expect legislation to be
enacted to further define and protect our privacy
should we desire it. - Philip Joung, Spirent
Communications (wireless positioning products);
internet user since 1989 his is clearly a trend. But there are
checks and balances built into our societies that will
mitigate more extreme forms of transparency; I believe
these will cause the net result to be positive in most
cases, the majority of the time. - Peter Roll,
retired chief system administrator; internet user since
1981
think we'll have not so much transparency (though
it would be desirable) as wrenching and scandalous
revelations. Look at the NSA wiretapping scandal that
broke in December 2005. Echelon was publicly revealed
as far back as 1998 (perhaps even earlier), and the New
York Times knew of George W. Bush's secret orders
in late 2004, but there was no transparency and very
little public debate. But truth will out, and modern
electronic media allow it to spread faster and be
harder to suppress once the spark flies. The cycle of
secrecy and scandal could prove very disruptive. -
Andy Oram, writer and editor for O'Reilly
Media; internet user since 1983 'm not sure I actually agree, but
feel that we are facing a tidal wave of new thought on
this issue. That is, people who are now, and will be
coming into their maturity in the next 15 years live in
a very different technological environment, and the old
meanings of such concepts as privacy are rapidly
changing. Younger people seem to be less concerned with
keeping private things private! - Martin Kwapinski,
senior content manager, FirstGov.gov, the U.S.
Government's Official Web Portal; internet user
since 1997 his is a difficult one to call, but on
the balance, such transparency would have net positive
effects if they were reciprocal. Recent events seem to
indicate that reciprocal transparency is hardly an
obvious future. – Alex Halavais, assistant
professor, State University of New York-Buffalo;
internet user since 1984 rivacy is a chimera, and has been for
some time. The major problem isn't just sensing,
storage, and communication technology, but rather
faulty software and operating systems, a
"trusting" Internet, the susceptibility of
innocent users to social engineering, and at its core
"bad guys" who exploit known weaknesses for
thrill or profit. - Joel Hartman, CIO, University
of Central Florida; internet user since
1970
generally agree, but legislation will be needed (and is
probably inevitable) to curb abuses. The incentives for
abuse are simply too great. - Thomas Narten, IBM
open-internet standards development; Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF) liaison to ICANN;
internet user since 1983 t
will be a tradeoff between benefits and loss of
privacy/freedom. - Terry Irving, producer, CNN;
internet user since 1979 isagree. The less one is powerful, the
more transparent their lives. The powerful will remain
much less transparent. - Barry Wellman, researcher
on virtual communities and workplaces; professor and
director of NetLab at University of Toronto; internet
user since 1976 hose who choose to retain a large degree
of privacy will do so only at loss of connectivity with
the community. Opt-in choices will be ubiquitous. -
Charles Hendricksen, research collaboration
architect for Cedar Collaboration; internet user since
1968 hat will happen is that those who can
afford to so do will create "managed lives"
to convey the impressions that they wish to. This is
true now for a thin elite, but it will diffuse. -
David Elesh, associate professor of sociology at
Temple University; internet user since 1983 suspect that this
"transparency" will result in loss of liberty
and privacy for individuals, but will not give the
individual human any more information about nor control
over the consolidation of power in non-governmental
hands, such as multinational corporations. This will
partially be a result of misinterpretation (by
governments already beholden to these powers' and
their interests) of the power of free markets to
maximize all possible goods (including social and
cultural). This outlook: Ignores the reality of
collusion, market manipulation, and other limitations;
Overlooks the power money holds over politics (bribery,
lobbying); Forgets our historical lessons about relying
on the "invisible hand of the market," and
the strengths of putting other values before money in
market management. - Michael Cannella, IT manager,
Volunteers of America – Michigan; member
CPSR rivacy becomes commodified, so yes maybe
more transparency, but not overall transparency. -
Hernando Rojas, a native of Colombia, a professor
in the department of life sciences communication at the
University of Wisconsin – Madison, consultant for
the United Nations Development Program hat leads me not to agree with this
statement is the fact that I do not believe that
everything and everyone will be under the surveillant
eye, but there will be gaps. Those people who are kept
(or manage to place themselves) in the hidden corners
that the panoptical eye cannot reach will have great
advantages over the majority living
'transparent' lives (independently of them
having chosen to do so or not). – Suely
Fragoso, professor, Unisinos, Brazil; internet user
since 1994 his is difficult but I think that
overall transparency is a positive. It will be
interesting to see if the line of what is public or
private gets redrawn (or retrenched). Blogs are
probably the greatest example - tell some 15 years ago
that they would write their diary in public every day
and they'd laugh. Well, guess what happened! -
Andy Williamson, managing director for Wairua
Consulting Limited, New Zealand; a member of the NZ
government's Digital Strategy Advisory Group;
internet user since 1990 he most striking thing will be the
change in our perception of what is private, or an
infringement of that privacy. - Florian
Schlichting, Ph.D. candidate and researcher, University
College, London rivacy should remain a critical value
and a right, and while there are benefits that come
with increased transparency, they do not outweigh the
costs. - Lisa Kamm, has worked in information
architecture since 1995 at organizations including IBM,
Agency.com and the ACLU; internet user since
1987 hile I do believe that more will be
known about individuals, it will only be divulged and
used by a "trusted" authority who will use
the information gained for the benefit of those
affected. People will voluntarily consent to allowing
certain information (probably in conjunction with the
service they subscribe to) regarding their likes and
dislikes, preferences, etc., to be gathered, but as I
said, only within the bounds predefined by them and
held in trust by an entity renowned for trust. In so
doing, they should expect to benefit from better rates
for insurance, healthcare, buying leverage, etc. -
Don Heath, board member, iPool, Brilliant Cities Inc.,
Diversified Software, Alcatel, Foretec; internet user
since 1988 utomatic and compulsory transparency
holds more dangers than benefits, because of
essentially uncontrollable possibilities of criminal,
terroristic, and governmental misuse. - Gisela
Redeker, professor, University of Groningen,
Netherlands; internet user since 1981 etter for control junkies? What about
respect for individualism? – Mike Gill,
electronics engineer, National Library of Medicine;
internet user since 1988 liminating privacy changes human culture
in such extreme ways that 1) 2020 is much too early for
such a change to be in effect 2) we have no idea
whether this will be better or worse. Part of the issue
here is that technology changes much faster than
culture does. Culture requires generations to pass
because it needs new members to grow up with new
assumptions. This is the essence of the clash between
culture and technology. - Karen Coyle, information
professional and librarian; internet user since
1983 trong disagree. - Leigh Estabrook,
professor, University of Illinois; internet user since
1978 he open conversation on the Internet is
a good thing. But the individual should have more
control over the amount of personal information that is
disclosed. - W. Reid Cornwell, director of The
Center for Internet Research; internet user since
1974 here will, however, be a similar rise in
the ability to carefully protect certain aspects of
your own information. Cryptography will become a huge
business. - Tama Leaver, lecturer in digital
communication, University of Western
Australia here are few technologies out there not
willing to be exploited for commercial means - and if
even ethical companies draw boundaries for privacy,
there will be plenty of companies unconcerned about
such scruples. - Jon Bonné, MSNBC.com columnist;
internet user since 1994
fully agree on this issue. Transparency is essential to
rich and poor alike to avoid conflict. - Prof.
Lutfor Rahman, executive director of Association for
Advancement of Information Technology and
vice-chancellor of Pundra University of Science and
Technology, Bangladesh; internet user since
1996 o, we will definitely find new ways to
create opacity into the system. Certainly, a few people
will have lots of information about us, but it
certainly won't make "everyone visible to
everyone." - Randy Kluver, executive director,
Singapore Internet Research Centre; internet user since
1989 rivacy is too fundamental a right to
give up easily for the sake of transparency. - B.
van den Berg, faculty of philosophy at Erasmus
University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; internet user
since 1993 "ransparency" cuts both ways. While
I think it is very good that political and other public
domains are becoming more transparent, protecting
privacy of an individual should be made a priority in
the context of a new technology-enabled
"transparency." - Mirko Petric,
University of Zadar, Croatia; internet user since
1996 s
long as market forces are not given free rein, the
benefits should outweigh the costs. - Ben Detenber,
associate professor, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore nly if the private information that is
collected actually become freely available. That means
that corporations and governments would have to be
willing to release the information they collect. I have
my doubts that this will happen by 2020 as both
corporations and governments view secretly held
personal information as more valuable than completely
free personal information. Corporations derive
marketing and sales information from our personal data
and governments feel safer when their citizens do not
know how much information is being collected about
them. - Scott Moore, online community manager,
Helen and Charles Schwab Foundation; internet user
since 1991 oss of privacy is not better. I
don't need my own software in the network that bad.
Total connectivity is very very bad for liberty. -
Edward Lee Lamoureux, associate professor, Bradley
University irst - 14 years to make the world a
better place is not a lot. Second: transparency is one
thing; information overload is another. Third: people
will learn how to treat the net and protect what they
feel is important private information. So-called
dysfunctions to a lot of software is exactly this kind
of resistance: by not using the shared calendar you
easily avoid to be supervised by others. - Torill
Mortensen, associate professor, Volda University
College, Norway; internet user since 1991
believe that, increasingly, we will have the options on
transparency. Most of the time, we opt for the
"providing more information". But, sometimes
not. – Jim Jansen, assistant professor, Penn
State University; internet user since 1993
think that our online identities will grow to become an
even more important part of our lives. A "vanity
search" will become absolutely necessary for
anyone in a position of power. This development opens a
plethora of opportunities for spin doctors and the
like. - Charlie Breindahl, external lecturer,
University of Copenhagen, IT University of Copenhagen;
internet user since 1996 gain, it is too easy to cook it down to
better or worse. If the changes come as described here,
some will win and some will lose. A total accounting is
next to impossible. - Rich Ling, senior researcher
and sociologist, Telenor Research Institute, Oslo,
Norway; internet user since 1984 eople will continue to resist the
erosion of privacy online. Corporations will be forced
to conform to consumer demands in this area. -
Simon Woodside, CEO, Semacode Corporation, based in
Ontario, Canada; internet user since 1992 ransparency requires the concomitant
skills and knowledge in terms of how to interpret and
interact with the information that transparency
creates. There is a crisis of learning at present, and
if that is not addressed transparency will still remain
a tool or surveillance for most. - Jason Nolan,
associate professor, Ryerson University, Canada;
internet user since 1987 his is a hard call but I wouldn't
bet on the benefits outweighing the costs. Information
is power and power tends to concentrate - where one is
in the food chain in 2020 will likely determine
one's perspective on whether benefits really
outweigh costs. - Nan Dawkins, co-founders of
RedBoots Consulting; internet user since
1997 overnmental and corporate interests
benefit most from "transparency" at the
expense of individual privacy and the liberties that
are integrated with those privacies. More transparency
isn't always better - but a greater ability of
individuals to exert control over the degree of
self-transparency is better. The tradeoffs - e.g.,
ongoing abuse of degrees of anonymity to take advantage
of others - will continue as it does now. - Patrick
B. O'Sullivan, director of the Center for Teaching
and Learning, Illinois State University; internet user
since 1987
only hope that the "transparency" will not be
an instrument of control by governments, politicians
and big businesses. - Lilia Efimova, researcher,
Telematica Instituut, Netherlands; internet user since
1993 rivacy will be more selective (area
specific) and become a lifestyle choice. Most people
will not care and simply accept having every aspect of
their lives open and catered to capital. - Ted M.
Coopman, activist, social science researcher,
instructor at the University of Washington, Seattle,
member of AoIR board of directors ot everything will be transparent to
everyone. In fact, while lots more true and previously
hidden info will be out there, there will also be a lot
of mistaken info as well. I can't say we'll be
that much better off because of it. A little, yes, but
not enough to agree strongly. - Danny Sullivan,
editor-in-chief, SearchEngineWatch.com; internet user
since 1994
agree with the prediction that public and private life
will be more transparent, with privacy a purchasable
commodity. I'm not convinced that the benefits for
the majority of people will outweigh the costs. -
Elizabeth Spiegel, consultant and publisher,
Australian Tax Office here are things that should be left
unsaid or unknown. People will lose their individuality
if there are no mysteries left about us. - Richard
Yee, competitive intelligence analyst, AT&T;
internet user since 1995
don't think we could assume that more information
is better and it will make the world a better place.
Could have the opposite impact. - Jean Lubbert,
manager of marketing research, Guaranty Bank; internet
user since 1995 ard to agree or disagree with this one
without spending hours in thought. I'm leaning
towards disagree as I think in the end we will be more
annoyed by the privacy intrusions than we will feel
benefited by the streamlining of services associated
with complete transparency. I don't really
understand the "big picture" mentioned in the
prediction and wonder how complete transparency alone
can make the world a better place. - Janine van der
Kooy, information management/librarian; internet user
since 1997
think the premise of transparency is true but I'm
not sure that will make the world a better place. One
of my fears is the devolution of unique cultures.
Cultures are built by limiting communication with other
cultures. As communication becomes more and more global
we see many cultures begin to fade away. - Carter
Headrick, director of grassroots and field operations
for Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids; internet user since
1993
would have marked agree if the date were 2040. But I
don't think that will happen in less than 14 years.
- Stan Felder, president and CEO, Vibrance
Associates, LLC; internet user since 1985 his is a very "American" way
of looking at things because as a culture we value
transparency more than many others. Transparency will
increase but governments in some countries will
continue to (successfully) prevent complete
transparency, sometimes with the support of their
people, and sometimes without it. - Michael S. Cann
Jr., CEO of Affinio Corporation; internet user since
1992 or the past century or more technology
has continued to "shrink" our world; however,
the global "village" is still much larger
than that small town where everyone knows you …
and you have to care what they think! - Brent
Crossland, policy analyst; internet user since
1992 eople's personal and professional
lives are already FAR more transparent than most
realize. Increasingly, technologies are being used to
link disparate pieces of personal data into powerful
profiles. In the short term the costs may out weigh the
benefits; in the long term the benefits should outweigh
the costs. - Kathleen Pierz, managing partner, The
Pierz Group (consultants in directory
assistance/enquiry); internet user since
1985 eather benefits outweigh the costs is
going to depend on how much people value privacy in the
future. If attitudes change and people become more
accepting of a less private world, then clearly
benefits will outweigh costs. - Heath Gibson,
competitive intelligence manager, BigPond, Australia;
internet user since 1994 his is a typical instance of
cybertarianism - when cyberspace utopics meets
libertarianism. Transparency matters as a means of
revealing centers of power. Not ordinary people. -
Toby Miller, professor, University of
California-Riverside; internet user since
1990 rivacy is undermined (in the U.S.) on
two fronts: from the government in the guise of
Homeland Security; and from commercial interests in
order to aggregate and exploit marketing information.
The majority of advances in transparency will benefit
large players who know how to use technology to their
advantage, less so the average citizen who can barely
configure his computer. - Steffan Heuer, U.S.
correspondent, brand eins Wirtschaftsmagazin; internet
user since 1994 ransparency has the ability to bring us
much closer to a better world. However, it unlikely
that privacy would suffer as much as outlined in the
scenario above. In many ways, privacy will be the
"new currency" in 2020. "I will trade
pieces of my private life for something of value."
- Howard Finberg, director of interactive media,
The Poynter Institute; internet user since
1991 uch of what we do today in our online
and even offline worlds is not private, even when it is
perceived to be private. Data is there, however it
takes an extra step to be tracked or recorded. The
realization that there is no privacy will happen. Tools
to track and report activities will aslo advance and
become more persistent. - Enid Burns, editor at
ClickZ.com; internet user since 1994 ndividuals inherently desire a zone of
privacy and will be resistant to technologies that
create total transparency in personal areas. -
Mitchell Kam, Willamette University, Oregon;
internet user since 1979 t
some point many will retreat or refuse further
intrusions into their personal lives. - Todd
Costigan, National Association of Realtors; internet
user since, 1985 his is the big question. Who, after all,
guards the guards? Whilst we generally agree that the
ability to have all required data at easy reach would
assist in any form of business dealings, it does also
open the path to data abuse. Data security will be a
major issue as will be identity fraud. An overload of
data does not mean that things will be more visible.
They may be less so due to the shear amount of data
available. the average citizen will have little choice
but to accept what corporations and governments
enforce. Privacy at least allowed you to choose not to
partake in issues that may be forced upon you. We
predict a continued erosion of democracy per se and the
establishment of a newly tiered society that is made of
technos and non-technos. - Robert Eller, Concept
Omega, Media & Verteiler, Celler Blitz; internet
user since 1997 ithout attacking the burgeoning
information crime problem, the aggregation of
information may result in large systemic costs. For
example, mass vulnerability of social security numbers
may force us to create an entirely new structure of
identification for purposes of government benefits. -
Andrea Matwyshyn, executive director, Center for
Information Research, assistant professor of law,
University of Florida; internet user since
1992
balance must be struck. I admire the goals of
organizations like the EFF. We must gain more control
over who has access to our personal information and
what can be done with it. We need to shift much more
aggressively to an "opt-in" society than one
where every individual is forced to know
who/what/where/when and how to opt out. However, in
many types of exchanges (e.g. commercial transactions,
juvenile chat rooms) you should not be able to act
anonymously. In order for the benefits of global
inter-connectivity to reach their true potential, we
must be able to verify the true identity of the sender.
- Kerry Kelley, VP product marketing,
SnapNames.com; internet user since 1986 ransparency makes the world a better
place for marketing and banking professionals, as well
as government bodies. For the common people, it
provides at best a good way to be securely identified
for transactions and such. - Nicolas Ritoux,
freelance technology reporter for La Presse, Montréal
and other media outlets; internet user since
1995 es, yes. We have romanticized our
history. Many of the worst excesses of our past have
come because the truth was hidden from us, shrouded by
a smokescreen of religious and political cant. -
Barry K. Chudakov, principal, The Chudakov Company;
internet user since 1989
agree. The good will result in untold changes for the
better in health care, longevity, happiness in life,
and a general sense of fulfillment. - Jeffrey
Branzburg, educational consultant; internet user since
1997 ransparency will have a greater effect
on governments and businesses than it will upon
individuals. - Sean Mead, consultant for Interbrand
Analytics, Design Forum, Mead Mead & Clark and
other companies; internet user since 1989 rivacy is important to people. There is
a reaction building to misuse of personal data which,
when transferred to the web, may enhance some shopping
experiences but which creates vulnerabilities that we
are only now just beginning to understand. People are
beginning to demand web privacy and will make web use
decisions that reward those companies and services that
can guarantee it. And as the myspace.com crowd gets
burned, one by one, they will come to understand and
demand on line privacy and security as well. -
Ralph Blanchard, investor, information services
entrepreneur; internet user since 1994 he benefits outweigh the costs, but this
is tempered by education and money. Smart people will
be able to obscure or control their personal
information well enough to protect themselves, but the
poor and undereducated will be open books, ripe for
exploitation. - David Kluskiewicz, a senior account
executive at First Experience, a marketing
communications company agree this is a trend, but I already see
people (even young people) who work at being off-grid
and are proud of it. Ability to be and stay mostly
off-grid will be as valued, even elite, as New England
folks with a tan in January. Living in places where
satellites can't photo your house will be
treasured. - Susan Wilhite, design anthropologist,
Habitat for Humanity; internet user since
1993
disagree because I think we're already there. When
you have a satellite picture of your backyard and your
entire neighborhood's backyards on the internet,
you have lost all your privacy. It's a fallacy to
think that we have any privacy at all, right now. -
Judi Laing, Southern California Public Radio;
internet user since 1995
agree that transparency can foster honesty, which
theoretically makes the world a better place. However,
how do we authenticate the information to make sure
it's honest in the first place? - Brian T.
Nakamoto, Everyone.net (a leading provider of
outsourced email solutions for individuals and
companies around the world); internet user since
1990 he social contract is continuously
re-negotiated and re-interpreted as circumstances
change and new technologies arise. I do believe there
will be a privacy-efficiency trade in the predicted
direction. It will be the people and not the
corporations that determine the extents of the trades,
and it will not be solely based on the economic
criteria presumed under the "cost/benefit"
rubric. - Ellen K. Sullivan, former diplomat,
policy fellow, George Mason University School of Public
Policy; internet user since 1988 ccess to information can help us build
understanding and new knowledge. Fairness will be more
possible, and entities that have been unfair in the
past will know their behavior is public. - Janet
Salmons, Vision2Lead Inc. (consultants on
organizational leadership and development and virtual
learning); internet user since 1985 ogwash. Transparency is the buzzword of
the day, but it only works for governments intruding
upon individual freedoms and not an individual seeking
government transparency. Privacy of the individual is
paramount and is why laws were passed many years ago to
protect the individual against the very abuses that are
occurring today. "Freedom of Information
Act," "Patriot Act," these type of Acts
rip apart transparency. Getting critical government
information in 2020 will be more difficult than it is
now. - Ted Summerfield, president,
Punzhu.com trongly agree, also because people will
find ways to deal with the "transparency."
Companies that go too far in harming privacy will be
punished by consumers. - Olav Anders Øvrebø,
freelance journalist based in Oslo, Norway; internet
user since 1995 agree that the world might be a better
place, but privacy is not that hard to protect. Private
lives can be kept private with some simple precautions.
- Mark Crowley, The Customer Respect Group;
internet user since 1995 he future is unsure on the balance of
the bad and good. Privacy had been repeatedly infringed
even when we were at the beginning of the internet era.
- Yiu Chan, internet user since 1995
agree with the statement but I'm not sure this will
make the world a better place. It will make knowledge
more accessible and more networked, for better or
worse. - Jonathan Sills, SVP (strategy &
corporate development), Provide Commerce, Liberty
Media; internet user since 1993 he benefits may initially outweigh the
cost but history has taught us there is always a group
or an individual with their own agenda who will attempt
or succeed, in manipulating the transparency for their
own ends at the expense of "the masses."
– J. Fox, a respondent who preferred to keep
the rest of his/her identity private he debate between transparency and
privacy will shape the future of communications, as
organised groups will fight against giving up private
privacy. On the other hand, networked world will
increasingly put pressure on worldwide organisations,
whether state, NGOs, companies. - Sylvain Grande,
internet user since 1995 here will be clashes of sensibilities as
we already witness with global access to every story or
point of view as it happens. This will not change. A
cost: A new sensibility of tolerance may emerge that
homogenizes individual choices and responsibilities, as
information is no longer a practical means of achieving
competitive advantage over another. A benefit for some;
a cost for others: Most individuals will remain
anonymous by virtue of the plain-ness of their lives.
In this sense, the ego-drive of the individual may push
many more toward a supernatural domain for expressing
their individualness. A benefit: The mass of humanity
will still look to the "performers and
portrayers" who embrace the cost of having every
movement being documented, tracked and paid attention
to. A benefit: If the cost also includes that all
individual human ego must be subordinated to the mass
sense of equality, then any temporary benefit will be
outweighed by the loss of the adaptability embodied in
billions of individual egos trying out ideas. -
Jeff Hammond, VP, Rhea and Kaiser; internet user
since 1992 here will be a spectrum of openness to
secrecy with the bulge being on the open side due to
voluntary changes by the orgs. and individuals but also
because of spies, paparazzi, journalists, and hobbyist
using the web to assemble mosaics of public info. I
think certain groups that have maintained secrecy to
guard their power (shamans, governments that are
autocratic or kleptocratic, criminals) will continue to
do so. There may be double bookkeeping of sorts: a
private face and record, and a supposedly open and
transparent spin for public scrutiny. - Steve
Cisler, former senior library scientist for Apple,
founder of the Association for Community Networking,
now working on public-access projects in Guatemala,
Ecuador and Uganda; internet user since
1989 our public and private life is too
valuable to corporate retailers for complete
transparency. - Nicco Mele, internet strategist,
political web architecture expert gain, this is entirely likely but I do
see it as a negative result even if there are
tremendous benefits to the transparency (as I can see
there might be). - Jill O'Neill, director of
planning & communication, National Federation of
Abstracting and Information Services; internet user
since 1986 he only expectation I have about the
effects of technology on privacy is that they will be
unexpected. Through history, technological change has
affected our privacy: we have more privacy now then we
did in the largely agrarian societies with limited
transport options of 200 years ago. Modern technology
makes our lives more "transparent" in some
ways, yet it is also easier to ensure privacy too.
E-mail and mobile phones make having an affair much
simpler! - Henry Potts, professor, University
College, London; internet user since 1990 he benefits to improving the
distribution of goods and services and managing
environmental changes/stresses outweigh the downside. -
John Pearson, a respondent who chose not to reveal
any other personal information emove the word "transparent"
and I might have agreed; however, because the word is
usually used in the context of government, it is a
somewhat disingenuous construction. Granted, at the
moment I am unable to come up with a better word for it
- Asimov's "goldfish bowl" comes close -
but human beings need some measure of opacity in their
lives and affairs if they are to be such. - Roger
Scimé, self-employed web designer; internet user since
1994
like being a Delta. I wouldn't want to be an Alpha
or a Beta. They have too much responsibility. -
Walt Dickie, VP and CTO, C&R Research; internet
user since 1992 ven with much more information being in
digital form, there will still be significant levels of
privacy. Laws determine privacy, not technology. -
Rob Atkinson, director, Technology and New Economy
Project, Progressive Policy Institute (a think tank);
previously project director at the Congressional Office
of Technology Assessment; internet user since
1993 uman nature has always had a negative
side when it comes to managing confidential
information. What is paramount is the role of privacy
in an ever-transparent world that can misuse
confidential information. Once cant wait for safeguards
to evolve. They are the first step. - Syamant
Sandhir, leader in experience design and
implementation, Futurescape; internet user since
1995 he general populace will have the
experience noted above, but there are always ways to
commit subterfuge for those who are so motivated. We
will get lulled into a sense of false security &
transparency, allowing the unethical to operate even
more quietly than they do now; corporations will be the
biggest offenders/danger. - Denzil Meyers, founder
and president, Widgetwonder (internal branding
consultants and facilitators of corporate
storytelling), Applied Improvisation Network; internet
user since 1993 he loss of individual privacy will be
controlled by the companies and governments that can
afford to utilize the massive resources to manipulate
the information. This won't be used to benefit the
individual. Transparency isn't going to be two-way;
individuals will not have access to information about
governments or large companies in the same way. -
Michelle Catlett, instructional technologist,
Edubuilder, Apria Healthcare, Laureate Education;
internet user since 1992 ur ideas of privacy co-evolved with the
gesellschaft environment. New concepts of privacy are
already arising. - Mary Ann Allison, chairman and
chief cybernetics officer, The Allison Group, LLC;
futurist; internet user since 1981 nformation about all of us as
individuals and as consumers will be more easily
accessible, but the possible resulting
"transparency" will be limited. Those
organizations and people that have the most to lose
from open information will continue to find ways to
obscure data that would be detrimental to them if
released … This will place a great deal of
responsibility on those organizations in our society
that are charged with providing a watchdog role on
powerful institutions and organizations. I am not sure
that we as a society will place enough value on this
watchdog role to underwrite the costs to continue to
pursue lengthy investigations and legal action. It is
incumbent on those of us in education and public life
to continue to place a value on this watchdog and
investigative role of journalism, and to continue to
push for increased accountability structures,
understanding that these must be continually updated so
as to keep pace with the changes that technology
allows. - Lynn Schofield Clark, director of Teens
and the New Media @ Home Project, University of
Colorado; internet user since 1991 ith such widespread transparency not
only will privacy be sacrificed, but competitive edge
will be dulled, especially for small- to medium-sized
business. Only big business will have the capacity and
resources to leverage transparency. And, the keepers of
the network will be the ultimate winners. - Daniel
D. Wang, principal, Roadmap Associates (coaching and
advisory company); internet user since 1995 ransparency should not be seen as
another word for "invasion of privacy." If a
system is truly transparent, it is transparent to all
observers. The worst invasions of privacy are
unilateral and - even worse - cannot be independently
confirmed. The future of intrusive informatic systems
will allow participants in private corporate internets
access to all sorts of wonders, but their lives will be
wide open to paying vendors. Most people will choose
this lifestyle, and will continue to choose this
lifestyle so long as the tradeoff between "smart
suggestions" and "intrusiveness" breaks
in their favor. Most people will not care to look back
through the glass so long as their luxuries and
entertainments continue to flow in ever-improving
streams. Meanwhile, on the Open Source side of the
culture, two-way transparency will change expectations
of privacy and public life. Some aspects of life will
become more guarded, and laws will require that
specific permission be granted before certain types of
information can be added to the data stream (think
HIPAA). Most Americans, however, will trade waivers of
those privacy rights for "better" products
and free access to media. And while Open Source culture
will be a minority culture, it will include a vibrant
mediascape. Because of its innovative and creative
power, the two-way transparency of the Open Source
networks will continue to influence the larger culture,
even as expressed in the proprietary nets. - Daniel
Conover, new-media developer, Evening Post Publishing;
internet user since 1994 hose with the most power in business and
government will also be "beyond sensing" -
they will pay major dollars to protect their privacy
from the public eye. Others will not have this
privilege. - Peter Samis, program manager,
interactive educational technologies; San Francisco
Museum of Modern Art; internet user since
1990
agree with the scenario but, no benefits should or
could ever outweigh Individual rights, ever. -
Gordon MacDiarmid, Lobo Internet Services; internet
user since 1988 gree - with reservations. The
possibility for abuse is incredible, and even
well-meaning governments and private security systems
will not be able to provide 100% security for our
personal information. - Bobbi Foutch-Reynolds, VP
marketing, Interact Communications; internet user since
1994
agree, but only partly. Some services may benefit from
this transparency, for instance medical records that
are kept on the Internet and available for all doctors,
so your treatment can be improved. On the other hand, I
don't think it is wise to put so much private
information on the Internet since others may misuse
such information. - Jascha de Nooijer, Universiteit
Maastricht, Netherlands; internet user since
1995 ransparency also creates a homogeneity
among people, cultures, etc. Think France and why they
want to keep their country French. Transparency also
leads to more people acting alike out of fear of being
different. They may make the world safer but may not
make it a better place. After all sometimes it's
the rub that sparks imagination, curiosity, etc. -
Chris Miller, a respondent who chose to keep the rest
of his personal information private hen we are exposed as all-too-human by
increased surveillance of our private lives, we will
lose a great deal of our personal dignity and respect
for ourselves and others. - Martin F. Murphy, IT
consultant, City of New York; internet user since
1993 trongly disagree. The growth of
information capture will be a leading force behind the
commercialization of the Internet. This will hold
little benefit to the average user. - Rick Gentry,
acquisition coordinator, Greenpeace; internet user
since 1995 e
will continue to have very mixed opinions about the
effects of transparency and the loss of privacy, just
as we do today. These mixed opinions are likely to
intensify, meaning that there will be passionate
extremes on both sides of the issue. - Gary
Chapman, director, The 21st Century Project, LBJ School
of Public Affairs at the University of Texas - Austin,
internet user since 1982 ransparency can build a better world but
won't by 2020 if the transparency is only of the
individual. Such transparency must include governments
and corporations in order for individuals to trust
more/be willing to allow or participate in a more
transparent world. - James Conser, professor
emeritus, Youngstown State University; internet user
since 1985 he privacy is a very ingrained right in
the developed societies. For that reason I believe that
the citizens that live in developed societies avoided
to lose their privacy. In Europe are discussing
standards it has more than enough retention data in
telecommunications, so much phone as by e-mail, that
are rejected from numerous civic forums or the
standards that they were tried to implant in United
States and that the many citizen's associations
have been rejected. I believe that it is necessary to
look for an intermediate point in the balance. -
Sabino M. Rodriguez, MC&S Services; internet
user since 1994 t's too easy to find ways around
behaving like a decent adult. Nothing about the
Internet, transparency or voyerism into other
peoples' lives will change this basic human fact.
Witnessing "goodness" may ratchet up an
encounter or two, but these influences will remain in
the minority. - Elle Tracy, president and
e-strategies consultant, The Results Group; internet
user since 1993 f
this happens, it will not - clearly - be a better
world. It will be interesting to see how the European
model of mainly government having access to your
private data versus the American model of corporations
more freely owning it plays out (with China being the
wild card). - Cary Curphy, operations research
analyst, U.S. Army; internet user since
1989 ntimacy will become ever more precious.
- Dan McCarthy, managing director, Neuberger Berman
Inc. (equity funds); internet user since
1994
am not convinced that giving up the personal right to
privacy is a price worth paying for the development of
networked technology. I think people will gradually
become more aware of the gradual erosion of their
privacy and this could eventually provoke a backlash
against this trend. - Brian Power, NHS hospital in
the United Kingdom; internet user since
1994 oncern over the privacy of personal
information will be one of the strongest incentives for
Internet users to move into online Gated-Communities
with strong privacy protection rules. Most U.S.
voters/citizens are uncomfortable with personal
information being collected about them - by government
or by marketers - without their knowledge or
permission. The U.S. is unique is having an environment
that implies personal information should be freely
available to marketers and 3rd parties for whatever
purpose they decide to use it. European and most other
market economies have much stronger controls over the
collection, use and transfer of personal information...
and the U.S. will increasingly move toward EU-style
privacy protection, rather than the other way around.
It will only take a few major incidents of theft of
personal records and graphic stories about
identity-theft before voter outrage will compel
Congress to pass strong privacy protection measures,
over the strong objections of the U.S. business
community. - Michael Conlin, former legislator,
currently an entrepreneur; internet user since
1990 ransparency of each individual allows
people to self-evaluate, and transparency of a
corporation, a nation, and of the public as a whole
allows people to better participate democratically.
Transparency of both public and private lives, of
common citizens and social figures, will have the
greatest impact politically across the globe. It will
encourage democracy. - Clement Chau, research
assistant and program coordinator, Tufts
University-Developmental Technologies Research Group;
internet user since 1995
think that this prediction will come true, but I
disagree that the benefits will outweigh the costs. We
will be convinced that the loss of privacy and the
increased transparency of our personal information will
be a good thing, but will be a result of our
perspectives being "rewired" by technology,
which has resulted in our placing less value on human
dignity, individual rights and privacy. - Robert
Rehn, internet user since 1986
worry about a system with too much public-domain info
about individuals. It will limit the type of people who
enter politics to those who grew up in convents and
abbeys. - James Schultz, principal, Pretty Good
Consulting; Institute for Work and the Economy (a
consortium studying challenges posed by new immigrants
in the labor market); former executive at
Walgreen's; internet user since 1995 xcept is cases of national security,
privacy issues should always have the highest priority.
I do believe sensing capabilities will improve and if a
person is not careful it will become easier for their
private information to be snapped up by criminals on
the web. - Doug Olenick, computer technology
editor, TWICE (This Week In Consumer Electronics)
Magazine; internet user since 1996 ransparency" to the levels
described is only a good thing if your ideal society is
Huxley's "Brave New World." - Alix L.
Paultre, executive editor, Hearst Business Media,
Smartalix.com, Zep Tepi Publishing; internet user since
1996 ow does one define "better"?
If we mean that everyone gets fed - then maybe. If we
mean "quality of life" then I doubt it.
Contemplatives, saints, shaman, holy men, and other
types of spiritual people need privacy. A complete lack
of privacy will render the world without a conscience.
- Timbre' Wolf, songwriter and member of PG5YP
(People's Glorious Five-Year Plan – a band in
Oklahoma); internet user since 1994
moderately agree, but there are a number of social and
psychological issues related to such pan-transparency,
which might leave us worse in a number of unforeseeable
respects. Besides, the bad guys always found a way to
avoid exposure, so they probably still will. -
Mikkel Holm Sørensen, software and intelligence
manager, Actics Ltd. (ethical management systems);
internet user since 1997 he more information is linked, the
easier it becomes for individuals as long as that
information is not compromised or incorrect. We've
seen this with credit reports and need to make sure we
build in the necessary safeguards. On the positive
side, if a system could uniquely identify me anywhere I
go, I wouldn't have to carry cash, driver's
license, passport, etc. The system would need to use
two-factor authentication to avoid cases where someone
may use the technology to debit my account without my
approval, but if done correctly it could greatly
simplify our lives. - Rangi Keen, software
engineer, Centric Software, internet user since
1989 lthough the information on everyone will
conceivably be available to everyone, there will need
to be some conscious reason for searching this out -
bad or good. - Jeff Corman, government policy
analyst, Industry Canada, Government of Canada;
internet user since 1995 gain, I'm wondering about political
factors or consumer pushback. At some point, there may
actually be a massive consumer opt-out of these
transparency schemes. The best target audiences will
not be available, i.e. their private info will be at
least partially hidden, thus making it less valuable. -
Gary Arlen, president, Arlen Communications Inc.,
The Alwyn Group LLC; internet user since
1982 here is a problem with this formulation:
what do you mean by "transparency"? What is
the "everything" that will be visible?
Because if it is my personal data then it is not a
better world. The benefits from collaborative,
networked societies are only visible if we do have the
moral grounds to achieve that visibility and yet
respect privacy and individuality. In the utopia this
question suggests, that world seems to be a data-hive
world of collective consciousness, which is ineffective
and immoral. Let us decide what is transparent and how
we shall show and perceive: it should not be a matter
of transparency vs. opaqueness, but a matter of degrees
of clarity, of understanding the uncertain clarity of a
networked world. - Miguel Sicart Vila, junior
research associate, Information Ethics Group, Oxford
University; internet user since 1997 ransparency, as a requisite for
accountability, is not the necessary result of
"visibility on public electronic spaces."
While the effects may indeed have a wide reach, this is
not going to change the balance between positive and
negative aspects. More transparency requires cultural,
ethical and behavioral changes far beyond the use and
abuse of ICT. - Michel Menou, professor and
information-science researcher; born in France, he has
worked in nearly 80 nations; internet user since
1992 ut I say this only because there are
bad-guys out there ready to exploit these
vulnerabilities. There may be a giant technical step
backwards caused by privacy concerns. - Gwynne
Kostin, director of Web communications, U.S. Homeland
Security; internet user since 1993 enefits of privacy loss will not
outweigh the costs. Privacy loss will drive some people
away from using technology, but new privacy-protection
technologies will develop and make the creators
wealthy. - Mark O. Lambert, former utilities
commissioner, State of Iowa; consultant; futurist;
internet user since 1989 ere I think that our political and
social institutions have lagged and often failed in
keeping pace with technical advances. Given the vast
disparities in resources, abuses of power coupled with
unprecedented capacity to harm, I am greatly troubled
by the intrusions into privacy by governmental and
commercial interests with limited agendas to serve
public goods. - Joe Schmitz, assistant professor,
Western Illinois University; internet user since
1985 erhaps the greatest opportunity to be
had from the advancement of the "Global
Network" is the opportunity for individuals to
become true "citizens of the world."
Communication has always been the greatest threat to
ethnic and cultural bias. The opportunity for
individuals to communicate reasonably freely with
others outside of their culture and national community
should provide a better understanding of previously
foreign cultures, which may help to overcome the biases
of uncertainty. - Al Amersdorfer, president and
CEO, Automotive Internet Technologies; internet user
since 1985 ne still has the ability to manage ones
use of these communication tools. If the technologies
provide true transparency the costs will be minimal.
True transparency assumes Governments/Criminal action
or in-action are also transparent to all. - J.
Aimone, director of network development, HTC; internet
user since 2000 ut I could easily see it going the other
way. The biggest gain could be in productivity; the
greatest nightmares seem to be in all that will
transpire around lack of privacy. - David Irons,
VP, co-founder, AScribe Newswire; internet user since
1993 his is troubling, but inevitable.
Transparency is good and necessary to a great number of
new tech developments, but it always comes at a price.
We will need to more carefully define privacy issues
and work to ensure that personal rights are not
sacrificed to a phantom good of total transparency. -
Suzanne Stefanac, author and interactive media
strategist, dispatchesfromblogistan.com; internet user
since 1989
|