rivacy will be a commodity hoarded by
those who can afford it.
osing one's privacy and security is
never a benefit.
he benefits don't outweigh the
just know I wouldn't want to be in that
he need - and right - for privacy will
assert itself in the face of government and corporate
efforts to use personal data widely. There is room for
an effective detente between transparency and privacy,
but it will take political will, wisdom and some
economic incentives to make it happen.
he way things are perverted in 2006, I
believe the opposite. Distortion will hold an
unfortunately negative place in communication and lives
will be negatively affected due to a culture that
continues to move farther and farther away from
ersonal privacy seems expendable. It
will only be valued when it's been lost by some
people. By then, it will be too late.
he private sector will charge for every
fact they learn, every genome they decrypt and find
advantageous to extract profit from. The irritating
rash that is identity theft in 2006 will reach plague
proportions in a decade. Gated virtual communities will
be offered to those who can bank, email, and surf the
'Net within their restricted, protected, and costly
need to keep information more private and protected
than we do now. It will not make the world a better
place if we continue down this path of ease of use and
transparency with regard to personal
efinitely. The government already knows
everything about us; it's just a question of
ransparency would build a better world
if there would be an ethical use of the information,
which is not always the case. Using terrorism as an
excuse, lots of misuse is possible.
ransparency can build a better world,
but governments and corporations and others that wish
to hide "dirty" truths will continue to take
effective steps to protect their secrets.
technology develops people will learn how to keep
private portions of their lives private. Much of the
global learnings may even promote increased
eview carefully the various privacy and
personal-information-control laws being passed in
various places around the world. If anything, the pace
is accelerating towards stronger privacy and control,
driven by misuse of individual personal information
whether accidental or deliberate. I do not think people
are convinced that benefits outweigh the costs and this
will stall certain forms of data transparency. Legal
challenges may control others.
hose who have something to hide and for
whom exposure may threaten their revenues will invest a
lot in their "security."
ransparency rightly frightens many.
However, I expect legal changes will be made to better
help victims of identity theft and otherwise support
think it's overstated, but true. Rich people will
be able to shield their data, at a price. Poor people
will exchange their privacy for services. They'll
be open books. Not sure if the benefits outweigh the
rivacy is still required by the majority
- we don't really want a "naked"
ow can losing our privacy be a good
thing? Unscrupulous types will take advantage of
is hard to disagree with this, because it is
hile I do think that computers and other
new technologies are working to facilitate rather than
hinder communication, I don't think that real
transparency is the result: we have instead the
illusion that everything's out there, when the
reality is that probably more and more is being hidden
cannot fathom how it will "make the world a better
do believe that transparency will produce better, more
socialistic lifestyles for everyone. However, I
don't believe this will happen.
here is no more privacy. We need to let
go of the concept.
he intrusion on our daily lives in this
country and eventually internationally is at best
frightening. The means does not justify the
his is historically obvious.
his is still up in the air - privacy,
identity theft, job loss, inflexibility, terrorism, and
other threats may create as much negative effect as
he reversal on this feature has begun
and the pendulum is swinging back. Example: why was
"push" a flop, and RSS a success? One could
argue they are the same thing, but that's a shallow
view. The primary difference is that RSS givers users
more interactive control, AND privacy. The way push was
initially conceived, it was all to benefit the pushers.
The users have won out.
here is a definite struggle going on
between the increased ease with which consumers can
identify alternative suppliers (a much more fluid
market) with value transferred to consumers but at the
same time the data available to companies and the
sophistication of the tools to use it (plus the winner
takes all network effects) mean that there are
ransparency is essential to progress. In
my experience, keeping technology secret hinders
improvements and, more importantly, inhibits our
ability to predict potentially disastrous
ff-line systems will become the norm for
key info - it will seem like a step back but will be a
you watch teenagers and their style of computing
(despite e repeated warnings and suspicion of their
parents) you see a future generation that questions our
need for privacy. They are growing up street-wise and
don't hide from information. Their in-your-face
computing is a more direct way to handle any fears than
hiding behind encryption and passwords. There are
lessons to be learned here if we adapt.
ur world will need to deal with the
excessive competitive pressures this puts on
individuals. We see this issue already with the
increased awareness and pressures involved in the
measurement of children's academic and personal
growth. We will need to learn what remains personal and
lready we see that information is
becoming more sensitive and more sought after.
Everything is becoming more and more visible - at the
expense of privacy. Even legislation will not eliminate
the immense growth in the value of information.
think things will be more transparent. They already are
far more so than I'd like. But I don't think
this is a good thing. The potential costs are
rivacy evaporated in the '60s, and
was gone by the '80s. People just didn't
realize it. The focus on privacy that has occurred as a
result of the Internet will actually cause information
to become more private, thanks to higher awareness and
better authorization and access technology.
echnology advances have slowly eaten
away at privacy since the beginning of time, and the
increasing use of the Internet to showcase a
person's life only continues that trend. Witness
the social networking, blogging and the trend of
"putting everything out there for the world to
see" that today's younger generation embraces.
I don't see that changing by 2020, in fact more
information is likely to be on display, but only by
those people who either don't care about their
privacy, or don't know any better. I'm not sure
whether this will make the world a better place or not,
as any advances in new technologies that have a
"benefit" also have a "risk," in
that people are always out there to try and exploit
that for their own uses.
ransparency will continue, though there
will be a major backlash if ubiquitous technology is
thought to threaten personal safety (witness the
current backlash against teens using MySpace and other
access to technology is ubiquitous, then it could have
an amazing impact on social movements and change. I
also think that anti-technology sects will also be a
natural reaction to this transparency - much like the
modern Mennonites. Some will yearn for simpler, more
information is communicated the question remains about
its accuracy, relevance, and use.
general, I agree, but I do think that people will have
some control over their privacy, albeit with some
effort. The benefits, however, will probably go to
commercial organizations while the costs will be spread
among everyone. How worthwhile people will perceive
this to be will vary dramatically.
rom outside the US, this looks both
scary and unlikely. Data Protection is too
institutionalised in the EU, at least for this to look
probable this side of the Atlantic.
eople will choose what level of privacy
they will trade off for convenience.
am nervous about the future.
et's believe that the human being
is, by nature, good.
agree that there will be a loss of privacy. I do not
agree that this will make the world a better place. The
benefits will not outweigh the costs, since one cost
will be personal freedoms
e're already here. And yes, the
benefits outweigh the costs.
his trend will facilitate friendliness
and relationships based on individual
he more we know about other people, the
more irrational fears we are developing, and the
government beast is feeding these fears. Familiarity
does breed contempt. It would be great if we could all
learn from, and respect, everyone else's
differences, but that doesn't seem to be the way
that human nature works. We are just too lazy to care,
and we feel threatened by everyone else.
hile police and security forces will
probably welcome this transparency, it can easily
become a costly "enhancement" of our society.
Our own history has shown us numerous instances of
technology used in inappropriate instances. When
medical records and purchasing information are
available, what privacy does the individual have a
right to expect? Does an employer have the right to
expect to garner medical information concerning a staff
member's medical condition if that medical
condition is not adversely affecting their performance?
Should an individual's purchasing of certain books
or records be available to other commercial
establishments or family members or their
020 is far off and putting into practice
user protection of privacy is a tedious task against
marketing specialists. Much more difficult than
protection against terrorists or viruses. The benefit
will come but with more hardships for both developers
othing good can happen out of
"selling" one's privacy.
here are many pitfalls to transparency.
It is desirable in government but not in personal
hile I may not disagree with the premise
that 2020 will bring new intrusions, I cannot agree
that we will be the better for it.
verybody has something to hide. Or
something they like to hide. So no.
ransparency will fail to extend to
government; prevent a true "big picture" view
and the possible better world it could produce.
would agree if transparency applied equally to
governments, but this appears highly improbable
on't believe people will allow it to
get to that point unless "terror" politics
continue (both terrorist and politicians)
oss of privacy yes - better world not
is impossible to weigh the cost benefit situation from
2006. As long as there is an active and free press and
regular elections in the important countries of the
world, we may be okay for a while.
ransparency will be applied selectively
- by governments, businesses such as banks, and the
healthcare sector - to individuals. Transparency of
organizations and political bodies in the sense
described here will never happen as long as those in
power want to stay in power.
he more transparent, the easier to see
problems as they are occurring and thereby stop them
early, in their tracks.
strongly agree. However there must be an imbalance in
the system, a bias in favour of protection of
individual privacy and against government/market
privacy. As it stands now the trend is the other way.
Governments know more and more about us at the same
time as our possibilities to gain access to information
that should be in the public domain diminishes.
he world is going down fast, with the
rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
Technology may help, but the self-serving nature of
Americans will work against the world being a better
ot in the United States; the public
values of individuality, freedom and privacy are too
ransparency of individuals will not
result in a better world, but transparency of
corporations and government will. That benefit will
outweigh the cost of a loss of some privacy of the
enerally, I agree with this. We've
already given up some privacy by using things like
credit cards and EasyPass transponders. The information
is out there, and a person's life and recent
activities could be reconstructed relatively easily.
The benefits will likely outweigh what we have to give
up to achieve them. But there will also probably be a
growth industry (more likely starting by 2010, not
2020) providing "privacy protection
ncreased transparency is better for the
whole but more costly for the individual - interesting
nless there is a mindset change, no one
will welcome nor appreciate intrusion of privacy
especially in their personal lives. There will be
benefits to consumers if businesses become more
think it is better to have an open society with the
free flow of ideas and information. But I still think
people need privacy to ensure that we stay human.
Everyone doesn't need to know everything about
cannot agree that ceding privacy for transparency can
or will be beneficial. One has only to look at past and
present repressive societies to see how damaging and
costly invasion of privacy has been. Privacy is a basic
human right for good reason.
don't believe losing my privacy makes the world a
ransparency and privacy are both myths
and ideals. Since neither can ever be truly achieved,
the tension between them will continue.
will take concerted efforts to make sure the benefits
continue to outweigh the costs. When the balance
shifts, problems will begin.
he mass will move to an enlightened POV
(point of view).
ransparency of corporate and government
entities will be good, and citizens will need to work
hard to protect and manage personal privacy.
eople's happiness is something very
more personalized world can be more comfortable, but
maybe less interesting. If it will be good or bad will
depends on political state of the world in 2020
ransparency online is like looking at a
person just on paper - there's a lot of missing
pieces; the internet can only go so far.
the benefits will outweigh the costs. By 2020 people
will probably be required to have automated everything,
and perhaps a chip of some sort which would make
personal information more transparent. I don't see
this as a positive thing.
ep, big-time. We've already started
sliding down this slippery slope, with Google,
Microsoft and our government. There will be enormous
amounts of data collected, archived, analyzed and used
to predict behavior of all of us. The danger comes when
the data becomes personal and individual tracking you
specifically vs. an aggregate and if all these sources
of info about you are linked to a profile/identity.
It's a bit scary, and we don't have laws to
govern it yet, and people don't seem to be much
interested in finding out about what's happening or
how to protect themselves.
here will always be ways to be "off
general rise in the living standard for the world is
open environment ultimately will mean more democracy
and transparency - a good thing.
rivacy will become a major issue, and
people will pay to insure the privacy of their
information. Privacy is the one issue that could be the
undoing of the Internet.
totally support transparency regarding business
relations but where does it end? We should start a
discussion in this country to understand the impact of
a 'public life' on the Internet. All people
have the right to live a private life, and they should
be able to choose on their own how public they want to
live. This should not be enforced by laws, etc. I can
accept that there might be security issues that come
first sometimes, though.
won't see complete transparency. The internet will
continue to facilitate the spread of hostile, violent
groups that operate "below the radar" because
of the sheer magnitude of activity on the web.
certainly need transparency with respect to the
governments that rule us, so that seems good. it may
also alleviate some of the problems with human
here will be an anonymity backlash
online, and people will endorse a surveillance society
with the idea that so long as everyone's activities
are accessible, nobody's being violated.
his is a tough one. I think that
transparency is key to democracy. But, privacy and
anonymity are key when citizens are concerned about the
powers of governments or large, powerful
he definition of privacy will change,
becoming polarized at the high and low ends of society.
Privacy will become a selling point, a commodity, for
real estate, travel, and other functions.
still see a very unequal access. While I'm
uncertain that the advantages of personal
communications "transparency" would truly
outweigh the hazards, I'm not sure that it will be
ever be global. People without sufficient means may be
pushed further outside the "global" economy
than they already are.
we vote for transparency we can retain the controls
necessary to avoid self-destruction. The downside is
that so much value (which, heretofore, has always
required the ability of some to pull the wool over the
eyes of others) will be lost, or exposed. The thing
that marketers will have to recognize is that no one
stops to read the gas mileage on their new car now
anyway - why should we be intimidated by a time when
every aspect of a product or service is published for
consumer appreciation? Unfortunately, a majority of the
people want to be told what to do and what to
here are too many variables and the
results of these surveys will unfortunately move the
stock market and hit the newspapers where hegemony
reigns. It will be better but I'm not sure the
benefits will outweigh the costs. It is too complicated
general I agree, though I think we can still have a
balance and retain some privacy. Privacy and technology
are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
have a challenge to find the line between helpful
transparency and intrusion.
he benefit will not replace the costs
when that which was once public - respect of one
another's privacy - has become privatised and
controlled by profit-motive.
greed that public and private selves
will be increasingly transparent, but disagree that the
benefits will outweigh the cost. US residents have an
unrealistically heightened sense of entitlement to
privacy - and this will be offended by the increasing
transparency. The benefits (and there will be some)
will reduce this to a degree. However, the problems of
identity theft will continue to be a problem - as will
a new threat, newly created identities.
don't believe that "visibility" and
'transparency" is automatic. Commentators
already speak of "googlearchy" i.e.
multi-nationals occupying pivotal power. The medium may
change (i.e. internet), but the message may also remain
the same - the concentration of power and influence in
the hands of the few.
a society we are better off. Knowledge trumps
ignorance. The more we know, the better we can cope
with the problems we face. If someone with bad intent
seeks to invade my privacy, then I want the power of
transparency to shed light on that, too. One
interesting consequence of the "data
everywhere" phenomenon is that many more criminals
are being convicted with evidence culled from their own
computers and their data trail across the
his is a worthy vision of the future
that hopefully will be realized over the objections of
governments trying to control information and
communications to hide something.
he truth is what world communities want
- truth and transparency from their politicians,
clergy, and corporations. This will eventually force
e'll probably have a more
transparent world, but I'm not sure that's a
good thing. There are things I don't really want to
know about some (many!) people.
he vision of such an
information-dominated future is appealing, the reality
is that we're not quite that rational. Nor will the
technology be marshaled toward the "common
good." Too much emphasis on short-term profit
making will creating political, cultural, and market
place dampers on full-scale digital living.
here will be new pockets of freedom, but
they will be available mostly to the existing
privileged classes. This 2020 might turn out better for
some, worse for the others.
am sad to see my unlisted telephone number splashed on
the Internet. As a single mother I wanted anonymity and
privacy - but I was not allowed to have this. I felt a
little frightened to know that my name, address &
phone was published and I was alone.
ransparency is inevitable. I don't
agree that this will make the world a better place. New
crimes will develop and there will be greater
infringement on rights and freedoms. I think that in
2020 in hindsight that we will find that the benefits
do not outweigh the costs.
ocial conventions must be established to
retain the balance
ransparency = accountability
he value of sensing, storage, and
communication technologies is not proved by becoming
"cheaper" and "better" (I read this
to mean more efficient, faster, more precise, etc.).
Higher visibility of some things does not in itself
lead to better quality of life. People lead lives from
a personal experience perspective, therefore "all
of the lives affected on the planet in every way
possible" is a poor measure of "the" big
picture. People differ in their hopes for the future of
humanity, and there is no consensus on this benefit. In
some ways, life would improve if communication
technologies ceased becoming cheaper and better and,
instead, people were more inclined to sense room for
improvement in the quality of what passes through those
communication channels. The facility of technology does
not alone deliver a higher quality of life.
agree with the first part - that our private lives will
be more transparent. I'm not sure what this lack of
privacy will lead to - I think we are headed for a Big
Brother scenario - albeit not one as dark as most
science fiction would have you believe. I think as long
as there is not overt effort to control using this
information (as opposed to influence) that we just
accept the gradual transition.
here will assuredly be benefits from
transparency, but individuals must retain some control
over their own privacy. Big Brother will be
one will absolutely give up privacy. Perceived
anonymity is what encourages people to play on the net.
Loss of anonymity will result in loss of play.
he detriments will FAR outweigh the
ransparency frightens me. I think we
need to have mechanisms in place to protect privacy and
individuals. Transparency, while it has its benefits,
can also be misused in the wrong hands, thereby
creating havoc on the lives of many if tight controls,
systems, and protections are not put in place to guard
against this danger.
ur public/private lives may get more
transparent, but results will be better for the
resource-rich and worse for the resource-poor.
rivacy will be come more important than
expect that people will attempt to retain (or gain)
control over personal information, despite or even in
response to technological efforts (or capacities) to
he consequences of increased visibility
are not enough understood yet and deserve more
research. Greater visibility not necessarily leads to
more democratisation, and even if so can lead to
increased pressure on individuals to comply to
ith the caveat that transparency
shouldn't replace a moral code, but will help
insure that we follow on one. It's going to be
harder to do the back room deal
agree with all except the last line: The benefits will
not outweigh the costs.
will be easier to be known, make purchases, verify
identity, seamlessly work between systems, etc. But,
privacy will - and already is - compromised
agree in the public areas of the net. In the private
networks of governments and corporations, we will have
neither privacy nor transparency.
his is one that I would say I neither
agree nor disagree …Too much depends on the
people who have access to the information and the uses
they make of it.
think the bennies will outweigh.
hese technologies could build a better
world, but our world will not be better if conveniences
come at the expense of privacy or if control of the
internet is too highly concentrated in the hands of a
few large corporations. If the future of the internet
is shaped by democratic means, the future will be
bright. If the future is shaped by commercial
interests, where things like privacy, choice, and
"net neutrality" are externalities, then
we're in trouble.
disagree with the benefits outweighing the costs, but
not the transparency assertion. I expect the adverse
effects to disproportionately affect those who seek to
lead. I expect candidates for leaders to become
homogenous and bland because they must avoid leaving
any trail of "misbehavior" that must be
ransparency by itself will not make the
world better. There are levels of transparencies. The
full-range technological aspects of possibilities are
his is a characteristic of totalitarian
systems (Stalinism, China, Nazi-Germany).
he Panopticon Theory, huh?
ools of supposed transparency become
tools of control.
am on the fence on this one... transparency creates a
ton of information which creates information overload
which can create paralysis. Technology can and should
be an enabler for people; how do we determine how far
is too far?
rivacy issues must be addressed to
counter the "big brother is watching"
feelings generated by an increasingly transparent
he problem with this view is the
differentiation of data that can/should be transparent
and data that should not. Complete transparency is not
a solution to solving issues relating to balancing
personal privacy with public use.
his is basically the question of
panopticism. Is the self-censoring that comes of
believing every action and statement is being monitored
worth the "good behavior" it creates? See
what happens in communist Cuba or North Korea for the
ransparency, in my view, is only weakly
related to the quality in this respect.
ho wrote this questionnaire? There are
two questions in here that should be separated: Will it
happen? Will it be good?
etter world does not necessarily require
a loss of privacy. It is possible to have the former
without the latter, although achieving that will
require considerable diligence, that I'm not sure
society as a whole has.
ublic and private spheres need to be
kept that way. If all the information in the world was
available to everyone, we would have people,
corporations and governments that would take advantage
ecurity is huge. I believe that this
will be on a country-by-country basis. Consumers are
currently pretty innocent about information security. I
believe that, as knowledge about security grows, that
we will fight to protect this as we fight to protect
freedom of speech.
he world a better place for whom
ransparency is a human-controlled
activity and does not necessarily lead to a
"better world." There will certainly be more
information available - but that does not necessary add
up to "transparency."
he pattern of privacy will be
reconfigured, but most of life will still (thankfully)
hile the benefits are obvious, this
projected outcome may stifle creativity, wrap things in
increasingly obtuse red tape, and drive
"undesirable" elements further
es, the "Big Brother"
phenomenon from Orwell's "1984" has
always seemed a scary picture of what our future could
bring. I do agree that with the transparency of
information, there will be good and bad results. I do
hope that the benefits will outweigh the costs.
lthough I do agree that individuals'
lives will be increasingly transparent, I do not
believe this will "make the world a better
place." Personal freedoms, especially when it
concerns dissenting ideas will become more limited in
this scenario as the sensing and storage technologies
can be used to exert greater control.
don't know what the "good" part of this
am happy to see national and world political processes
become more transparent but find the idea of individual
lives being transparent to total strangers in other
parts of the globe rather frightening.
ransparency, following David Lyon and
Mark Poster's ideas, has deeply worrying
implications, especially given government's
long as all nations in this world has adopt the similar
protocol among nations.
'm not sure that the benefits will
outweigh the costs. There's too much potential for
abuse, and it's unclear at this point that these
technologies are making people's lives
disagree that everything will be transparent and
disagree even more that this will make for a better
world. What have you been smoking?
find it impossible to decide on this one. Given my age
(60), I certainly was raised to prefer the values of
privacy over those of visibility, but new generations
may either adapt or revolt against increasing
visibility and their value systems will develop
ow, the "benefits outweigh the
costs" is quite a bold statement. I do believe
we'll have more transparency, but I bet that new
tools to mask things will develop as well. And
"benefits v costs" will be determined on an
individual basis, not society wide.
eorge Bush's White House manages to
keep lots of things secret, even illegally, and delete
email. Transparency, pah!
ransparency is not a goal in itself. For
some processes one might not want to have transparency,
for other interest group will secure their information
against transparency. Some information might become as
already now more easier retrievable, but not in all
verything will not be available to
everyone; everyone will not use the Internet; there
will be possibilities for privacy and for not
disclosing personal information for public
ransparency will continue to increase
with mixed results. Sheer amounts of data will lead to
the need to incorporate more and more anonymous and
mechanized data mining which will have significant and
negative effects. Our human capacity to make sense of
the data will help mediate some of these effects, but
will also increase their impacts in certain
am very concerned about this trend and I
disagree that the benefits outweigh the costs (which is
why I answered "disagree"). Increasing data
collection (and socially unacceptable uses) is likely
to chill behavior and cause a huge change in society
that is not a benefit.
he bad results will be featured in the
news, and we won't even see the worst of it by
rivacy issues will become the most
important concern - encryption and access control will
have to become default and accessible in order to
balance usefulness of networked communications without
giving up freedom and human rights
he whole idea behind modern bureaucracy
is to create even standards and thereby transparency.
Does it work? You might be able to track a certain
person through the details of life, but the so-called
transparency will drown in the noise.
overnments and companies will continue
to undermine the transparency potential.
will lose privacy, and this will be overall a bad
ost of the time honest people have
little to hide.
nfortunately I'm afraid the
"haves" are going to be able to spy on the
"have-nots." The "haves" will be
the ones in governments and large orgs. The rest of us
will be denied the power to spy on each other, or on
the big guys.
his is already the case, and will
continue to be so, through 2020.
uman beings can construct a better
society by showing a crystal view of themselves,
showing 'transparency' of their own attitudes
and ideals on the web sphere, will contribute to gain a
deep understanding of each other, therefore there is
nothing to lose, something to gain.
never really had privacy anyway. It was a social
construct that served a very specific cultural
engineering purpose for a few hundred years. If human
beings are collective or tribal at base, then privacy
ll I can say is I have a general feeling
of optimism about the effects of technology.
he "better Place" will be a
matter of individual perspective ... possibly yes but
equally possible that it will adversely impact
individual freedoms and privacy to the extent that it
does more harm than good.
verything will not be more visible to
everyone. Any notion that access to the kinds of
information that surveillance technologies produce will
be equitably distributed are dubious at best.
otions of first world
"privacy" are maintained and
"protected" at too high a cost to the rest of
the world, in relation to such matters as corporate
accountability, conflicts of interest etc. I like
privacy, but on balance, would sacrifice some of it to
achieve a fairer and more equitable society
hough more information will be available
online, information will still stay private. Those in
developing countries will have less of an ability to
can easily see that the transparency will come about,
some by choice, some by dictate.
am very skeptical that benefits will outweigh costs. We
will need to be vigilant and protect privacy.
his is the worst kind of Orwellian
rwellian society is not better.
ociety will revisit the issue of privacy
in the coming years and develop new standards regarding
what is appropriate and what is not. At the same time,
information very much wants to be free and greater
transparency in the public spheres of government,
commerce, etc. is essential and will be easier to
achieve through emerging technologies.
here are some benefits to a
"transparent" society, but there are some
definite drawbacks that make me think that the benefits
will not outweigh the costs. The social impacts of
transparency must be considered. Easy access to private
information raises some serious concerns about how that
information will be used - true, it may seem easy to
get lost in the cracks, but data mining technologies
are making it simple to extract relevant information
from gigabytes of data. The potential for abuse is
quite high. Consider the case of Chinese journalist Shi
Tao, who was sentenced to ten years in jail for
"leaking state secrets." His crime was
sending notes regarding the government's
instructions on handling media coverage of the 15th
anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests to a
US-based web site. Web portal company Yahoo! played a
key role in Shi's conviction by revealing that he
was the owner of the email account used to send the
message. Dissidents like Shi and other anonymous
informants (corporate whistleblowers, for example)
depend on their anonymity to protect them from the
consequences of disseminating sensitive information.
Similarly, although less grievous, cases of people
being fired (or not being hired at all) based on the
content of their personal blogs have been in the news
quite often in the past few years. As more and more
information becomes searchable online, it seems likely
that incidences of these sort of sanctions will only
become more prevalent. Once something is posted on the
internet, it is likely to remain there
here is no hiding from the past. One
poor judgment call can follow you for the rest of your
ransparency would help to solve some
problems of today. However, when we lost our privacy,
we are living in an insecure world and the
psychological impact may be more serious.
hat you write here will happen anyway.
It is not a "position" in a debate.
he privacy genie is out of the bottle.
People want privacy for themselves while demanding
transparency for the organisations they work
es, this is already happening.
he direction is benefit-driven, so
benefit will be there and always outweigh costs. This
is just too easy to predict.
he transparency will penetrate on
everything both private life and public life. However,
more transparency gives less possibility for
don't fear that a program knows what I'm saying
in private conversations. Thinking that human beings
are actually spending time studying my private life is
either paranoia or hubris.
believe strongly that the increased cultural exchange
made possible by global telecomm infrastructure will
lessen the chance that we destroy each other via
explosive warfare. In that sense, the new global
community that emerges is essential to preventing
holocaust of many sorts. But, there are corresponding
risks (well documented but perhaps not yet largely
known to larger public) to privacy that, given the
propensity of governments to abuse power over privacy
for "good reason," will demand that citizens
use the new openness to maintain openness.
his has been in every scenario developed
for the past 5 years already, and will continue to be
there in new scenarios. And yes, I do believe this will
happen. Connecting it to the previous statement: there
will be a way to govern it and stop some of the
gree on the antecedent (transparency
will occur), but not the consequence (it will make the
world a better place). It will have some very strong
benefits, and other very large costs. People will
appreciate the benefits and be resigned to the
nternational communications will
significantly improve; feelings and sensitivities will
not become more "visible."
believe we are currently overdoing the
"privacy" part. We should distinguish between
the need of confidentiality on one hand and privacy in
his will happen. The big question is,
will it be better?
ransparency in public services does
produce a better world. But not on the individual or
private level so it will not necessarily make a better
world. Ways to circumvent "big brother" will
also improve in the form of more complex encryption
methods etc. As far as the benefits outweighing the
costs I disagree, a balance must be sort.
ou should put "covert"
transparency at the beginning of this statement - this
is a question about elites. I am a big fan of BOTH
transparency and privacy, but not as discussed here or
in the direction things are currently going. Selective
manipulation is a HUGE issue!
lthough there will be downsides to being
so exposed on the network, nefarious activities tend to
take place in secret so transparency is
hose with money and political clout will
continue to exploit differentials in access to private
information. Citizens will have more exposure in the
name of law enforcement (or
"counterterrorism") but not enjoy similar
transparency of the governments. There will be a lot of
people who are more uncomfortable with the technology
pervading their lives, perhaps to the point of spawning
a political anti-technology movement.
omewhat, the level of impact is
undetermined and "the world a better place"
is a subjective term that can be interpreted very
differently by different people.
ransparency for accountability of
governments and other powerful institutions is good.
For private citizens, who wish to remain private,
coercing transparency is not good. That seems a more
here is a very strong privacy movement
on the Internet, one that is backed by legal
requirements in Europe as well as other countries. If
anything, expectations of privacy are gathering
hile I agree that the prediction will
come to pass, I disagree with the juxtaposition of
transparency and privacy, as if this is a zero sum game
and having more of one will automatically reduce the
ransparency presumes that the data being
made transparent are verifiable, so that inferences
made from them can be supported. While I believe that
the trend to provide data online will continue, perhaps
with some levelling-off, I strongly suspect we will not
see increased verifiability in this time frame. The
side effect of this lack of verifiability is that
communities selectively credit particular data points
and throw out data that does not match their existing
world-view. More transparency does not help
irst, there is no evidence that more
control will end up in more transparency. Second, there
is no link between such forced "transparency"
and a better world. Third, the mighty ones will
continue to escape any form transparency, dominate the
media and manipulate public opinion.
ransparency refers only to public
responsibilities and never should go beyond the
legitimate limits of privacy law. International law
enforcement agreement should guarantee individual
'm not sure it will be a
"better" world; I'm more sure that it
will be a "different" world.
believe that the benefits will outweigh the costs - but
not in this time frame. I think we'll still be
wondering if we're going to survive this transition
at this time. It will take many more years for many
cultures to accept and adapt to the pace of knowledge
acquisition and cross-fertilization.
nly bad results come from making our
private lives public - freedom exists only when one can
remain anonymous and not surveilled.
ote that the US government is on a
determined campaign to roll back 50 years of progress
he definition of "benefits"
and "costs" are in the eye of the beholder.
There are intuitive limits on the benefits of
"global transparency" of private data (e.g.,
financial information, time when residence is vacant,
location of children). The availability of private
information that can be globally accessed may create
the need for legislated protection of "digital
echnically there will be some solutions
that will be available but that people may not use:
PGP, onion router.
he good and the bad is there today. The
technology will only accelerate what is done