No one likes the idea of being under surveillance, and computer privacy is a big, angry issue. But how many people have really thought the privacy question through to its conclusion? Suppose that current trends continue to the point that everyone is without privacy - institutions as well as individuals. Who loses, and who gains?
Some cultures have very little need for privacy. The Japanese, for instance, don't even have a word for it - domestic privacy that is; the simple need to hide some of your home life from the neighbors. Theoretically, we're more vulnerable on this level than we used to be, now that surveillance gadgets are more widely available. But most people don't seem to feel threatened by this - most don't appear to be interested in spying on their neighbors. Why should they be?
The macro level of privacy is the real issue. When I want my communications to be private, I'm not hiding from the neighbors, I'm concerned that large institutions can use personal information about me to interfere with my life. Now that credit ratings, tax figures, purchasing profiles, and medical records are accessible online and federal agencies are ready and willing to seize cars, boats, and homes in tax cases or under the RICO statute, there's some reason to feel insecure.
On the other hand, this is only one side of the story. In surveillance, as in other fields, the computer revolution is a weapon that can be used both ways. It can help the individual as well as the state.
We're just beginning to see such cases. Two cops in Los Angeles faced prison terms because of a home video that invaded their "privacy" and showed them beating a suspect. President Clinton's election campaign was seriously threatened when an ex-lover made tapes of their telephone conversations. A young student blocked the path of a tank in Tiananmen Square and the results of a dictator's actions were instantly observed all over the world - a powerful deterrent to despotism.
Right now, I can buy a KGB-surplus night scope, a microtransmitter, or a videocamera that's half the size of a pack of cigarettes. These items are advertised in a mail-order catalogue that was delivered to my door. Maybe fifteen years from now, using molecular electronics, the videocamera will be pea-sized; available for purchase by any citizens' action group. Will politicians feel safe enough to take kickbacks when surveillance is as easy as this? Will large corporations, or police departments, be so ready to flaunt the law?
Of course, there'll be electronic countermeasures. But those countermeasures, too, will be available to citizens, as is the case with data encryption. The government doesn't want us to have the same info- gathering capabilities as the National Security Agency, but it's too late. The encryption software has been widely distributed, and it's hard to control technology after it escapes into private hands.
Personally, I look forward to a time when no one will be exempt from surveillance. So long as corporations, governments, and citizens are equally vulnerable, lack of privacy will be the ultimate equalizer. It will also drastically reduce crime - especially street crime - when there's a constant possibility of electronic evidence turning up in court.
On a domestic level, I doubt that this will affect us much, one way or the other. If my neighbors don't bother to bug my phone right now, why should they bother to video my apartment in the future?
On a macro level, the impact will be significant; and I believe most of it will be positive.
