IP: Re: Britain's sad decline of liberty a warning for U.S.: Dan Gillmor on Technology Thu Jul 05 15:15:09 EDT 2001

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

>Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:08:42 -0700
>From: Brad Templeton <brad@templetons.com>
>To: farber@cis.upenn.edu
>Cc: david_m_barrett@yahoo.com
>
>Mr. Barrett is not alone in wondering why some people are so concerned
>about their privacy.  While many are aware of the tremendous prices
>that some have paid in oppressive (and even non-oppresive) states due
>to lack of privacy and surveilance, most people pragmatically feel that
>these oppressive regimes are either in the past, or not an issue for
>those in the free world, not when compared to safety from crime.
>
>There is a great hidden cost to surveilance, however, and it is a
>cost paid by everyone.   When we feel we are being watched we, feel
>less free.  We censor ourselves, and refrain from otherwise perfectly
>legal activities, when we feel that our activities might be being watched,
>or worse, recorded either for the government or for the general public,
>or worst of all, our mothers.
>
>I include our mothers because I expect all of us understand the freedom
>one feels away from even our own families.  Not that we're doing anything
>wrong.  Just that when we're watched we want to meet other's expectations.
>
>In other words, we're all a bit shy.
>
>Cameras everywhere make us feel our public lives are being documented.
>We've never minded the random strangers who might see us on the urban
>street.  We do mind the idea that goverments and companies and others
>might be making systematic recordings.  When we are watched we are not
>free to be ourselves.
>
>That doesn't shut down what everybody approves of, but it does chill
>the counterculture, and those ready to explore.  These explorers are
>vital to a healthy society.
>
>Oddly, this happens even if the cameras aren't on, or if what they
>see is only available to "trusted" officials.



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/