In the provocative opening editorial, John Rennie crystallizes what underpins the uneasiness that many people feel with the information fishbowl we all swim in – the connection between privacy and freedom. He cites an idea posited by English philosopher and ethicist Jeremy Bentham for a new form of prison, the panopticon, an all-seeing place where “inside its walls, convicted prisoners would be exposed to perpetual view from a central tower by an unseen jailer who would supervise their behavior, health and menial labor.” Bentham said that this would be effective because inmates would never know when they were being observed, so that out of uncertainty and fear – they would end up standing watch over themselves.
Bentham’s idea is brought forward and connected to the Internet by David Brin in his book The Transparent Society, in which he argues that “the modern conception of privacy is historically transient and made obsolete by new technology.” In the opening editorial, Rennie notes Brin’s central point, in that the only way to prevent abuses is to require that everyone, including governments, must be equally transparent.
Transparency? The Internet has the corner market on that, especially now with the booming vehicle of social networking. It is startling really, the frank disclosures that populate worlds like Facebook and MySpace. This seems to indicate that that millions of people are on some level, consciously or not, accepting a reduced valuation of privacy. Unchecked, the Internet allows for the reduction of ability to protect our reputations. But one could also argue that the thick and well-established lines between our personal lives, our family lives and our professional lives have quickly eroded – by choice.
No comments:
Post a Comment