Privacy a topic so fundamental to our being — yet on first pass it is unclear as to how we reached this point in time where privacy is tenuously held.
Like the slow-burn of a destabilizing orbit of a satellite — technological advancements, geopolitical events and global crisis have shaped modern thinking about privacy.
And not for the better.
One of the many tragic truths of the modern world is that privacy is increasingly scarce — eroding swifter than shadows fleeing the gaze of the mid-afternoon sun. Compounding this sad fact even further is that few of us are cognizant of this. Most are gripped by ignorance born out of apathy or bred from lassitude. We fail to recognise this important battle of personal rights will set the stage for our future — however free or dystopic it may spin into.
Tracking and databasing have become the norm and technology will continue to make deeper inroads into intimacy and privacy. All in the hallowed name of security and stability — for what are personal freedoms in the face of the ever-encompassing pluralistic collective good?
Or do you work for Al Qaeda?
Many of us are willing to forgo such personal freedoms protecting for person in the name of convenience and access. Amazon knows our purchasing habits more intimately than our partners; and it’s great! We get the recommendations we didn’t know we wanted — nay, needed. Twitter understands our likes and dislikes, incestuously leading us on with suggested posts and likes.
Convenient. Familiar. Friendly. But at what cost?
While privacy continues to be threatened by emerging technologies, only so much of the blame can be apportioned to The Man when we are so carefree with our personal data, completely disregarding its importance and shifting the burden of responsibility onto the shoulders of Big Tech.
Yes, they should care more. But they care more about their profit margins. Wat do?
Privacy advocates are constantly screaming into the void. We should care more; we should do more to curtail the loss of privacy. We have all heard some iteration of those arguments, be it from Snowden or Assange. However, lying counterpoint is the claim that greater transparency paves the way forward to a better world — security, stability and understanding are espoused.
Often touted is the catch-all “If you have done nothing wrong there is nothing to fear”. Sonorously simplistic and elegantly maneuvering away from the nuances of the issue at hand. By making every action public, we open ourselves up to undesired scrutiny. While there is private behaviour that befits public scrutiny, there is a great deal that does not.
To make everything ‘transparent’ is to lay bare our own follies and shortcomings. Does this humanize us or make us ever more vulnerable to ill-considered attack? Furthermore, people have a legitimate interest in avoiding disclosure of a wide variety of personal circumstances that are none of anyone’s business.
There is a reason why reality television is toxic. Imagine your entire life being one.
Furthermore, transparency makes everyone more vulnerable — some claim that such transparency will aid in subverting prejudice and judgment. When all the skeletons we have laboured to keep hidden in cupboards and closets are flung into amphitheatre of public observance, all there is left is the humanity of acceptance and mutual forgiveness.
But forgiveness has nothing to with technological evolution and everything to do with elevation of the human condition. Humanity perhaps is not as evolved as our conceits would have us think.
As more people try to hide in the corner to prevent the public spotlight from shining on them, forgiveness will shrink, and intolerance will grow. People are going to realize that their privacy is becoming non-existent and resent the intrusions.
Humanity and therefore, humans are riddled biasness and modern society did not enable us to be our most forgiving selves. It would be a leap to assume that as a society we would simply embrace one another for our follies and vulnerabilities.
We are not God, but nor are we the Devil.
No, we neither, nor should we need to be. There is something intrinsically poetic about being bestowed with the possibility of greatness and the potentiality for damnation that inspires hope. We could, couldn’t we? Couldn’t we pull on the oars, swing the tide? Couldn’t we after swimming close to the edge pull back hard and find equilibrium — at least for a time? We have in the past, why not now.
Perchance and Probabilities.
And Snowden lives in Moscow.