Scott Adams pulls a Brin

[Rayservers]

On 16/03/11 18:04, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/noprivacyville/
> 
> Noprivacyville
> 
> Mar 15, 2011 General Nonsense | Notify
> 
> I heard a report on NPR about an auto insurance company giving drivers the 
> options of putting GPS tracking devices on their vehicles to lower insurance 
> rates by as much as 30%. The idea is that, for example, the device could 
> confirm to the insurance company that the car wasn't being used in high risk 
> situations, such as commute traffic. Safe driving situations would be 
> rewarded with lower rates.
> 
> This made me wonder how much money could be saved by creating an entire city 
> with no privacy except in the bedroom and bathroom. I will stipulate in 
> advance that you do not want to live in such a place because you're an urban 
> pirate. You want the freedom to do "stuff" that no one ever finds out about. 
> I get it. This is just an economic thought experiment.
> 
> Although you would never live in a city without privacy, I think that if one 
> could save 30% on basic living expenses, and live in a relatively crime-free 
> area, plenty of volunteers would come forward.
> 
> Let's assume that residents of this city agree to get "chipped" so their 
> locations are always known. Everyone's online activities are also tracked,
> as are all purchases, and so on. We'll have to assume this hypothetical city 
> exists in the not-so-distant future when technology can handle everything
> I'm about to describe.
> 
> This city of no privacy wouldn't need much of a police force because no 
> criminal would agree to live in such a monitored situation. And let's assume 
> you have to have a chip to enter the city at all. The few crooks that might 
> make the mistake of opting in would be easy to round up. If anything big
> went down, you could contract with neighboring towns to get SWAT support in 
> emergency situations.
> 
> You wouldn't need police to catch speeders. Cars would automatically report 
> the speed and location of every driver.  That sucks, you say, because you 
> usually speed, and you like it. But consider that speed limits in this 
> hypothetical town would be much higher than normal because every car would
> be aware of the location of every other car, every child, and every pet. 
> Accidents could be nearly eliminated.
> 
> Healthcare costs might plunge with the elimination of privacy. For example, 
> your pill container would monitor whether you took your prescription pills
> on schedule. I understand that noncompliance of doctor-ordered dosing is a
> huge problem, especially with older folks.
> 
> Without privacy you would also begin to build a database of which drugs are 
> actually working and which ones have deadly side effects. Every patient's 
> history would be meticulously and automatically collected. The same goes for 
> detailed diet and exercise patterns. Healthcare today involves an alarming 
> amount of educated guesswork. In time, with a total lack of privacy, we'd 
> know precisely which kinds of choices have better health outcomes.
> 
> Now imagine that your doctor has a full screen of your DNA so together you 
> can modify your lifestyle or healthcare choices to avoid problems for which 
> you are prone. This city would need to have universal healthcare to make
> this work. No one would be denied coverage because of an existing or
> potential condition.
> 
> Employment would seem problematic in this world of no privacy. You assume 
> that no employer would hire someone who has risky lifestyle preferences, or 
> DNA that suggests major health problems. But I'll bet employers would learn 
> that everyone has issues of one kind or another, so hiring a qualified 
> candidate who might later become ill will look like a good deal. And on the 
> plus side, employers would rarely hire someone who had a bad employment 
> record, as that information would not be as hidden as it is today. Bad 
> workers would end up voluntarily moving out of the city to find work.
> Imagine a world where your coworkers are competent. You might need a lack of
> privacy to get to that happy situation.
> 
> Public transportation would be cheap in this city of no privacy. Once you 
> know where everyone is, and where everyone wants to go, you can design a 
> system that has little wasted capacity. That means lower costs.
> 
> Now let's say that your house is aware of your location and even your 
> patterns of activities. Smart systems in the home can turn off your lights 
> whenever a room is unoccupied, power down your computer as needed, and 
> generally manage your power consumption smartly. And if you insisted on
> being an energy hog, your neighbors would be aware of it. Studies have shown
> that peer pressure has a huge impact on conservation. It's not as bad as it 
> sounds; if your neighbor is elderly, and using a lot of energy for extra 
> heating, you would understand. In most cases your neighbor's excessive
> energy use would have a perfectly good explanation.
> 
> At tax time, you'd be done before you started. All of your financial 
> activities would be tracked in real time, so your taxes would always be up
> to date.
> 
> Advertisements would transform from a pervasive nuisance into something more 
> like useful information. Advertisers would know so much about your lifestyle 
> and preferences that you would only see ads that made perfect sense for your 
> situation.
> 
> This lack of privacy would extend to businesses as well, although the better 
> description in this case would be transparency. As a consumer, you'd know 
> where to get the best prices. You'd know how long the wait is at your 
> favorite restaurant. And you'd know how every consumer felt about his 
> experience with every business.
> 
> When you considered applying for a new job, you'd have access to the latest 
> employee opinion survey for that business. Bad employee practices would be 
> driven out and best practices would more easily spread.
> 
> Confusopolies wouldn't be tolerated in this city. Confusing pricing plans
> are a weasel method of hiding information from consumers. If a company wants
> to offer cell phone service, or insurance, or banking, in this city they have
> to meet standards for pricing clarity.
> 
> On the personal side of things, a complete surrendering of privacy means
> it's always easy to locate and hook up with people who have similar interests
> and similar schedules. Dating, and every other social activity would become
> far easier. And cheating would be nearly impossible.
> 
> You worry about the slippery slope of zero privacy. The government could 
> easily abuse this information. But that problem is somewhat minimized
> because the situation is limited to a single city, and the residents can
> simply leave if they don't like how things are going.
> 
> I know you don't want to live in that city. I'm just curious what sort of 
> price, in economic terms, and in convenience and in social benefits, we pay 
> for our privacy. My guess is that it's expensive.

Pure and utter bull shit.

Best,
Ray

-- 
Rayservers http://www.rayservers.com/

Zurich: +41 43 5000 728
London: +44 20 30 02 74 72
Panama: +507 832 1846
San Francisco: +1 408 419 1978
USA Toll Free: +1 888 265 5009
10:00 - 24:00 GMT

We prefer to be paid in gold Globals and silver Isles
Global Standard - Global Settlement Foundation
http://www.global-settlement.org/

Our PGP key
0x079CCE10 on http://keyserver.rayservers.com/