We know that people behave better when they're accountable for what they do and say, and worse when they're not.
The internet permits much more anonymity and privacy than people had previously: we no longer need to mail physical letters, post physical signs, or tell people things in person in order to communicate some piece of information. Humans have more privacy, not less, because they don't need to physically go to adult cinemas, video stores, or peep shows; and the walls of a house are much thicker than those of a shack, a straw hut, or a teepee.
What has changed over the last few hundred years has not been a decrease in our abilities to be anonymous or private, since in the past it was harder to be discreet. The change has rather been that instead of a town or a village knowing through the grapevine what's going on, it is a central authority who is collecting all the information, with all the attendant power that having such information affords.
The problem is thus not a lack of privacy and anonymity -- we have more of it than we ever did. What we suffer from is massive disparities in who knows what about whom (as compared with most of human history). This is the problem which is rectified by greater transparency.
We know that people behave better when they're accountable for what they do and say, and worse when they're not.
For some definition of "better" that's probably true.
We also know that feeling like they have no privacy causes people to stop taking risks - creative, financial, personal, etc.
A world with massive surveillance is a world of joyless automatons and basically zero social progress.
I think this is true for most definitions of "better". Our definitions of good, in the first place, are learned, reinforced, and enforced, from observing social norms. In their absence (as we get on Freenet, Tor, 4chan, etc.) we see people behaving much more anti-socially much more often.
Society, culture, and cooperation are almost entirely responsible for the wealth we've accumulated and were born into. (Potential) social scrutiny and the internalization of social norms are required for ensuring that people behave in ways that don't hurt others. When this scrutiny comes from Big Brother then, yes, we have horrible tyranny. When it emerges, messily, from the intersecting interests and values of the crowd, then the outcome tends to be pretty good.
> We know that people behave better when
> they're accountable for what they do and say
The majority sometimes holds the minority 'accountable' for things that are clear violations of human rights. This kind of transparency would enable persecution on a massive scale.
>We know that people behave better when they're accountable for what they do and say, and worse when they're not.
What you're saying here is that people conform to social norms better when they can be "held accountable" for not doing so. Now imagine some of the unhealthy social norms of the past and how people were "held accountable" for violating them.
Anonymity has a cost, but it is a cost that must be paid or we do not have a free society in any sense of the word.
We also know people behave better if guarded by people with guns and dogs.... "Better"? What you really mean is they conform. They do as told. And lose individuality and creativity.
Well, Heil yourself, 'cos Im not interested. I want to be part of a human race, not a damned Borg Collective.
The internet permits much more anonymity and privacy than people had previously: we no longer need to mail physical letters, post physical signs, or tell people things in person in order to communicate some piece of information. Humans have more privacy, not less, because they don't need to physically go to adult cinemas, video stores, or peep shows; and the walls of a house are much thicker than those of a shack, a straw hut, or a teepee.
What has changed over the last few hundred years has not been a decrease in our abilities to be anonymous or private, since in the past it was harder to be discreet. The change has rather been that instead of a town or a village knowing through the grapevine what's going on, it is a central authority who is collecting all the information, with all the attendant power that having such information affords.
The problem is thus not a lack of privacy and anonymity -- we have more of it than we ever did. What we suffer from is massive disparities in who knows what about whom (as compared with most of human history). This is the problem which is rectified by greater transparency.