Time for a rethink on obsolete concept of privacy

Date Published: {J}

What point is there to privacy? None, if you would believe Google CEO Eric Schmidt. "If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know," he said in a recent interview with CNBC, "maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place" – a disarming dismissal of the idea that there might be a few activities that are better done without a crowd around. This would be an entertainingly radical notion coming from a sociology student. From the head of a corporation that could probably amass more detailed information about you than your government, doctor, employer and family put together, it’s . . . a little scary.

But isn’t it true? Though we are deeply attached to the idea that there are some things we can – must – only do in private, this ‘right to secrets’ is also what allows us to say different things to different people, to conspire and collude, to be dishonest. If everyone could know everything you did and said, getting away with any crime would be impossible.

It’s a mind-blowing idea, but we could create that world right now. Even now much of our written communication is stored not in drawers but on computers. Government already retains information about our phone communications (when, to whom, etc.), and with today’s technology it would be a trivial task to archive what we actually said as well. We have cameras in just about all public spaces – why not add microphones too? But I say public spaces; is there really any such thing as a private space?

A huge number of crimes, the overwhelming majority of sexual ones, take place in people’s homes. They should therefore be monitored as much as any other space. If there is anywhere at all to hide, that is where the crime will be committed. Privacy is not a concept you can partially eliminate.

I don’t mean that there should be people somewhere constantly monitoring all this. For a start it’s a logical impossibility – we would all have to spend all our time watching each other watch each other. Instead the information would be indexed, so that it can be searched just as efficiently as Google searches the Web. And within certain legal constraints searching it should be open to everyone. In this way, the ability to lie about what you did would become a thing of the past.

Take note of what I’m actually saying though: We can create a world where it would be possible to solve every crime. That does not mean we can prevent every crime. It might eliminate the ones that make for good TV, the carefully planned robberies and murders, but a greater part of human harm is much more spontaneous – much more stupid.

There would still be savage attacks, drunken brawls, mindless assaults. It would not stop those who no longer care about consequences, the deranged gunman or the suicide bomber. There would still tragedies of inattention and ineptitude, car collisions and child neglect. But premeditated crime, and indeed all forms of corruption and deceit, could be completely eliminated. We could live in an honest world. The only price: Our outdated concept of personal privacy. It might well be worth it.

That, or Eric Schmidt of Google is full of crap.

You can comment on this by logging on to www.galwaynews.ie”