John Oliver did his usual great show last night, this time on the mis-reliance on and promises/dangers of facial recognition technology. His focus was more on the incompetence of the technology at this stage, but also the dangers more than promises of the technology advancing to near perfection.
I kept waiting for Oliver to talk about David Brin's critique of the privacy primacy argument. Unfortunately, he didn't.
Here are three links where Brin sets forth his position. Brin's book, Transparency, from 1998 (!), remains a Bible of sorts in discussing Brin's theory of watching the watchers, and what he sometimes calls "sousveillance," which is the opposite of surveillance. I agree with Brin for the simple reason that he is correct from a most practical viewpoint. Brin, as a sci-fi writer and astrophysicist, and sometimes consultant to the US military, knows the dystopian scenarios, and is a major advocate for the goals of those who seek privacy. What is indisputable, however, is Brin's point that if we outlaw the technology, it goes underground, and only available to the worst of the worst, and the government will establish secret channels to use the technology, too.*
Early in Oliver's show, Oliver provides an example about the creepy guy at the bar taking a random woman's photo, and, using facial recognition technology, finds out her phone number, where she lives, and works, and other personal information. Then, the creepy guy texts her, and says he is going to stop by this evening at her home, and hopes she is home. Brin's response would be that the software would have a protective device alerting the woman that someone is taking her photo, and giving the information on that person taking the photo. And of course, Brin understands some geeky creep will try to develop a technology that gets around that protective device, and we are adding another layer to the continued battleground of encryption. Brin's point is technology wants to be free and will continue to develop, whether or not we put up our hands and shout "Stop!" And we should welcome this development for the same reason Star Trek based societies want to explore the universe through the open intergalactic government known as the Federation of Planets. Open and wise inquiry is a most salutary and positive goal and value.
In fairness to Oliver, it is hard to see where Oliver could have found time to describe, let alone develop, Brin's analysis, as it is a perspective not often discussed when these privacy issues are raised in corporate media articles and interviews. I expect Brin may contact Oliver and offer to have a discussion with him. That would be great, if that could occur and Oliver agreed to conduct the interview. We need to move beyond Skynet and Project Insight scenarios and realize our most effective, though still uncertain, defense is sunlight and disinfectant. Big Brother technology will continue to develop whether or not we try to outlaw it. To effectively combat Big Brother, we have to be able to watch government and business back. It is why Brin is such a big booster of Edward Snowden, for example.
If there is an historical analogy anywhere, it may be in Calvin Coolidge's Secretary of State Frank Kellogg thinking, in 1928, he could outlaw war. You couldn't outlaw war then, and you can't today. And frankly, no pun intended Mr. Kellogg, we should not outlaw war because a war may sometimes be necessary. With technological developments, we need to ensure commonly used technologies are diffused throughout the population so as to minimize overreach and abuse from government and corporations.
* For those who say, Shouldn't we apply Brin's argument to guns, the response is there are differences between computers and guns. First, computers are ubiquitous, have many positive and non-lethal uses, and are already fairly diffused throughout our society. A gun is great to have (well, maybe not...), and is only to be sparingly used, and under extreme conditions. Handing out guns to the general population would arguably lead to increased violence, while handing out computers and wi-fi access would be a much more positive development for our society. Additionally, putting someone in jail for misuse of a gun, or having an unregistered gun, is a far more practical task for law enforcement. Unlike guns, not having a computer, in a society already as wired as ours, puts people at disadvantages which have far reaching economic, political, and cultural ramifications. I also agree with David Brin the issue regarding guns should not revolve around banning or not banning weapons, whether military weaponry or AR-15s, though an argument may be made for continuing to ban military-style weapons, including even AR-15s. Instead, the gun control issue should be centered around accountability, and, in the context or substance for that term, accountability, we should treat guns like cars, with continued testing, license renewals, insurance, and other regulations.
