Index: [thread] [date] [subject] [author]
  From: Suehiko Ono <sdo7@columbia.edu>
  To  : <CPC@emoglen.law.columbia.edu>
  Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 19:27:08 -0500

[CPC] Paper 1: Let it all hang out

Prelude:  If you are pressed for time, and would only read a select morsel 
of my ramblings, I would personally prefer that you cast your eye-balls 
upon this:

http://www.green-arrow.net/cctwiki/index.php/Main_Page

Otherwise. . .


If all things continue as they have been - more private and public funds 
aimed at more powerful surveillance technology, and the public's acceptance 
of ubiquitous surveillance in exchange for increased convenience and 
security - it seems safe to say that privacy is lost.  Even if the public 
counters the surveillance society with privacy protecting technology or 
restrains the government and private companies by other means, it remains 
probable that somewhere, Kathy is gossiping impetuously about you right 
now.

But, let me make a few suggestions.  Perhaps there is not necessarily, as 
Matt Norwood suspects, an "inherent trade-off between social alienation on 
the one hand and repressive cultural orthodoxy on the other."  Second, the 
central issue may not be privacy but control.  And finally, the solution - 
i.e., the means for decentralized control - are inherent in the problem - 
i.e., infinite memory and perfect communication.

>From April 1999 until April 2001, I lived at Green Gulch Zen Center just 
outside of San Francisco.  Green Gulch is an agrarian commune organized 
around Zen practice.  It is nestled in the shadows of Mt. Tamalpais, which 
is less than five miles as the crow flies from the center of Mill Valley. 
If one hikes a few miles to Cayote Ridge, one can look out over the Pacific 
Ocean or, with a slight shift of orientation, over San Francisco less than 
20 miles away.  Green Gulch consists of an eight-acre organic production 
farm and a main village-like area consisting of some common buildings and 
dormitories with some small private "houses" dotting the perimeter.

At any given time, there are anywhere from thirty to seventy-five residents 
living at Green Gulch.  There are the "lifers," some of whom have been 
living at Green Gulch or its two sister "monasteries" for over thirty 
years, who have no intention of ever leaving Green Gulch.  Then there are 
the semi-long term residents, like I was, who are there for at least one 
year, but don't necessarily intend to stay for life.  Finally, there are 
the transient guests who may stay for a period of time ranging anywhere 
from half an hour to six months.

San Francisco Zen Center has a formal rule, which prohibits two people from 
engaging in sexual contact until they have both been living simultaneously 
at the same place for at least six months.  Violation of this rule may 
result in expulsion from the Zen Center.  I met my wife at Green Gulch, and 
it was no more than two weeks before we broke the six-month rule.  Of all 
the rules at Green Gulch, this seemed to be the one people broke most 
often.  But at the same time, it was the rule no one could get away with 
breaking for all too long.

One could view the six-month rule as repressive, as many do.  But my 
wife-to-be and I were not expelled from Green Gulch for having broken the 
rule, nor were we ostracized; I don't even recall any looks of opprobrium 
or disdain.  To the contrary, we were supported by the community, and the 
rule helped us to be more cautious.  I found that in a world of instant 
gratification, I welcomed a little repressive cultural orthodoxy to help me 
make decisions I often could not make on my own even though I usually knew 
those decisions would inevitably end in tears.

"The idiocy of rural life" is not the result of nakedness, but of 
isolation.  In a post hippie, Zen, organic, agrarian, San Francisco 
suburban, commune, nakedness doesn't necessarily result in orthodoxy. 
Green Gulch is a dynamic community imbued with liberal ideals and 
compassion; the community addresses each issue in its own right.  This is 
not to say that residents do not often resent the lack of privacy or that 
people don't find creative ways to protect their secrets.  This seems 
inevitable. But, when everyone is naked, no one can caste the first stone.

The six-month rule originated because of a catastrophic sexual controversy 
that occurred in the eighties.  The abbot at the time was engaging in less 
than honorable extra-marital sexual relationships with his students.  You 
know that old chestnut, guru sleeps with students, everyone gets really 
pissed off, the entire institution nearly crumbles to the ground.  In a 
village, the emperor is definitely naked.

It was clear from my stay at Green Gulch that, once a person became 
familiar enough, he could discover almost any detail about any lifer just 
by asking a few questions to the right people.  Of course, once I became 
familiar, it appeared to me that everything I did potentially could be 
known by someone in real time.  Indeed, I never could shake the paranoid 
feeling that people even knew what I was thinking while I was thinking it. 
That seems to be the immutable nature of observation: it is not possible to 
observe anything without altering it so that the observer necessarily 
becomes part of that which he observes.  This means that as surveillance 
becomes more perfect, it becomes more difficult to observe anything without 
being detected and observed simultaneously.

This leads me to the conclusion that, perhaps, the central issue is not 
privacy but control.  I don't claim to have the answers to this perennial 
question - the many or the few - but I am optimistic.  In 1776, John Adams 
wrote in his Thoughts on Government that, "In a large society, inhabiting 
an extensive country, it is impossible that the whole should assemble to 
make laws.  The first necessary step, then, is to depute power from the 
many to the few of the most wise and good."

I needn't outline the technological realities and possibilities that make 
this argument obsolete.  On the contrary, it seems inevitable, or at least 
increasingly possible, that control over government and economic planning 
will become more and more decentralized.  I think Matt Norwood suggests an 
interesting possibility for consumers.

http://xenia.media.mit.edu/~rowan/memepark/2004/12/sauce-for-gander-viral-boycotts-and.html.

And I see further possibilities in the areas of corporate governance, 
democracy and even economic planning.

http://www.green-arrow.net/cctwiki/index.php/Suehiko_Ono%2C_Possibilities_of_Internet_Governance

http://www.green-arrow.net/cctwiki/index.php/Suehiko_Ono%2C_Reply_to_Thomas_and_Heather


Suehiko Ono


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Computers, Privacy, and the Constitution mailing list



Index: [thread] [date] [subject] [author]