Category Archives: opinion

The Death of Privacy

As you may have noticed, we’re on the verge of a video revolution. Videocameras are cheap, and many technology companies (including mine) are working hard to create products and systems that will make it easy for anyone to distribute video online. The ranks of videobloggers are swelling rapidly.

In the developed world, we are already under surveillance much of the day, by perfectly legal security cameras. We may also be photographed at any moment, with or without our knowledge, by any photo-capable cellphone camera. Or videotaped by anyone carrying a videocamera, some of which are now small enough to carry in a purse, and to casually conceal in the palm of your hand while shooting. Posting a photograph or short video to the Internet where the entire world can see it is only a few minutes’ work.

In other words: anything you do in public, and many occasions you may imagine to be private, could potentially be seen by the entire world. Get used to it, because there’s not a damn thing you can do to prevent it. Your life is now in the public domain.

The laws on privacy vs. the public’s right to know are unclear in most countries, not having been conceived for a world in which everyone is potentially a videojournalist (or paparazzo). Once a photograph or film has reached the Internet, it’s out of everyone’s control: anything sufficiently enticing or appealing, funny or appalling, is going to spread like a virus, and there won’t be anything the “victim” can do about it. Sue the originator, perhaps, assuming that he or she can be identified, but in most cases any lawsuit won would be at best a pyrrhic victory: you might get a few dollars, but the publicity surrounding such a case would only ensure the wider spread of the offending material.

Many humiliating photos and videos already circulate widely. A few humili-ees have become minor celebrities as a result (viz. Gary Brolsma); some will never live down their 15 minutes of “fame.” Undoubtedly some are emotionally scarred, and may even have suffered economic damage. From time to time we all do things, or have things happen to us, that we’d rather no one ever saw, but nowadays the chances are good that, sooner or later, someone will.

This can, of course, be a good thing. The photos of Abu Ghraib surfaced because someone was appalled by what was going on. Light was shed on some very murky corners of American policy, things the American government was (and probably still is) doing that we should all be aware and ashamed of. Releasing those photos to the Internet was someone’s act of whistle-blowing, and we should all be glad that they did it.

As David Brin predicted years ago in The Transparent Society, turning the cameras on authority helps keep authority in line. Cases are now coming to trial of protestors who were arrested during last year’s Republican National Convention in New York city. In one case, the police claimed that the accused had resisted arrest and had to be physically dragged away, and they had video apparently proving this. Several amateur videos of the same scene showed the man peacefully walking away with the police. The police then claimed that their tape had been “inadvertently” edited. Oops. Case dismissed.

So I don’t want the cameras turned off. If the tradeoff is my privacy vs. my right to know what authorities and others in power are doing, I can live with less privacy. Sooner or later, someone will post a picture of me picking my nose on the Internet for all to see. I may be embarassed, even humiliated, but basically I have nothing to hide.

Which is, in the end, the real solution: lead a blameless life. That is, don’t do anything you’d be ashamed to have your neighbors know (life’s too short for shame anyway), or could get into trouble for if the law found out.

I guess your response to this depends on whether you believe that any publicly-available information could be used against you by a totalitarian government. Citizens of China and some other countries currently have good reason to worry. Some Americans also believe that they may, someday, need to take up arms again against a repressive government. Or at least dump some tea in Boston Harbor. More optimistic types like myself believe that truly free information will eventually help to topple the nasties.

Even the oppressive government of China is beginning to feel the power of bloggers with cameras. In a recent New York Times op-ed column, Nicholas D Kristof “says collision between Internet and Chinese authorities is one of grand wrestling matches of history; notes there are four million blogs in China, and 100 million Chinese now surf the Web; says when sites are banned, Chinese get around them with proxy servers; says some sites publish investigative reports of official wrongdoing; says Internet is playing watchdog role in China that press plays in West; says Chinese leadership itself is digging Communist Party’s grave, by giving Chinese people broadband.”

Whatever we believe about the pros or cons, this is one area where technology is steamrolling over law and custom. Privacy is effectively dead. Long live transparency!

The Hundred Years’ War

The Strange Religious History of the Straughans

shot Mar 6, 2005, 7:29 mins

Some of my recent articles have caused some readers to wonder why I have it in for Catholicism. Actually, I am even-handed in my dislike of religion: I don’t like any of them. But, due to family history, I have un dente avvelenato in particular for Catholicism, and for the American Southern Baptist church. My father’s mother was a devout Catholic, my grandfather a born-again Baptist. Why they married in the first place was never clear to me, but the decades-long war that ensued left the rest of the family with an unpleasant taste in the mouth about both their religions (none of their descendants is now Catholic OR Baptist).

While I was visiting my dad in England in March, we started what will doubtless be a very long project: getting his life, and all his stories, on video. One of my questions was: “Why did Mamaw and Pawpaw get married?” Here are his thoughts on that, and on what happened afterwards.

An Unholy Alliance: American Conservatives and the Vatican

I have had it up to here with the media frenzy over the Papal death-and-succession, and can only be relieved that the Conclave only lasted two days (to the disappointment of news crews, no doubt – hang around in Rome and wait for a chimney to smoke? Tough job.)

Though I’m glad it’s over, I’m not at all happy with the results of this “election” – in which only 110 or so of the world’s one billion Catholics had a vote, and women were completely disenfranchised. Catholicism is definitely not for me but, out of respect for my many Catholic friends (some of whom read this newsletter), I will leave that topic alone. I’d only start foaming at the mouth anyway…

I’m not Catholic, so what any Pope says or does shouldn’t matter to me anyway, right? Well, as Richard Cohen of The Washington Post points out, it’s not only Catholics who are affected by Catholic dogma:

“…There are other areas… where John Paul II’s teachings affected non-Catholics. I am referring now to his implacable opposition to birth control – not just abortion, mind you, but the mere use of condoms…

It is the underdeveloped world where birth control is most needed. It is there, where medical services are the most meager, that the AIDS pandemic poses its greatest threat and where condom use is the cheapest and most effective preventative measure. The pope counseled abstinence, a wholly unrealistic piece of advice…” (Indeed, if abstinence was easy for the average human being to achieve, the Catholic Church might not face the severe shortage of priests that it currently does.)

Opposition to birth control is also a Bush administration policy with devastating effects on non-Americans: the US government refuses to fund development agencies or projects where family planning includes so much as a mention of abortion, in spite of the fact that abortion is legal in America. Where American conservatives cannot impose their will by law in America, they are doing it by budget policy in other countries. Catholic dogma lends “moral” support to this stance, and Ratzinger, like Wojtyla before him, will no doubt continue to do so very vocally.

Ratzinger’s virulent anti-gay stance will also reinforce American conservatives in their homophobia. However, the Church’s opposition to the death penalty (and the Iraq war) will be conveniently ignored. Politics and religion make strange bedfellows.

The Papal Funeral Bash

I’m not going to say much about this; I wasn’t there, and ignored it as far as possible. The only footage I actually watched was on the Daily Show. But I do have a few items:

Early last week, I was riding the bus down to Lecco, at my usual time when it’s full of schoolkids. One girl was on her cellphone. “She only goes to mass ogni morte di papa!” she exclaimed, completely without irony, –nd now she wants to go to the funeral!”

Indeed, many of the Italians who traveled to Rome for the funeral probably don’t go regularly to Mass. I won’t presume to comment on why they went to the Pope’s funeral, except that Ross told me that some of her peers came back with cellphone photos of themselves drinking Limoncello (a strong lemon liqueur) in Piazza San Pietro.

I do know a number of serious Catholics – those who truly believe and practice Christianity, e.g., doing volunteer work. Interestingly, none of them went to Rome, and all were nonplussed by the outpouring of whatever this was, and disconcerted by the yells of “Santo subito!” (“Make him a saint immediately!”) As far as I know, it’s not in the church canons to saint somebody just because he was popular.

Rome rose magnificently to the occasion, managing to keep things in order and take care of the crush of people. Every cellphone in Italy received messages from the Protezione Civile (“Civil Protection” – the government emergency-response organization). The first read: “If you go to Rome to pay homage to the Pope, use mass transit and be prepared for organized but very long lines. Hot by day and cool at night. For information, listen to Isoradio [public information radio, mostly used for traffic warnings] 103.3.”

The second message said: “Due to enormous turnout, from Wednesday at 10 pm access is closed to the lines to salute the Pope. Friday for the funeral traffic will be stopped in Rome. The area of San Pietro is full. Large screens will be in the piazzas and at Torvergata” (an area outside Rome where the final rush of pilgrims was told to stop when the city couldn’t take any more).

My friend Alice Twain then sent her own message: “Protezione Civile: Before leaving for Rome, remember to turn off the gas, close the shutters, and water the plants.”


photo above: April 1, 2005 – the Papal Deathwatch. A TV transmission truck (belonging to RAI, Italian state television) parked outside the headquarters of Avvenire, Italy’s Catholic daily newspaper. The vultures are circling…

The God Gene: Why Some of Us Just Don’t Get Religion?

In this new book, Dean Hamer discusses possible genetic components of “a personality trait known as self-transcendence, originally identified by Washington University psychiatrist Robert Cloninger. Cloninger found that spiritual people tend to share a set of characteristics, such as feeling connected to the world and a willingness to accept things that cannot be objectively demonstrated. … Hamer confirmed what earlier studies had found: heredity is partly responsible for whether a person is self-transcendent or not.” (quoted from a review on Amazon)

The book has been attacked on various grounds; I won’t bother to attack or defend since I have not yet read it. But the theory that religious feeling (or spirituality) may be genetically determined would explain something that otherwise puzzles me greatly: why do many intelligent people believe in god?

A number of religious people have been part of my life, including some who, while not following any organized religion, believe in or crave some sort of “spirituality.” I try – I really do! – to be respectful of their beliefs, because I respect these folks personally for other reasons.

But, frankly, I just don’t get it. I don’t feel a need for god or spirituality. I can feel connected to the world, and delight in its many wonders, without needing to thank anybody. I have my own strong moral compass that tells me how to treat people and the world, without reference to any scripture. I have no belief in a spiritual world I can’t see, and don’t feel the lack of that belief. Some people are born color-blind; I guess I was born god-blind.

Religions have an explanation for people like me: we haven’t been exposed to, or have refused to accept, the word of god – we haven’t seen the light (as I said: god-blind).

Until now, I’ve been groping for a way to explain them. “Opiate of the masses” only covers the ignorant and easily-led, and assumes complete bad faith on the part of every spiritual leader who ever lived. I can’t go that far. So I’ve had to assume that people whom I know to be intelligent in every other way are just dumb in this particular area, or victims of a traditional upbringing. Which, of course, is no explanation.

I therefore like the idea that the need for religion may have a genetic component. This would explain why some people feel this need strongly, and others not at all. The desire for this feeling of self-transcendence is independent of any specific religion, and even of the question as to whether there is a god. There may or may not be something “beyond” what science will ever be able to explain; for genetic reasons, some of us care a lot about being in touch with whatever it may be, and others don’t. In either case, we can’t help it – we were born that way.