Cross-post from LinkedIn, in response to Maybe Big Brother Isn’t As Bad as You Think:
“This is a future Orwell could not have predicted. And Big Brother may turn out to be a pretty nice guy.” I respectfully disagree. As others have noted, there is (and always will be) a huge asymmetry in the information being shared and consumed as far as “Big Brother” and state surveillance is concerned. The “sharing” in this case is one-way. Only those in power would have the ability to view and make sense of the data.
Your argument that we “choose to share data” because we get something in return, is flawed. Most people do not choose to share the kind of data that we are referring to in this regard, otherwise it would be done freely and intentionally, and the secretive information gathering we are witnessing here would not be taking place. Even the information we do share “intentionally”, is done so for the most part by many of us who do not pay attention to, and truly consider the ramifications of the many disclaimers, license agreements, and privacy policies that we agree to on a daily basis. What we get in return, as you suggest, is far from a fair compromise.
This one-way “sharing” means that those who are in power have not only the ability to collect this information, but also the tools and the ability to analyse this data and generate statistics that the rest of us have no choice but to consume as facts. Aside from the ability to collect and “make sense of” the data, on our behalf – those in power also have the ability to limit and restrict infrastructure and resources in order to manipulate the “facts” at the source. For example, the ability to manipulate DNS or shut down ISPs to prevent the dissemination of data – effective censorship. Many people have been detained or persecuted (or worse) simply for “sharing” their thoughts and beliefs.
How can you make an anti-Orwellian argument, a case *for* “Big Brother”, and suggest that this kind of sharing can be good and benefit us all equally, when the vast amount of information we are talking about can be controlled from source to audience by such small percentage of the population? I suggest you pay attention the thoughts and many works of notable individuals such as Noam Chomsky, Glen Greenwald, and Lawrence Lessig, and perhaps reconsider your position on this matter. I am currently reading Greenwald’s latest book “With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful”. I am sure you would find it most enlightening.
For those more visually/audibly inclined: “Noam Chomsky & Glenn Greenwald – With Liberty and Justice For Some”