David Nott emails me to say that people who subscribe to Reason magazine by 5 PM tomorrow (I assume that's PDT) will get a personalized cover on the June issue--a satellite photo of your house with your name.

Ummmmmm, yeah, great. Just what I always wanted was a magazine taking pictures of my house. Thanks but no thanks.

Or a picture of the post office box where your copy gets delivered.

Dont worry, the pictures are being taken anyway. The only difference is this way you get a copy too.

Next time you go outside, remember to smile and wave at the nice satellites watching you. :)

Privacy was a brief cultural delusion suffered in the twentieth century and seems to be quickly disappearing, but this isnt necessarily a bad thing if we can all access the data.

Privacy was a brief cultural delusion suffered in the twentieth century and seems to be quickly disappearing, but this isnt necessarily a bad thing if we can all access the data.

I guess the delusion about actually having access to that data takes longer to die?

Oh, sure, ubiquitous surveillance sounds like a WONDERFUL idea. Especially when everyone can watch. Imagine being watched every minute of every day – that is the logical conclusion of this process. Sounds like Hell to me. Without some privacy, there is no personal freedom.

Privacy a delusion? More like a reaction to technological change. When there weren’t computerized records, fingerprints, electronic surveillance, etc., then, if you wanted privacy you just went over the hill. If you wanted to change your life, you just moved to the next town and changed your name. Want to go into the military? Just tell them your name.

I’m not much for amendments, but a “Right to Privacy” amendment that specifically lays out limits to surveillance would be worth looking into.

Two realities:
1. They are watching now. Sat sensing covers most areas of the globe most of the time (when you include military it is even more comprehensive).
2. The US government cant stop this, nor can it stop the resolution from getting better.

Even if the US reimposes strict shutter control for US sats, this will just give control over the market to foreign competition (the US allowed under 1 meter resolution when it became clear that France's SPOTimage would do so). This means that the person who wants to buy sat pictures of you through your bathroom window will just have to go overseas (dont worry, this wont be possible for a few more years). They might even make this an extra option on those offshore casino/porn sites. Without a drastic government crackdown on information access, it is not possible to stop access to this sort of data. To me at least, the cure is likely to be worse than the disease.

This is particularly true when you consider that we have never had a reasonable expectation of privacy outside our homes according to US law (other than in a limited way as to the sanctity of our persons, but sat pictures cant pull a stop and frisk yet), this should just make us more conscious of that fact.

I certainly dont dream that we can access all the data now; that is something to be aspired to. But it is also a dream to imagine that we can have total "privacy" anywhere above ground that is not actively shielded from sensing. Freedom, such as it is, comes from the choices we make, not our ability to hide our possessions. We still have privacy in our own heads (until our friends down at DARPA get the hang of decoding neural signals at a distance, but that should take a while). That is about all we can, and should, hope for. I know this is not comforting, but I caution again against limiting our freedom to information while searching to create a freedom to privacy. Both are illusory in different ways, but in my opinion information is more empowering than privacy.

If you want to worry about privacy, worry about the government making a database of every piece of electronic data relevant to your life, not commercial sat sensing.

How about a sat photo of the Reason editor's house on newsstand issues?

Sats aren't my concern. They are outside only, and can gather and trasmit only so much information. When cheap digicams and microphones can be anywhere, and storage is cheap enough to store the data forever, it will be possible to monitor people just about everywhere. With increasing processing power it will be possible to look for certain actions, faces, etc. anywhere. Combine that with other types of electronic monitoring, and you can you can see just about everything. This isn't watching A person, or SOME people, but being able to watch EVERYONE, knowing your entire life is on file for someone else to look BACK on.

Unless we work to carefully limit that sort of thing, this country could turn into an absolute police state.