Tea at Trianon: The Illusion of Privacy

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Saturday, March 23, 2024

The Illusion of Privacy

From Chronicles:

A recent episode of The Joe Rogan Experience podcast featured computer scientist, Ray Kurzweil, who is now working “to bring natural language understanding to Google.” Rogan and Kurzweil discussed many aspects of today’s accelerating technological progress, including artificial intelligence, but there was one exchange that stood out.

Rogan introduced the subject of privacy, which seems to be more and more difficult to attain. By themselves, our phones are, in Rogan’s words, “a little spy that you carry around with you.” Perhaps Rogan’s words sound paranoid, but if you tune in you will see that he presents evidence and cogent arguments to back up this assertion, not just rehashed conspiracies or speculation. This question of privacy is a significant one and in areas of life that impact all of us. These phone “spies” may not be spies in the traditional sense, however, these omnipresent devices, and the that way we use them, are set up to gather data that allegedly improves our “personalized experience” of the Internet.

Kurzweil, a pioneer in his field, reacted to Rogan’s questions about privacy with evident confusion. Far from giving the impression of being a cutting-edge technological guru, Kurzweil appeared more like a senile, retired professor, out of touch with time and reality. As Rogan presented one point after another showing how our privacy is affected by the decisions of our tech overlords, Kurzweil kept repeating the same line: “We have an ability to keep total privacy on a device.”

But what about hackers and the simple fact the algorithms that are building on themselves as they requires a constant stream of information? What about the fact that our phones are designed for the primary purpose of “scooping” that information?

“Only because it’s not perfect,” said Kurzweil in response to these objections. “We actually know how to create perfect privacy in your phone, and if your phone doesn’t have that, that’s just an imperfection [of the device].” In that one statement, Kurzweil expressed his ignorance not only over how the entire monopoly of technology functions, but also revealed the fact that indeed Google-aligned (and perhaps other) computer scientists know how to create privacy but are choosing not to.

Whether they display his senility or his ignorance, or some combination of both, Kurzweil’s comments stand in stark contrast to the dark realities of technology’s grip on our society. Surveillance is a reality of our times, and it can involve an intelligence agency spying on citizens or social media sites tracking our activity to bombard us with advertising. The latter may seem relatively harmless, but think of it this way: Every time we use social media we are the product that is being bought and sold on this strange market. It is our information that is being used, and companies like Google and Meta are making money thanks to our activities online. Shouldn’t they be paying us?

In her excellent book, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: the Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, Shoshana Zuboff writes about the conformity encouraged in our society by surveillance. We have been facing a different kind of totalitarianism than what we have known in the past. Zuboff describes this as “instrumentarianism.” It’s not just about computers talking to each other, but the fact that “they are … the foundation of an unprecedented power that can reshape society in unprecedented ways.”

She is correct. In 2014, Google co-founder, Larry Page, said, “The societal goal is [Google’s] primary goal. We need revolutionary change, not incremental change.” Zuboff correctly asserts that the ambitions of Page and others like him are a combination of “A Utopia of Certainty” and ultimate power over not just information, but people themselves.

Entities like Google want to exert control over every aspect of society. This isn’t just about getting everyone to use Google Docs or Gmail, which provide good services but, primarily, are about collecting information at a fast speed—feeding the algorithm machine that only grows fatter and hungrier as time goes by. Page continued:

“We [at Google] have to understand anything you might search for. And people are a big thing you might search for … We’re going to have people as a first-class object in search … maybe you don’t want to ask a question. Maybe you just have it answered for you before you ask it. That would be better.” (Read more.)

From Standing for Freedom:

Hochul’s plans drew criticism from some who called the effort unconstitutional and totalitarian. Robby Starbuck, who hosts a podcast, posted on X: “Democrat NY Gov. Kathy Hochul says that her team is ‘collecting data’ from ‘surveillance efforts’ on social media to combat ‘hate speech’ so people ‘feel safe’. She might as well tear up our constitution, it would be a faster way to get the point across that she’s violating it.”

Last month, Hochul and New York City Mayor Eric Adams demanded that social media platforms monitor speech and shut down “incitements to violence,” with Adams insisting, “These guys are experts. If they don’t want to do their job of policing themselves, I really believe it’s time for the federal government to step in.”

The calls come as Europe ramps up censorship of alleged hate speech, including pressuring X owner Elon Musk to censor the posts of online users. Many European nations now have laws that have made the expression of religious beliefs to be viewed as banned speech. This week Finnish Member of Parliament (MP) Päivi Räsänen and a Lutheran bishop were acquitted after four years of trials and investigations simply for sharing the biblical view on marriage and sexuality. And in the U.K., an Army veteran will soon be tried for silently praying for his deceased son outside of an abortion clinic. (Read more.)