A Skin Deep Big Brother Proposal

Each week
on the BBC
a “global thinker from the worlds of philosophy,
science, psychology or the arts is given a minute to put forward a
radical, inspiring or controversial idea.” This week’s idea comes
from the science fiction writer Elizabeth Moon. Her proposal is
that everyone be implanted with a chip at birth that would provide
a fast and inexpensive way to identify people. Ms. Moon cites a
reduction in friendly fire incidents during war and crime
investigations as some of the benefits of such a system.

While the proposed system is almost self evidently insane, what
is especially worrying is Ms. Moon’s justification for such a
system. Ms. Moon argues that governments already surveille us using
numerous methods. Why should our skin be a barrier of entry to
government when it already wiretaps phones and installs
surveillance cameras? Although Ms. Moon might not have realized it,
she is providing a perfect example of why government-backed
surveillance measures need to be opposed more vehemently.

A proposal such as the one discussed would only be given time by
an international news organization if some level of government
intrusion were not already accepted. While the U.S. does not have
mandatory ID cards the government still regulates forms of
identification that we use every day such as driving licenses.
Every single tweet and facebook posting is stored in the Library of
Congress, and other online communications are easily accessed by
government agencies. 

What is constantly overlooked is how powerful a tool these sorts
of proposed measures would be in the hands of a more oppressive
government. In times like these, when external threats such as
fundamentalist Islam seem to pose a greater threat than our
government, people become more willing to sacrifice privacy for
security. However, once the war on terror is over (most likely
abandoned), the legislation and measures put in place by successive
administrations will not disappear. It is hard to imagine
governments in the future resisting the urge to use some of these
intrusive tools at their disposal.

The abolition of privacy is a problem libertarians will
increasingly have to deal with. Developments in fields such as
nanotechnology, in particular, require some sort of response,
societal or legislative. David Friedman addressed the issue in
Future Imperfect (free here).
Whatever the response is going to be as privacy-destroying
technology develops further, we must not forget to act against the
powers already at the government’s disposal. 

Leave a Reply