The Only Winning Move

17+

To date we have written about the Panopticon in a mostly figurative sense. Clear eyes today means seeing it in a literal sense as well. Here’s your top of the Zeitgeist piece, a Financial Times feature on the death of privacy – and more importantly, the arguments being made in favor of its demise.

Is Privacy Dead? [Financial Times]

This is rather obviously an argument for the inevitability (if not explicitly in support) of the literal Panopticon. Indeed, there are few nudges more powerful than those which compel us to believe that we are already engaged in a contest of mutually assured destruction. How does the nudge work?

It tells you that you aren’t protecting your family if you don’t participate in the ritual of collective surveillance.

If tells you that you aren’t a functioning, right-thinking member of society if you don’t do your part to aid the herd immunity of mutually assured surveillance.

We killed our web-based ads this week. We did it for a few reasons. First, in all candor, we did it because the revenues from it were good (you’re an audience advertisers desperately want to reach), but not life-changing. Second, we did it because no matter how hard we worked with our partners, ads we didn’t feel good about kept slipping through the net (and while we’re not judging you, please bear in mind that some of the example ads you sent to me and Ben were, shall we say, uh, the result of your own browsing histories). Third, we did it because the technologies required to serve up the most valuable ads put us in the position of asking you to give up control of some of your data in ways that we found it hard to justify.

I don’t want to make this some kind of big deal, because it isn’t. We still have to collect information about you to accept payments – although even there, we are in the process of exploring the integration of btcpay through a self-hosted node to reduce even that requirement for those who are so inclined. And we are not communists: if we can find ways to serve non-subscribers advertisements that don’t effectively treat your data as if it were our own, we will put up the most obnoxious banner ads you can imagine – and smile doing it.

But no, the Big Deal is when all of us choose to act with reciprocity – acting in ways that are likely to promote cooperative gameplay. And friends, mutually assured surveillance is the ultimate competitive game, a massively sized and massively failed stag hunt that is part of the transformation of all of our social engagements into games with bad equilibrial outcomes for everyone. The nudges that can be summoned to secure our compliance are many:

We will hear that what we can do with others’ data can make us (and our shareholders) wealthier.

We will hear that it will make us safer.

We will hear that it will make our neighbors and communities safer.

Every last one of those things will be 100% true. Clear eyes.

Every last one of those things will also be 100% wrong. Full hearts.

17+

To receive a free full-text email of The Zeitgeist whenever we publish to the website, please sign up here. You'll get two or three of these emails every week, and your email will not be shared with anyone. Ever. It's our effort to spread the word about what we're doing, and allow you to read more Epsilon Theory!

11
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
Mark Kahn
Member
Mark Kahn

I get why the gov’t and, maybe, many corporations see the panopticon as attractive, but why does any individual, acting as an individual, like science fiction writer David Brin want it?

He’d be giving up his privacy in return for what? What is the benefit he sees? Even corporations have to know that they, too, would be giving up their privacy (and most company’s are pretty secretive) – so why?

1+
Bob
Member
Bob

I wonder what Brin thinks of his observations now? That might have made for some interesting reading. Meanwhile the stats on the PRC “leading the world” in putting everyone in the Panopticon speaks for itself. A totalitarian government, where they collate such varied things as electricity usage, purchases of materials and other habits allow them to form a sort of “pre-crime” unit to control the population. If you use an unusual amount of electricity and have been buying fertilizer and metal you might be making bombs. The list is almost endless. Clear eyes: See the nudging oligarchy pushing us into thinking that all of this data gathering and analysis is for our “good” prevents clime, makes us safe, heightens our buying pleasure. Instead it can be used in a Black Mirror way of total domination by the government or the FAANG,XOM, T, VZ,TW,MSFT combine. Full hearts: Know we are well on the road to serfdom and slavery. Can’t Lose: Take our info back and stop being willing to trade a cheek swab for a free taco.

4+
Rafa Mayer
Member
Rafa Mayer

Part of the challenge is that we all plant our flag differently around the ideas of individual right vs. community rights. One persons panopticon is another persons dream.

0
Steven Violette
Member
Steven Violette

sounds like Nazi germany

0
BobK71
Member
BobK71

“‘It was fun while it lasted, living on these city streets amid countless, nameless fellow beings,’ Brin wrote[…] ‘It was also lonely.'”

This is new! Waving surveillance as a cure for loneliness. No, loneliness is only cured when we have a real community, when, among other things, everyone truly cares about making our public institutions work. Real community was lost when we graduated from small hunting tribes to large agricultural nation-states, and then the loss became almost total when the Industrial Revolution atomized individual lives.

What I think surveillance *will* do is to greatly enhance ‘awareness arbitrage.’ The elites take advantage of the lack of public awareness, for example, of how money really works. It used to be, the elites had awareness but not enough knowledge of individuals, while individuals lacked awareness but knew the public bits of the elites’ actions. Surveillance will help even the playing field on the knowledge front, making the advantage in awareness more decisive.

1+

The Daily Zeitgeist

Frauds and Traitors

By Ben Hunt | August 16, 2019 | 2 Comments

Throwing words like “Fraud!” and “Traitor!” around so casually … it doesn’t reveal the true frauds and the true traitors.

It makes it easier for them to hide.

Read more

When Potato Salad Goes Bad

By Ben Hunt | August 15, 2019 | 4 Comments

On Tuesday, the Macy’s narrative was “I think they can make their comps.”

On Wednesday, the Macy’s narrative was “I think they can cover their dividend.”

This is what it means for a narrative to go bad. This is what it means for a story to break.

And when a story breaks, so does the stock. Not just for a little while, but for a loooong time.

Just ask GE.

Read more

A Cartoon in Three Parts

By Rusty Guinn | August 8, 2019 | 2 Comments

Cartoons are not evil. And yet they are the engine behind the Long Now, and very much at the center of our financial Zeitgeist. What is a clear eyed, full-hearted investor and citizen to do?

Read more

The Last Chance

By Rusty Guinn | August 7, 2019 | 6 Comments

You want scarcity? Access to the upper echelons of high society? Well, say no more. It’s your very last chance to buy this most special, most fantastical, most legendary, most unattainable of whiskies.

Read more

Are You Sweet Talking Me?

By Ben Hunt | August 6, 2019 | 4 Comments

It’s my favorite part of any Batman movie … that scene where the henchman pays a visit to the crazed supervillain – the Joker is the gold standard here – and you just know that the meeting is about to go terribly, terribly awry for the thug.

It’s a funny scene in a movie.

It’s a crappy way to run a country.

Read more

The Donkey of Guizhou

By Ben Hunt | August 5, 2019 | 7 Comments

My point in relating the fable of the Donkey of Guizhou is not that I believe China is the tiger and the United States is the donkey in our current trade-war-going-to-currency-war.

My point in relating the fable of the Donkey of Guizhou is not that I believe the current United States president is a braying donkey in his “easy to win” trade-war-going-to-currency-war.

I mean … I do, but that’s not my point.

My point is that Chinese political leadership believes that they are the tiger and the current United States president is a braying donkey.

Read more

DISCLOSURES

This commentary is being provided to you as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. The opinions expressed in these materials represent the personal views of the author(s). It is not investment research or a research recommendation, as it does not constitute substantive research or analysis. Any action that you take as a result of information contained in this document is ultimately your responsibility. Epsilon Theory will not accept liability for any loss or damage, including without limitation to any loss of profit, which may arise directly or indirectly from use of or reliance on such information. Consult your investment advisor before making any investment decisions. It must be noted, that no one can accurately predict the future of the market with certainty or guarantee future investment performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

Statements in this communication are forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements and other views expressed herein are as of the date of this publication. Actual future results or occurrences may differ significantly from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, and there is no guarantee that any predictions will come to pass. The views expressed herein are subject to change at any time, due to numerous market and other factors. Epsilon Theory disclaims any obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or views expressed herein. This information is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of any offer to buy any securities. This commentary has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Epsilon Theory recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a financial advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives.