Our foremost compromise must be in the area of privacy. This sounds terrifying to some, but effectively, it is not as scary as one may think. First, one cannot cause much trouble these days unless one is using a digital device. As a result, we must make certain consolations. Namely, that our communications will be surveilled. Second, one cannot have much influence unless one establishes a network; and this network is a subsequent threat to security. The result is that one must admit to surveillance in public. That is, public moments and discussions are public information.
People generally have a fear of being watched. It is innate. Should they realize that in there home they are being watched, or in public that they are being followed, this fear comes out regardless of their guilt as to a given matter. To some extent this fear is rational; on the one hand you may be watched or followed for malicious reasons – the questions regard who is doing the watching or following. We should all be quite a lot more comfortable should we know that the person doing the watching or following is also being watched or followed by a higher authority. But then the issue becomes abuses of that authority.
The potential for abuse is obvious. If the surveillance reveals strategic information then that strategy can be easily defeated or hedged, in most cases, in advance; leaving it less effective or not effective at all. And if this means that Libertarians are defeated by Republicans as a result, then obviously this is an abuse of power. The same goes for business. The same for personal battles. As a result, to defend against such abuse, one has to amend the conditions of surveillance, such that it does not fall into the lap of interested parties – i.e. parties with an interest outside of keeping the peace. The best method for this is automated surveillance, i.e. surveillance which starts, and in almost all cases, ends with a computer.
**This is part of an essay unpublished, but written in early 2010**