Surveillance

[N/A]

Ayn Rand wrote that civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. But with the growing potential for surveillence due to innovation (or technologies such as those funded by DARPA's IAO or IPTO) comes its use by the government to defend individuals. Is the government a special exception excluded from the 'society of privacy' for the sake of its existence? What is the Objectivist alternative to an arms race of surveillence technoloy such as mass profiling, data mining, etc besides the end of civilization and government?

- Joe.

[JMeganSnow]

The government does not rightfully have the power to spy on individuals without what is usually called "probable cause"--i.e. there must be objective evidence that those individuals are involved in criminal activity of some kind before surveillance can be initiated against them.

Some of the techniques you have mentioned are not surveillance and involve no forced searches or seizures. Profiling is a method of refining a data universe to relevant members--it is as relevant in advertising as it is in hunting down terrorists. The government shouldn't be in the business of searching the bags of air passengers. The airlines can require you to submit to a search before you board if they so desire (and, in a proper country, they would be perfectly within their rights to refuse to let certain people board for any reason or no reason), but these searches should be performed by private security personnel, not government agents.

These questions are largely secondary, however. If the government is restricted to its proper functions, there is not a lot of funding available for wide-scale surveillance nor much need for it. (From what I understand, much of the surveillance functions the gov't performs now are part of the ill-advised and rights-violating "war on drugs". In a proper society, these activities aren't illegal and don't lead to the existence of massive criminal organizations with a vested interest in using force to protect the flow of contraband.) Businesspeople may have an interest in surveillance on their own premises/property in order to prevent and prosecute thefts, but this information is not (and should not be) surrendered to the government unless a crime has actually taken place.

[N/A]

Completely appreciated, Jennifer Snow.

[VECT]

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy in Rand's context denotes a society moving towards pure private ownership of all property, where less and less entity is "publicly owned".

In this case surveillance isn't a problem what so ever, since everyone is perfectly entitled to survey their own property however they like.

[SapereAude]

(and, in a proper country, they would be perfectly within their rights to refuse to let certain people board for any reason or no reason)

In some regards I have to disagree with you on this.

I agree that in a proper country an airline would have the right to refuse to sell you the ticket for any or no reason.

Once a ticket is purchased for a trip though, there is a form of contract that barring unfortunate circumstances that the service purchased will be perfomed.

When one purchases a ticket to somewhere chances are they've made other arrangements based on that original ticket purchase. This can include many non refundable fees for cultural events not to mention lodging. One could also, for no reason miss the funeral of a loved one, or a wedding, or any number of things.

With a right to renege on the purchase for no reason at all the airline could be placing the consumer in a position where they are losing money on many other issues while having purchased the ticket had the reasonable expectation they were going somewhere.

While a business has (or should have) the right to refuse service to someone it is my assertion that by allowing the person to purchase the ticket to begin with the business gives up the right to refuse that service unless there is a very good reason.