Can "individuals" or "liberty" exist without privacy in a totally transparent society?

Zoltan Istvan just released a new article titled: "Liberty Might Be Better Served by Doing Away with Privacy". Rightfully this article is an opinion piece. I counter this article with an opinion piece of my own.

Zoltan asks the wrong questions

The question of whether privacy needs to change is really a question of functionality. Is privacy actually useful for individuals or for society? Does having privacy make humanity better off? Does privacy raise the standard of living for the average person?

The questions which should be asked in my opinion:

• What is an individual if even thoughts are not private?
• What is the function of society for the individual?
• What is a human in a totally transparent world or even in the current world?
• Who is the average person?

In my opinion any of these questions are more important to ask because the answers to these questions determine whether or not some of the concepts in his article even can exist. It's not a fact that the concept of individual can survive in a totally transparent society. Also does society exist to promote the individual or does the individual exist to serve society? Do we even know the current definition of what a human is? What is the average person and should society be designed to benefit the average person?

The average person globally is Asian and rural. When we look at statistics of who the average person is then a lot of us don't fit into that definition.

Zoltan's assumption #2, people have a tendency to accept each other?

A society lacking privacy would have plenty of liberty-creating phenomena too, likely ushering in an era similar to the 60s where experimental drugs, sex, and artistic creation thrived. Openness, like the vast internet itself, is a facilitator of freedom and personal liberties. A less private society means a more liberal one where unorthodox individuals and visionaries—all who can no longer be pushed behind closed doors—will be accepted for who or what they are.

This is in my opinion a blanket assumption based no zero evidence or data. As I read the article from Zoltan I can see a lot of opinion without much data to back it up. In addition I see use of concepts which may in fact logically depend on each other. For example what is an individual if there is no privacy? Can a concept such as individual even exist in a totally connected transparent society? Is there any evidence today that people are more accepted?

I don't see the data to back up the idea that we live in a world which is more accepting. In fact, if I were to look on the Internet I would see a lot of connected divided people, and a lot of persecuting of those who are perceived as "bad people" by other people. Since each group has their own definition of bad, is it possible for anyone to guarantee they don't end up on the "bad list" of some group they don't even know exists?

Looking at the 1960s as an example then we see the whole civil rights and other issues. People who didn't look normal were not accepted, were treated differently by the people who looked normal. People were judged by how they look, and given a race by the society based not on what they did but on how they looked. Then discrimination was encouraged by the very technology of the time, whether it was television or radio. Why should we believe the technology of the future will be any different when we clearly have biased algorithms?

What if you aren't normal?

If you are normal at the current point in time then you might be able to believe that greater transparency is in your interest. If you're not considered normal (whatever normal is in your society) then you might have a difference of opinion. If total transparency is designed to promote normalization and some people are more normal than others then wouldn't this possibly punish the abnormal? Do we as a society benefit by keeping everyone as normal as possible and how does it promote liberty if everyone is required to be normal in order to not be harassed by drones?

Are there any totally innocent people?

If no one can hide, then no one can do anything wrong without someone else knowing. That may allow a better, more efficient society with more liberties than the protection privacy accomplishes.

Yet if anyone lives for long enough then everyone does something wrong. In what world is it that there are completely innocent people who from birth until death never did anything wrong? And even if you don't do something wrong to most people, there are cultural differences and some demographic of people somewhere will perceive it as wrong. So everyone will have done something wrong sooner or later in a totally transparent world. Does this mean the answer is to follow everyone with drones because everyone did or could do something wrong according to anyone else? An argument can be made that given enough time and enough scrutiny every human will eventually do something wrong.

Conclusion

I'm not convinced by Zoltan's arguments. I offer some counter arguments which question fundamental concepts within his argument. I question whether or not individuals can exist without any privacy. I question whether totally innocent people exist (if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to fear), and I question whether or not society is accepting of people who are different. Any of these questions can be approached philosophically and some can be answered by analyzing the current latest data or statistics. Can liberty survive without individuality? Definitely not. Can individuality survive without privacy is the current question.

References

1. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bjx5y5/liberty-might-be-better-served-by-doing-away-with-privacy
2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362709/Typical-human-face-28-year-old-Chinese-man.html
3. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608248/biased-algorithms-are-everywhere-and-no-one-seems-to-care/