Question: What are the risks of centralizing information?
Peter Thiel: Well you have Google. You have Facebook, which has a directory of all different people. There are all sorts of variations of these information technology companies with large databases basically where they have data on all sorts of stuff about people; what they’ve done and so on down the line. There is obviously a lot of danger about that. I guess, two thoughts on the current trajectory
Decentralization still has been outweighing the centralizing aspect. So if you take Google as one instance, by enabling people to get access to information, it has created far more transparency. You know there was an issue in the 2004 presidential race; the Dan Rather memo; technologies like Google enabled that get exposed far more quickly than it otherwise would have. And so it’s probably had the effect of weakening some of these centralized, big media companies and creating a far more transparent world.
So transparency can cut both ways. On the one hand it makes things more transparent into people’s lives. But maybe the transparency also goes the other way, and you have more transparency into the government or into other institutions. And that is the positive spin on this increased transparency. It can actually lead to more accountability rather than lust.
Now my other thought is that to the extent you do have this, I think one of the other trends that we are seeing that, you know, is definitely more disconcerting, but may not be unambiguously catastrophic, is we are headed towards a world with far less privacy, and where the notions of privacy are going to change quite a bit, where there simply will be far more information about you in the public domain.
It seems to me that from a policy perspective, the correct approach should not be a sort of ________ type of approach which I think is championed by people like the ACLU and organizations like that where the way we deal with this is we just smash the computers, and break the databases, and turn everything off; but rather that we have to have a society that somehow becomes more tolerant. And that’s what I hope, even if there’s less privacy, there will be more tolerance and it will sort of even out.
The fear is, of course, that we will have maybe even less privacy, and maybe even less tolerance. Because you know people will just use all sorts of details they find out about other people in all sorts of very distorted and bad ways. But I think that certainly is one of the ways in which it’s been playing out so far.
Recorded on: Sep 05, 2007
Discuss
Jim Coyle on January 9, 2008, 7:24 PM
I agree with his first scenario – transparency is working for good and bad at points in time.
If i understood him correctly on his 2nd point … I think it rather idealistic to say we will all just have to tolerate at whatever level this impacts our lives with no control on where it stops and just let it self level.
Jim Coyle on January 10, 2008, 12:24 AM
I agree with his first scenario – transparency is working for good and bad at points in time.
If i understood him correctly on his 2nd point … I think it rather idealistic to say we will all just have to tolerate at whatever level this impacts our lives with no control on where it stops and just let it self level.
Keith Hamon on January 14, 2008, 8:22 AM
Thiel correctly identifies transparency as one of the key aspects of the Web. Our great fear is that only individual users, private persons, become transparent, while organized users, especially governments and corporations, remain opaque. This opacity, of course, shifts power in favor of the organizations. However, Thiel holds out the hope that transparency, or the loss of privacy, may be a real benefit if everyone and every organization becomes transparent. Privacy goes away, but so does secrecy. That might be a fine thing.
Keith Hamon on January 14, 2008, 1:22 PM
Thiel correctly identifies transparency as one of the key aspects of the Web. Our great fear is that only individual users, private persons, become transparent, while organized users, especially governments and corporations, remain opaque. This opacity, of course, shifts power in favor of the organizations. However, Thiel holds out the hope that transparency, or the loss of privacy, may be a real benefit if everyone and every organization becomes transparent. Privacy goes away, but so does secrecy. That might be a fine thing.
Roy Follendore III on January 15, 2008, 9:39 PM
Anyone who has been a security consultant knows that the Government is not transparent. They also know the problems and concerns with centralizing information. On one side, the how and why the Government works is a secret if not a mystery. The Government attempts to force the population to do things in ways that make it easier for the Government not for people. Half of the reason why it appears to be the least bit sympathetic is because it is so incompetent. The employees who do the actual work remain unknown. The politicians and bureaucrats within the Government give credit to those who they choose to give credit. Government managers put %u2018their%u2019 people into roles for self-serving reasons. Therefore, no one ever really knows who did what or why. There is no real identity within such a bureaucratic system as the Government, so why should the members of such a system be concerned with the risks of the centralization of information. The technical security tools exist to control the content in a decentralized manner. That fact is ignored because the centralized accumulation of information is associated with power and authority when it is actually the control of centralized information, which is the actual %u201Ckey%u201D to power.
Roy Follendore III on January 16, 2008, 2:39 AM
Anyone who has been a security consultant knows that the Government is not transparent. They also know the problems and concerns with centralizing information. On one side, the how and why the Government works is a secret if not a mystery. The Government attempts to force the population to do things in ways that make it easier for the Government not for people. Half of the reason why it appears to be the least bit sympathetic is because it is so incompetent. The employees who do the actual work remain unknown. The politicians and bureaucrats within the Government give credit to those who they choose to give credit. Government managers put %u2018their%u2019 people into roles for self-serving reasons. Therefore, no one ever really knows who did what or why. There is no real identity within such a bureaucratic system as the Government, so why should the members of such a system be concerned with the risks of the centralization of information. The technical security tools exist to control the content in a decentralized manner. That fact is ignored because the centralized accumulation of information is associated with power and authority when it is actually the control of centralized information, which is the actual %u201Ckey%u201D to power.Seth Paul on January 16, 2008, 5:55 PM
Couldn't staying anonymous and in the large mass of people also protect you? Not many people research those that they don't know. It also makes fame a little bit scarier, as with the presidential example; fame brings the attention that lets the information spread.
Seth Paul on January 16, 2008, 10:55 PM
Couldn’t staying anonymous and in the large mass of people also protect you? Not many people research those that they don’t know. It also makes fame a little bit scarier, as with the presidential example; fame brings the attention that lets the information spread.
nancy mathews on January 17, 2008, 2:57 AM
he is not specific enough about what he means by transparency, it doesn't help clarify what he's trying to convey. as near as i can tell he is just referring to the increase in communications, and quicker access to data, that technology has provided. becoming more tolerant? will we have much of a choice? unless we are the criminals, predators, or politicians who make and use the loops, we will be herded into the future, a reality that is becoming more and more transparent all the time. at least we know we're not alone.
nancy mathews on January 17, 2008, 7:57 AM
he is not specific enough about what he means by transparency, it doesn’t help clarify what he’s trying to convey. as near as i can tell he is just referring to the increase in communications, and quicker access to data, that technology has provided. becoming more tolerant? will we have much of a choice? unless we are the criminals, predators, or politicians who make and use the loops, we will be herded into the future, a reality that is becoming more and more transparent all the time. at least we know we’re not alone.
Andrew Grillo on January 24, 2008, 12:04 PM
As a co-founder of PayPal it is clear that her understands how to protect people's privacy. I think he is right on in calling for an equilibrium that needs to be struck – more transparency only up to a point. We need to protect our privacy while maximizing transparency where we need to like in the public and government domain.
Andrew Grillo on January 24, 2008, 12:04 PM
As a co-founder of PayPal it is clear that her understands how to protect people's privacy. I think he is right on in calling for an equilibrium that needs to be struck – more transparency only up to a point. We need to protect our privacy while maximizing transparency where we need to like in the public and government domain.
Andrew Grillo on January 24, 2008, 5:04 PM
As a co-founder of PayPal it is clear that her understands how to protect people’s privacy. I think he is right on in calling for an equilibrium that needs to be struck – more transparency only up to a point. We need to protect our privacy while maximizing transparency where we need to like in the public and government domain.
Andrew Grillo on January 24, 2008, 5:04 PM
As a co-founder of PayPal it is clear that her understands how to protect people’s privacy. I think he is right on in calling for an equilibrium that needs to be struck – more transparency only up to a point. We need to protect our privacy while maximizing transparency where we need to like in the public and government domain.
James Nordhoff on January 28, 2008, 2:07 PM
Okay, I think I get the jist of this question.
Yes, centralizing info is a good thing when it comes to real, useful, knowledge. If someone wishes to know how to use a computer program that previously required a manual or class, now instructions can be found online, for example.
As to personal privacy, I guess that is up to the individual how much of their own info gets online in a public domain. I've googled plenty of old friends before and found zip.
So, if you want to remain anonymous, keep your personal photos and address info off the my space & facebook sites. Personal dating sites are treasure troves of spammable info for companies who want to get lists of people to target advertising to, not to mention worse, identity theft.
From a business and accounting standpoint, private and secure databases are a must. Even then, the old ways still apply. Two sets of "books" are just as easy in the information age to hide assetts and ill gotten income as in the 1950's. Crime will always find a way around coming clean to the IRS and the Government. For that matter, Government itself claims National Security issues to keep their dealings and dis-honest
tactics private and forever hidden from the Press and those who would stop them. Current
Government, anyway.
So, in closing, info for public consumption
is always going to be rather harmless to Big Money and Big Government. Private individuals should guard their own secrets by keeping sensitive info to themselves.
But education and knowledge for self betterment should be free to all. Free is a dirty word in Capitalism, but everyone should be able to get a high school level understanding of any subject by a click of a mouse. Hopefully, much more advanced learning will someday be freely available.
Proving you know what you claim- that is what degrees are for and why they are very expensive, at least in America.
James Nordhoff on January 28, 2008, 2:38 PM
After reading other's responses, I'm just as convinced as ever, that Big Business and Government (BIG MONEY), will always guard their sensitive info and allow only harmless, mundane scraps into the public domains. Attempting to force a change will require the heads of such organizations to become a lot more forthright and honest in all their dealings. Not very likely. Changing the rules just changes the loopholes. Greed for power & affluence will always make evil deeds secret out of necessity to keep said power & affluence.
Smaller government will help with more checks & balances, but that process of change is agonizingly slow. Revolutions usually happen due to lack of change for the better in the eyes of the masses, who will have to rest control back from the few. Current affairs will force a shift change, soon, but that's what happens when one part of any government has too much unrestricted power. The status quo , the haves vs. the have nots. The downtrodden vastly outnumber the rich & powerful. Miraculous that the masses haven't organized a revolution before now. I personally do not advocate violence, but their are plenty who would, to settle their various scores.
But back to the topic, transparency? Honest companies who play by the rules will be transparent. Dis-honest organizations will only "appear" transparent, to keep their secrets. Why would that ever change, really?
Any topic can have political overtones, can it not?
James Nordhoff on January 28, 2008, 7:07 PM
Okay, I think I get the jist of this question.
Yes, centralizing info is a good thing when it comes to real, useful, knowledge. If someone wishes to know how to use a computer program that previously required a manual or class, now instructions can be found online, for example.
As to personal privacy, I guess that is up to the individual how much of their own info gets online in a public domain. I’ve googled plenty of old friends before and found zip.
So, if you want to remain anonymous, keep your personal photos and address info off the my space & facebook sites. Personal dating sites are treasure troves of spammable info for companies who want to get lists of people to target advertising to, not to mention worse, identity theft.
From a business and accounting standpoint, private and secure databases are a must. Even then, the old ways still apply. Two sets of “books” are just as easy in the information age to hide assetts and ill gotten income as in the 1950’s. Crime will always find a way around coming clean to the IRS and the Government. For that matter, Government itself claims National Security issues to keep their dealings and dis-honest
tactics private and forever hidden from the Press and those who would stop them. Current
Government, anyway.
So, in closing, info for public consumption
is always going to be rather harmless to Big Money and Big Government. Private individuals should guard their own secrets by keeping sensitive info to themselves.
But education and knowledge for self betterment should be free to all. Free is a dirty word in Capitalism, but everyone should be able to get a high school level understanding of any subject by a click of a mouse. Hopefully, much more advanced learning will someday be freely available.
Proving you know what you claim- that is what degrees are for and why they are very expensive, at least in America.
James Nordhoff on January 28, 2008, 7:38 PM
After reading other’s responses, I’m just as convinced as ever, that Big Business and Government (BIG MONEY), will always guard their sensitive info and allow only harmless, mundane scraps into the public domains. Attempting to force a change will require the heads of such organizations to become a lot more forthright and honest in all their dealings. Not very likely. Changing the rules just changes the loopholes. Greed for power & affluence will always make evil deeds secret out of necessity to keep said power & affluence.
Smaller government will help with more checks & balances, but that process of change is agonizingly slow. Revolutions usually happen due to lack of change for the better in the eyes of the masses, who will have to rest control back from the few. Current affairs will force a shift change, soon, but that’s what happens when one part of any government has too much unrestricted power. The status quo , the haves vs. the have nots. The downtrodden vastly outnumber the rich & powerful. Miraculous that the masses haven’t organized a revolution before now. I personally do not advocate violence, but their are plenty who would, to settle their various scores.
But back to the topic, transparency? Honest companies who play by the rules will be transparent. Dis-honest organizations will only “appear” transparent, to keep their secrets. Why would that ever change, really?
Any topic can have political overtones, can it not?
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register