In the 2002 movie Minority Report, actor Tom Cruise portrays a cop in a futuristic America in which law enforcement harvests the visions of psychics to "see" violent crimes before they happen, and intervene. When Cruise's character is fingered as a future murderer, he suddenly is on the lam, trying to evade the vast surveillance apparatus that he once relied upon. In a scene that underscores how difficult it will be for him to avoid detection, Cruise walks through a public concourse where video panels launch advertisements directed specifically at him, enabled by retina-scanning cameras. "John Anderson, you could use a Guinness right now!"
The scene is cool but also creepy. There is no escape.
Eleven years after Minority Report hit theaters, technology has arrived that is breaching boundaries not unlike some of those depicted in the movie. Cell phones can track our movements, merchants deliver targeted appeals based on our spending habits, and social media companies possess personal data on hundreds of millions of people. Moreover, government agencies are deploying sophisticated surveillance networks that may soon include unmanned drones flying over our cities: spies in the skies.
Stanford is not in the business of unmasking societal dangers with articles cloaked in alarmist rhetoric, and you won't find that here. But concern about privacy intrusions is growing, and scholars at Stanford are among those looking closely at the issue.
Our cover story examines the collision between progress and personal space, and asks a provocative question: What are we willing to trade for the convenience and customization that today's technology provides? Can we enjoy the benefits without feeling as if we're being watched?
As Jonathan Mayer of Stanford's Center for Internet and Society points out, the law hasn't kept up with privacy matters related to technology. There is a lot of gray area about what companies should be required to disclose with respect to the data they have and how they intend to use it. So far the marketplace and public opinion have checked some of the most egregious privacy encroachments but there isn't yet a strong consensus regarding where the boundaries should be set, or how.
Who should decide these matters? In the absence of a codified set of standards or regulations, how can consumers protect themselves from unwitting disclosure and surreptitious gathering of personal information?
Part of the dilemma is that consumers enjoy the applications that present the most pressing privacy concerns. And some of them are much less effective and fun if we restrict the information we share.
I find the topic fascinating in part because I love the capabilities of mobile apps and cell phone-enabled entertainments. At the same time, I find myself alienated by increasing requests to give more away, whether it's personal information or autonomy over that information. Ultimately, it would be nice to feel we could buy stuff online and participate in robust social engagement without feeling exposed.
In Minority Report, Cruise's character has to literally change who he is—he has his eyeballs replaced by a black market doctor—to try to defeat trackers. Fictional would-be murderers notwithstanding, who wants a society where we can never be anonymous?
Kevin Cool is the executive editor of Stanford.
