Xprize founder Peter Diamandis states that individuals tend to act more favorably when they know they are being observed.

      TL;DR: Peter Diamandis, founder of the Xprize Foundation, supports total surveillance, claiming it leads to better behavior. He aligns with Larry Ellison in promoting a future without privacy. Diamandis shared his views on X, stating that “humans behave better when they’re being watched,” and discussed the concept of “radical transparency” in his Substack essay, envisioning a world where information is always accessible and no one can evade scrutiny.

      His perspective was influenced by a podcast with Will Marshall, CEO of Planet, a major Earth-observing satellite operator. Marshall remarked that their satellites can monitor the entire planet daily, highlighting that satellite imagery helped reveal Russia's military actions before the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

      These views parallel those of Oracle's Larry Ellison, who suggested in a September 2024 event that constant recording would lead citizens to behave more responsibly. Ellison anticipates AI will analyze data from various surveillance sources to form an extensive oversight network for law enforcement. While Diamandis presents his stance as advocating for transparency, the result he envisions bears similarities to control.

      The technology he champions is expanding, with devices like Ring doorbells, Tesla’s external cameras, and automated license-plate readers making anonymity elusive in urban areas. Additionally, Meta's Ray-Ban smart glasses have sold millions, equipping many with discreet cameras, while major companies like Apple and Google are developing similar products.

      However, public reaction contradicts Diamandis’s expectations. More than 80 cities in the US have ended contracts with Flock Safety after it was revealed that their data was accessed by ICE and the FBI. In Dayton, Ohio, workers covered Flock cameras after audits found extensive searches for immigration enforcement, violating city policies.

      Similarly, Amazon's Ring ceased its collaboration with Flock amidst backlash over a controversial advertisement, while Meta terminated its contract with Sama following reports of inappropriate content overseen by data workers of Ray-Ban camera users, leading to a class-action lawsuit over privacy.

      Diamandis does not address these criticisms, offering his essay as guidance for entrepreneurs in a privacy-less world. His main advice is to adopt integrity since being seen should not be problematic. Yet, he does not tackle who determines what is considered “good” or “honest” when the surveillance systems are controlled by companies that lack transparency.

      He briefly mentions the risks associated with technology, acknowledging that “transparency is a tool” without ethics and builds trust only when reciprocal. Still, he fails to confront the core issue: a few companies possess the technology for “radical transparency” while lacking their own transparency. Biometrics and facial recognition are already becoming standard in events like the 2026 World Cup, where fans use facial recognition to enter without knowing how long that system will remain.

      Diamandis reflects on whether people behave well out of morality or due to potential surveillance, framing it as an open question. This indicates he may not have fully considered its implications for his argument.