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

      TL;DR

      Peter Diamandis, founder of the Xprize Foundation, expresses support for total surveillance, suggesting it improves human behavior, aligning with Larry Ellison's views on a privacy-free world. In a recent post on X, Diamandis stated that “humans behave better when they’re being watched,” and in his Substack essay “Visibility, Transparency, and Trust,” he advocates for “radical transparency,” envisioning a future where everything is known and no one can conceal their actions.

      Diamandis referenced insights from a podcast with Will Marshall, CEO of Planet, which operates Earth-observing satellites that can image the entire planet daily. Marshall highlighted how data from these satellites revealed Russia's military movements prior to the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. This sentiment resonates with Larry Ellison, who mentioned that constant recording would encourage citizens to act correctly. Ellison foresees AI processing various recordings to create a comprehensive surveillance network.

      While Diamandis promotes this technology as a form of transparency, it effectively functions as a means of control. Surveillance tools like Ring doorbells, Tesla cameras, and licence-plate readers are becoming widely adopted, making it challenging for individuals to navigate cities without being recorded. Smart glasses with integrated cameras from companies like Meta, Apple, Google, and Snap are also on the rise.

      However, public response to this surveillance has not aligned with Diamandis' expectations. Over 80 cities in the U.S. have terminated contracts with Flock Safety after discovering that their data was being misused by law enforcement agencies. In Dayton, Ohio, city employees obscured Flock cameras after audits revealed improper searches for immigration enforcement.

      Meanwhile, Amazon's Ring ended its collaboration with Flock amid backlash over a controversial advertisement linked to mass surveillance, and Meta severed ties with Sama following complaints about invaded privacy from those using Ray-Ban smart glasses.

      Diamandis does not address these counterarguments, offering advice to entrepreneurs on living in a world without privacy while suggesting that integrity is the best strategy for privacy. He fails to discuss who determines what constitutes “good” behavior when the surveillance systems are managed by non-transparent companies. Although he briefly acknowledges the ethical concerns around transparency, he does not tackle the inherent imbalance of power in his argument, with a few companies controlling the means of “radical transparency.”

      Diamandis reflects on whether people behave well due to morality or fear of surveillance, but framing this as an open question indicates a lack of deep contemplation on the matter.