Peter Diamandis, the founder of the Xprize Foundation, has joined other technology leaders in advocating for global surveillance, claiming that people tend to behave better when they know they are being observed.
In a recent post on X, Diamandis elaborated on his perspective in a Substack article, suggesting a concept akin to a benevolent Big Brother.
“Radical transparency is on the horizon. Imagine a future where information is accessible at any time and place, eliminating the possibility of anonymity,” he wrote on Substack. “We are creating a ‘Sensor Ecosystem’: a comprehensive system that includes everything from home cameras to smartphones, autonomous vehicles, and drones, along with a network of satellites monitoring every inch of our planet daily.”
His remarks echo sentiments previously expressed by Oracle founder Larry Ellison, who suggested around two years ago that constant monitoring would encourage citizens to behave well.
Diamandis’ remarks appear to have been influenced by a podcast discussion with Will Marshall, CEO of Planet, a leading Earth-observing satellite company.
“Hiding is no longer an option,” Marshall stated during their conversation. “If a school is built, it will be visible. If you construct a data center, we’ll see it. Accountability will be on display for everyone.”
Diamandis, along with Ellison and Marshall, acknowledges that much of this technology is already in use and expanding rapidly. Everyday life increasingly involves being captured by home surveillance systems, camera-equipped vehicles, and automated license plate readers. Additionally, individuals are constantly tracked through their smartphones by advertisers and data aggregators.
However, Diamandis’ statements are particularly striking in their candid acknowledgment of the desire to eliminate privacy.
“Children will grow up in a world devoid of any private moments,” he advises parents. “Teach them that integrity is the best approach to privacy, and strive for a society where the observation is mutual.”
While Diamandis tends to present this surveillance future as inevitable, public sentiment regarding surveillance technology tells a different story. Some cities have covered surveillance cameras after discovering that the data was being accessed by immigration enforcement and other agencies. Moreover, backlash against Ring’s feature aimed at locating lost pets led the company to scrap its partnership with Flock, a data company.
Simultaneously, Meta is facing criticism for its smart glasses and is currently involved in legal battles concerning privacy issues.
Much of Diamandis’ Substack content is directed at advising business leaders and entrepreneurs on navigating a life without privacy, with the crux of his advice being to simply “be a good person.” He acknowledges the uncertainty about whether people will choose good behavior due to ethical reasons or fear of surveillance, a question he admits has been on his mind since his talk with Marshall.
Yet, Diamondis skirts the critical dilemmas that frequently arise in discussions around surveillance and privacy. What defines “good” or “honest” behavior is, regrettably, subjective—typically determined by the powerful tech companies that manage the surveillance systems.
Diamandis makes a brief case for how these companies are providing transparency, suggesting that “transparency is a tool, and tools lack ethics.” He overlooks the reality that tools often carry the biases of their developers. Who decides what actions filmed by a security camera are “good” or “honest”? This fundamental question remains unanswered.
What he does assert is that transparency “only cultivates trust when it is reciprocal.” Achieving such balance seems quite challenging in an environment where the technology enabling this degree of transparency is controlled by a small number of entities.
