Inspired by this question, wherein the cultural effects of having the lowest possible privacy are discussed to lead into a more honest but less stable world, I'd like to ask if this solution that I offer would suffice, and what might be the problems with applying this solution.

Zero Privacy


Here we can see a world where everyone can basically watch each other, with bleeding edge surveillance technology. In a hopeful scenario, these incredible technologies are used to watch each other's backs, by providing perfect information to the market and industry titans so that they can give their consumers better satisfaction and clearer restrictions. A world where the dishonest ones are more vulnerable than the honest ones.


However, the topic of protecting "alone time", intellectual properties, and civic regulations are also addressed in one of the answers there. Introverts will go insane just by knowing that somebody could be watching, everyone can be a criminal any second, even by accident. All in all, society as we know it wouldn't last if everyone has easy access to everyone. No top-level regulation whatsoever, since your thoughts and internal body structures are unaffected.

Indefinite Privacy

Maximum surveillance

Suppose the thoughts and internal body structures are affected such that anyone can see what's happening within every cell in every inch of your body. Subsequently, every firing of your every neuron are knowable. To achieve this, the constitution of the government requests for all members of its nation to have mandatory nanite implants that will modify the persons physiology to incorporate personal and governmental access to such nanites. These nanites will allow a person to be able to know about any another person, provided he/she submits a request and have it approved by both the other person and the government.

Perfect information

Imagine government-owned social media, where every post corresponds to everything that ever happens to every person, be it that they grew 0.03 millimeters of fingernails, or that they blinked once at a certain millisecond of a certain date while watching a certain movie at a certain cinema.

Now, only the government has full access to these posts, and the government isn't run by humans but by a cyberjudicial intelligence system distributed across every nanite in every body of every member of the society. This means that the control of the government is at least directly proportional to the size of the population.

Then, why accept it?

Aside from monitoring and interpreting, these nanites are also automated to correct the tiniest of cellular mistakes, making every member virtually, biologically, fault-free and immune to almost all natural forms of cancer and infections. This also means that anyone who accepts full government surveillance is granted eternal biological life.

Perfect control

Personal access to these nanites are also granted to every member. Everyone can effectively do anything with their own bodies and minds, so long as the government allows it, and knows about it.

Perfect e-democracy

Tailor-made virtual and augmented realities are also provided by the nanite government. You can even upload your entire momentary self to the nanite government network so as to directly influence the growth of its decision trees, effectively influencing the actual decisions of the government to tip into your favor.

Perfect punishment

Wrongdoers and people who have the means to provide material satisfactions of others and yet deliberately and irrationally deny it to them are not punished, but are instead mentally micro-managed to make them have have second thoughts about their decision to deny material satisfaction. The guilt itself is their punishment, and the submission to this guilt-feeling is their most convenient repentance. The only other option is to convince the rest of the majority of the population that the denial of service is more beneficial to everyone.

The Dilemma/s

Perfect morality?

From all I have said, it seems the lives of the entire populace are documented if not outright controlled. The government has perfect information. All corollary management aspects that come with it, such as perfect economy, perfect match-making, perfect crowd control, perfect crime prevention, perfect living condition, might as well be included. It all boils down to decision trees that take into account everything about every member of the society. In a way, murder is not illegal so long as the murdered person has been documented to have suicidal attempts in the past. I'm saying even the darkest desires of the most terrible people are justifiable in terms of the availability of the objects of their desires. Some people can be harmed on purpose, if that’s part of what those people want. All that a person has to do, is pray and ask the government to fulfill his/her desire, and the entire society will be given incentives to fulfill it.

Problems with non-members

The problem starts when non-members are involved. Subsystems must be put in place by the members themselves and it becomes everyone's responsibility to act whatever they think is accordingly, so long as the government knows about it. This means that more specific and familiar forms of governance may still be necessary to exist when dealing with those who are not directly governed by the nanite network.


An internal cellular nanite network (iCNN) fully records, partially interprets, and minimally affects every event that occurs within an individual. Every individual's iCNN is connected, augmenting their social capabilities and improving the totality of their social structures. The real question here is, what aspects of everyday life will not improve, when individual desire satisfaction is maximized by sacrificing personal privacy?

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The answer to this is a very long PhD thesis. $\endgroup$
    – RonJohn
    Sep 12, 2018 at 14:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Note: this question is currently being voted on as being too broad and being primarily opinion-based. I personally think this question is too much. There is too much information and singular problems in my opinion. Maybe people disagree, but this monster (referring to size) of a question will most likely not result in satisfying answers. Maybe you should try to give it more manageable proportions and try to focus it more. $\endgroup$ Sep 12, 2018 at 14:17
  • $\begingroup$ I would highly recommend you watch "V for Vendetta" (or read the comic... which has some different arguments that are not always. As I have not read the book, I cannot comment on it.). There is a concept that is introduced called the Shadow Gallery which are collections of ideas... here represented by artistic displays... that exist despite the government's banning of the works of art. Even in a society where the government can violate private personal space, the existence of a shadow gallery means the purging of a taboo idea is difficult if impossible for a government. $\endgroup$
    – hszmv
    Sep 12, 2018 at 15:17
  • $\begingroup$ So, as the dictator of a neighboring hostile power that wants to enslave these folks, all I need to do is bribe a couple nanite engineers to gain access to the network, then deceive or hack the cyberjudicial intelligence system to do my bidding? While tricky, it seems less expensive and risky than conscripting an army and invading. $\endgroup$
    – user535733
    Sep 12, 2018 at 21:39
  • $\begingroup$ This sounds like an even more extreme version of 1984... peoples desires will always conflict and someone will get what they want and someone else won't. This creates an imbalance and will cause certain types of people to hate and rebel against the system. If a man wanted to assault you and the entirely of society agreed it doesn't mean you will accept it (he would probably he handsome and offer you a lot of money and a bunch of people would be okay with it because aren't you lucky). Like wise, a super model doesn't want some creep sitting in his room watching them 24/7 . $\endgroup$
    – Shadowzee
    Sep 12, 2018 at 23:33

1 Answer 1


I know it sounds stupid, but a romantic kiss somewhere nowhere is impossible
You have no privacy anymore.
This government has another Problem A Company now searches for the Perfect candidate for the Job, and the guy who got caught one time with drugs, or the guys who drinks unhealthy much everyday dont get the Job because of that.
Health Insurances dont take an old and already sick person, because they wouldnt make income with this person
Persons 'get' their Jobs, partner, house and else they dont 'choose' anymore
Thats not particular a downside, but it can be.
Aside That
Who is getting the Informations and which? Are stars now available in the livestream, since even in their houses are cams? Even watchable when they have sex? Or is there a KI System watching all over it, giving all needed on?

I think that's that
Hope it helps or moves thoughts :)

  • $\begingroup$ Please separate the comments from the answer. $\endgroup$
    – L.Dutch
    Sep 12, 2018 at 13:49
  • $\begingroup$ @L.Dutch i cant comment, i would if i could. I need 50 reputation for that $\endgroup$
    – user55267
    Sep 12, 2018 at 13:50
  • $\begingroup$ This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review $\endgroup$
    – Frostfyre
    Sep 12, 2018 at 16:28
  • $\begingroup$ @Frostfyre I think I was quite clear: "what aspects of everyday life will not improve, when individual desire satisfaction is maximized by sacrificing personal privacy?" - no romantic kisses alone - harder comeback from drugs and similar - health insurance problems - less choosable life $\endgroup$
    – user55267
    Sep 13, 2018 at 7:50

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .