Privacy in the 24th century...

[galleywest]

My husband and I are rewatching a lot of TNG lately--not in any particular order, just putting it on an episode and letting a couple play while we're having dinner or doing chores or whatever. A few episodes recently got me thinking about what the ST:TNG team thought--or didn't think about--in regards to privacy.

In particular, we watched Galaxy's Child (an episode I never really liked or paid attention to) and I can't help but wonder why the Holodeck even let anyone make a program replicating an actual person, especially a living one. I guess I don't think about it when it's something like Data playing poker with Hawking and Newton, but when it's Geordi crushing on Leah Brahms (and then behaving weirdly toward her when she actually visits the ship) or Barclay making sexualized versions of Crusher and Troi and a demeaning one of Riker etc....isn't it kind of...weird?

Also, in Galaxy's Child, it's really peculiar to me that Leah Brahms calls out Geordi on how creepy it is that he's created this Holodeck program, and the writing has him not only defending his actions but basically acting like she's the problem: blowing this out of proportion, not being nice to him. I mean, ew.

But I digress: why isn't it illegal or impossible to make holodeck programs using likenesses of actual people? I would think this would at the very least be a complicated copyright permission question.

 

[Timo]

I guess this is fairly straightforward: there's absolutely nothing that could be done about the issue, so it ceases to be an issue by necessity.

Privacy is a diminishing resource, after having been en vogue for a very brief while between the era of ten-person rooms and the era of digital cameras (in those regions where the two don't actually overlap). Laws exist about whether photographing of people without their consent is permitted or not. In practice, the laws mean zip, and everybody will be photographed without permission, simply because everybody has and uses a camera now. Sure, one can sue after the fact, in cases where harm is done or perceived done - but this is in an environment where basically 100% of people think the act was not objectionable, because they themselves commit it every day.

I can not see a ban on creating likenesses of people on holodeck ever having any practical effect. LaForge operates in the strictly regulated military environment, the only one in the society that still believes in the concept of punishment for wrongs. His attitude there is telling, then: it is the likely majority one, the societal norm of the day, especially out in the civilian world where holotainment supposedly is much better established.

We get a slightly different attitude when Quark sells a high quality likeness of Kira to a customer. Kira comes from a society not yet drowned in holotainment, so it is only natural for her to threaten to do grievous bodily harm to the culprits (and to follow through with it, her society in turn probably turning a blind eye at judicious knifework, for what it has been drowned in). Different mores for different folks at different eras. And the 24th century is likely to be the era of zero privacy, in our universe just as in Trek's.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[suarezguy]

I actually liked that TNG seemed pretty consistently inconsistent, awkward about issues, I thought its presentation conveyed the sense that holodecks were a quite new technology and norms, let alone rules, were very in flux. But I think it also specifically gave the sense that there weren't privacy restrictions about people entering others' programs because people were expected to be non-judgmental about other people's programs-and yet they in practice were not so non-judgmental as the ideal or expectation was.

I don't see why holodecks would be restricted against making and interacting with images of real people, there generally aren't restrictions against doing so, short of slander/defamation (of people currently living), in novels or filmed portrayals (they aren't the exact actual images but it makes sense that with technology improving that could become more lax and permitted), let alone ones that are meant to be personal (again, with those boundaries also in flux) rather than widely distributed.

 

[Orphalesion]

The crew of Voyager sure didn't appreciate it when the Doctor badmouthed them in his awful "holo novel". And didn't Janeway order him to make the analogy less obvious (but it was too late or something?) I have only dim memories of that episode.

 

[Mutai Sho-Rin]

Two current laws would probably still hold. If someone I’d a “Public Figure” then privacy is pretty much moot. If someone wants to make a holo of a politician or movie star, there’s not much to stop it. Also, the “Commercial Use or Rebroadcast” rule would probably allow making holo of your neighbor’s hot wife if it was never shared. I’m pretty old but with deepfake tech here now, I expect to see such capabilities within my lifetime.

 

[Timo]

Also to be considered here is that while our TNG heroes were often amazed by their own entertainment booth in the early seasons, VOY then established that the children of the previous generations had already been raised by holocharacters. The implications of the technology would have been rather thoroughly digested in the 2360s already, then - even if the specific quality of the tech kept on improving and making the characters salivate at every new turn. Pretty much as with TV technology in the eighties, say...

So we can say that what we see in TNG is what these folks have grown to consider normal and acceptable. Even if we then want to draw further analogies and decide that it's not "really okay" to watch holoporn, but more of a tolerated "minority thing" even though it's really the majority that does it.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[suarezguy]

Also to be considered here is that while our TNG heroes were often amazed by their own entertainment booth in the early seasons, VOY then established that the children of the previous generations had already been raised by holocharacters.

I hated that retcon (I much preferred that it actually was pretty new though still rapidly advancing), though at least I think it was only in one, two or three episodes.

 

[saladdays]

Also, in Galaxy's Child, it's really peculiar to me that Leah Brahms calls out Geordi on how creepy it is that he's created this Holodeck program, and the writing has him not only defending his actions but basically acting like she's the problem: blowing this out of proportion, not being nice to him. I mean, ew.

I don't want to hijack this thread as this wasn't your main point, but I always got the impression from that episode that both Geordi and Leah were both correct in their own way. Leah was correct that the program was creepy and kind of violated her in a way, but Geordi was correct in that he didn't intend it that way and that they were trying to work through a crisis situation at the time it was created. Geordi should have been a little more forthcoming with that information though, even if Leah came off totally different than what he expected and it made it very awkward.

It was clearly intended to follow-up on the plot point of Geordi's failure with women, although I suppose it probably could have been done a little different.

 

[Mutai Sho-Rin]

PLEASE!!!
Let's not turn this into another Geordi / Leah free-for-all.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

t's really peculiar to me that Leah Brahms calls out Geordi on how creepy it is that he's created this Holodeck program

Especially since Geordi did not actually create the program. The computer did. Geordi could easily have explained this to Dr. Brahms, but he failed to do so. So any hurt feelings that result from it are all on him.

And even so, Geordi could - and should - have realized what was about to happen, so before he and Dr. Brahms entered the holodeck, why not just delete the damn hologram?

 

[Mutai Sho-Rin]

Especially since Geordi did not actually create the program. The computer did. Geordi could easily have explained this to Dr. Brahms, but he failed to do so. So any hurt feelings that result from it are all on him.

And even so, Geordi could - and should - have realized what was about to happen, so before he and Dr. Brahms entered the holodeck, why not just delete the damn hologram?

If Geordi / Leah discussion persists, I will lock this thread. There is already at least one active thread on this issue.

 

[matthunter]

Link to the other one then, MSR, because I can't see it on the first two pages, so it's either not that hot a thread or I've had too much rum.

EDIT: Not on Page 3 either, unless it's a digression from any of the thread titles. Which, as we aren't Betazoids, we can't be expected to know.

 

[Mojochi]

I'd say this topic hits on two different avenues. The title is "Privacy in the 24th Century", which is not the same as privacy in Starfleet. These are all Starfleet personnel we're talking about here, & subject to putting themselves in log entries, research findings & articles, & other public records of their own volition, as a professional contribution to the institution they serve.

Leah, for example, was a key designer of the ship. She ought to probably expect that someone might utilize her in that regard, even in a recreated capacity, when the possibility of interactive holographic models of her work are a potentiality, & very well may be necessary to those in the field. However, I won't belabor any more of her story dynamic, to appease the moderator.

But the point is... if it's ok to call up Einstein or Freud, to delve into their specialties, then if you are wanting to be a commander, how could it be wrong to call up people like Riker or Picard, & pick their brains? For another example, if I wanted to learn how to replace an artificial heart... you know who I'd be generating? Kate Pulaski. If I wanted to be able to beat Worf with a batleth, without embarrassing myself... I'd probably give him a go in the holodeck for a while 1st.

Frankly, the personal use of your likeness, isn't technically an invasion of your privacy. Copyrights are for professional situations

 

[at Quark's]

But the point is... if it's ok to call up Einstein or Freud, to delve into their specialties, then if you are wanting to be a commander, how could it be wrong to call up people like Riker or Picard, & pick their brains? For another example, if I wanted to learn how to replace an artificial heart... you know who I'd be generating? Kate Pulaski. If I wanted to be able to beat Worf with a batleth, without embarrassing myself... I'd probably give him a go in the holodeck for a while 1st.
Frankly, the personal use of your likeness, isn't technically an invasion of your privacy. Copyrights are for professional situations

It may not be privacy violation, but if someone would create fictional stories about me, making me do things I never did or say things I never said, I wouldn't feel comfortable, even if that was in a very "closed" environment, except when it perhaps was only among trusted friends, and in my own presence (such as a joking play done by friends on my wedding anniversary where one plays me). All other situations still would feel as a 'copyright' violation, even if there may be no law for it.

As for those 'copyright' violations, Einstein and Freud have been dead for four centuries by that point. Anyone that knew them, or anyone that knew people that knew them, or people that would have known those people would have been long, long dead by that point. That may change matters. I don't think too many people would personally care about 'copyright' or 'privacy' issues if someone made a play of, say the personal life of Galilei today (though some Italian or Vatican institutions might feel some things weren't properly represented of course), unless perhaps if they made a horrible caricature. But they might if the play was about Stephen Hawking instead.

 

[Mojochi]

I personally think of it as an extension of people presenting their interpretations of us in any way, like in conversation, which people do ALL the time with one another, discuss the other people they know, & their interpretations of them, their behavior, & actions. We accept wholly peoples' rights to express opinions about each other, whether those opinions are accurate or distorted. (Most of which are the latter)

It's only when it's distributed for public consumption, pursuant to a business platform or environment, that people can be held liable for slander or libel, for misrepresenting us... & even that can be a dodgy gambit, but uncomfortable though it might be, there is no legal ramifications preventing people from gossip.

All gossip is, is fabricated representation, & all holocharacters of real people are, are the same, with better technology to achieve those fabrications. If you publish or distribute them publicly, yes, slander/libel. If you share it privately among a close circle, then no, just dishing or musing, & most holoprograms of that nature won't even get shared at that wide a communal level.

It's mostly meant to be private. The only avenue to suggest it's inappropriate, is that such private musings are being logged into what is essentially workplace equipment, the Enterprise computer system, like if you were writing a pornographic story about a coworker, or photoshopping/deepfaking imagery of them, on your work PC, & it somehow got discovered by others. You are then culpable for misuse of workplace utilities, & potentially harassment.

Barclay's only transgression imho, is that he's using workplace facilities, & in Geordi's case it's actually rather more accidental than that. (Until he became a moron about it). So my perspective on what Barclay was doing is that he merely ought to be reprimanded for misuse of the ship's facilities, being that he wasn't deliberately trying to defame anyone. (Well also for slacking in his duties to do it)

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Creating the image of someone is no different than painting them. Having access to enough personal logs for an accurate personality is more questionable.

 

[matthunter]

Creating the image of someone is no different than painting them.

Not if it's done using medical logs to recreate them naked.

I don't think Seven's objection to the Doctor recreating her as a muse for art was the fact he was painting her, but that he made the hologram pose nude.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Not if it's done using medical logs to recreate them naked.

I don't think Seven's objection to the Doctor recreating her as a muse for art was the fact he was painting her, but that he made the hologram pose nude.

Using it for perverted purposes, or using images that were not publicly released images are different than just creating an image of someone.

 

[galleywest]

Wow, this is some great discussion! You've all brought up some things I hadn't thought about before. Here are my very rambling thoughts:

To me, the issue of re-creating someone in a holodeck is very different than an abstract conversation you might have in your head with a celebrity or someone you know. It's more along the lines of someone computer-generating someone's likeness and then making a series of videos using that likeness. Or if someone asked to have one of those real dolls made in your likeness, you would probably find that really creepy. But then, I guess people do have themselves made into other people's likenesses ("Give me Beyonce's chin, nose, forehead, booty, and upper calves!"). So I don't know where that leaves me.

I myself work for a public institution as well, so I appreciate the argument that you might, by working for this institution, agree that your likeness could be used in training exercises etc. BUT I also know that we are very careful about using anyone's photos for any materials that we put on social media or newsletters or anything like that--we always get a signed consent form for that--so I would think you would still need to give express permission that your likeness could be holo-generated.

I also like the argument that this technology is so new that they're still kind of grappling with its uses. This is similar to what we've seen in terms of things like cyber-stalking. The laws have taken time to catch up to the technology. (Ooooh, good next question: is there such a thing as holo-stalking, or holo-harassment?)

My feeling is still that I would personally find it very unsettling to live in a world where people could create a computer generated likeness of me and then basically do whatever they wanted to or with that likeness. I would hope there would be some definitive restrictions on it.

 

[Oddish]

Not if it's done using medical logs to recreate them naked.

I don't think Seven's objection to the Doctor recreating her as a muse for art was the fact he was painting her, but that he made the hologram pose nude.

The Doctor did not do so, because it was not a holodeck program. It was his imagination, turned into a holoprogram by humans. Not saying it's right to imagine someone you have the hots for naked, but most people do it.