Peter Diamandis, the founder of Xprize Foundation, has aligned himself with a growing cadre of technology leaders who advocate for global surveillance, asserting, “[h]umans act more responsibly when they know they are being observed.”

This week, Diamandis voiced his views in a post on X and elaborated on his convictions in a Substack article, where he essentially characterized the concept as: Big Brother with positive intent.

“Radical transparency is on the horizon. A future where knowledge can be acquired anytime, anywhere. A future where no one remains hidden,” he expressed on Substack. “We are enveloping the Earth in a ‘Sensor Ecosystem’: a dynamic, multi-layered sensing apparatus that extends from home cameras to smartphones, autonomous vehicles, and humanoid robots on the ground, to drones and flying cars in the air, culminating with a network of satellites capturing images of every square meter on Earth daily.”

Diamandis’ remarks came about two years after Oracle founder Larry Ellison made similar statements.

“Citizens will behave better because everything happening will be continually recorded and reported,” Ellison forecasted during an Oracle event in 2024.

Diamandis seems to have been inspired to express these views following a podcast interview with Will Marshall, CEO of Planet, the largest operator of Earth-monitoring satellites.

“No one can elude detection anymore,” Marshall informed Diamandis during their discussion. “If you construct a school, we will observe the school. If you establish a data center, we will detect the data center. And the accountability will be visible to the entire world, regardless of circumstances.”

Diamandis, Ellison, and Marshall are correct that much of this technology is currently operational and expanding. It is becoming increasingly difficult for individuals to move through their daily lives without being captured on camera by home security systems like Ring, vehicles equipped with cameras like those produced by Tesla, or automated license plate recognition systems from Flock. Even if they manage, they are still monitored through their phones by advertising networks and data brokers.

However, Diamandis’ remarks are among the most candid regarding the intention to eliminate privacy.

“Your children will grow up in an environment devoid of ‘off the record’,” he advises any parents engaging with his post. “Educate them that the most effective privacy approach is to act with integrity, living in such a way that being observed incurs no cost. And advocate vigorously for a world where the observation is mutual.”

Diamandis appears to consider this an unavoidable reality, yet that perspective does not reflect how the average person is reacting to the surge of surveillance technology. Some municipalities have covered their Flock cameras with garbage bags following reports that the company’s data was being accessed by ICE, the FBI, and other law enforcement entities. Public opposition to Ring’s “Search Party” feature—designed to locate lost pets, a typically defensible initiative—led to the company terminating its collaboration with Flock.

Meanwhile, Meta has faced backlash regarding its camera glasses (created in collaboration with Ray-Ban), and is also embroiled in a lawsuit concerning privacy issues.

A considerable portion of Diamandis’ Substack post centers on providing guidance to entrepreneurs or executives on how to navigate a world lacking privacy. This advice primarily distills to: “be a good person.” Yet he struggles to address whether individuals will choose to act this way due to moral obligation or the possibility of surveillance. (He mentions that this is the question he’s “been pondering” since concluding the interview with Marshall.)

What Diamandis does not grapple with are the same fundamental queries that technology leaders frequently circumvent in discussions about surveillance and privacy. The interpretations of “good” or “honest” are often subjective—particularly in the context of powerful tech companies overseeing the surveillance framework.

Diamandis briefly posits that these firms promote transparency, asserting that “transparency is a tool, and tools lack ethics.” However, he overlooks the reality that tools often embody the biases of their creators. Who determines what behavior recorded by a security camera is deemed “good” or “honest”? This vital question remains unaddressed.

All he is willing to assert is that transparency “only cultivates trust when it flows both ways.” Achieving that equilibrium seems challenging, at best, within a landscape where the technology necessary for such “transparency” is controlled by a select few.