Arizona Man Seeks Funding for ‘A Year Without Privacy’

Noah Dyer, who calls himself an "anti-privacy" activist, is seeking $300,000 in a Kickstarter campaign to fund a year-long live stream of his life. And when we say his life, we mean _everything_ you could possibly imagine. He calls the project "A Year Without Privacy."

We asked Noah, who also calls himself a political theorist, what he means when he says that he is an anti-privacy activist. He told us that he believes that nothing should be kept private.

"An anti-privacy activist is someone who believes that instead of government granting greater privacy to its citizens, it should be able to gather more data: theoretically, all data. Dyer told us in an email, "And of course, they take action to move the world in that direction."

"Importantly, at least in my case, I believe the government itself and the individuals who it employs should also have no privacy, but that all their data and activities should be shared back with the citizens," he added.

As for the Kickstarter, the plan is to stream everything he does for an entire year on, which could hypothetically include interacting with family and friends, working, having sex, going to the bathroom, etc. On the latter two items, Dyer promises some warnings in the stream before those types of things happen.

The most interesting part for us is that Dyer is a professor of mobile app and game programming at the University of Advancing Technology, and has already received permission from his employer to film all of the lectures and workshops that he puts forth.

You can learn more about "A Year Without Privacy" by watching the pitch video to your left or by visiting the project's Kickstarter page. There is only on pledge level – $1 – but you can give more than that if you want.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    MechaTama31 says:

    And making all your information available to everybody will somehow prevent unelected individuals (presumably a subset of "everybody") from accessing and interpreting it?  I can see how well you've thought this through…

    You've got a fair point about the legislative and executive branches, but the judicial branch has been pretty firm for quite a while now that we do have a right to privacy, and there must be a compelling reason to violate it.

    Knowing that you are constantly being watched/monitored/observed/whatever would absolutely have a chilling effect on what you were willing to do and express, and this is certainly "interfering with one's existence" in my book.  Constant surveillance implies suspicion and distrust.  Everybody is a potential criminal first and foremost.  I say screw that.  It's "innocent until proven guilty", not "guilty until observed to be innocent for now but we've still got our eye on you".

  2. 0
    noahdyer says:

    Fair comment, I was hyper-literal.

    But I still have a rebuttal.  That amendment was written circa 1789. The amendment appears to be about the government hassling people.  This makes sense, because when it was written there was no notion of data not in physical form.  You couldn't find out what someone had written without hassling them for the physical thing they had written.

    Since then, the "people" have largely assumed that the founding fathers would feel the same way about phone, radio, internet, etc.

    However, the people that make, enforce, and interpret the laws have not.  Particularly the enforcing types.

    I think many of the Founding Fathers, if alive today and having grown up immersed in our culture, would not equate phone calls, emails, GPS coordinates, etc. to houses, papers, and effects.  

    The former list can be monitored and copied without in any way interfering with one's existence, as evidenced by the fact that the government has been doing it and we were all totally unaware.

    But I think the Founding Fathers would definitely be alarmed by the idea of secret warrants, secret courts, secret databases, and unelected individuals with the power to access and interpret that data.


  3. 0
    noahdyer says:

    I'll be curious to see how many corporations are interested in bullying me over their logos and such when that bullying will be live streamed to their customers.

  4. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    If he dose not get the rights for every logo,sign,sound,ect,ect hell even persons caught on tape, hes a bloody pirate…… How about a year without IP from corporations that subvert our personal rights and freedoms.

  5. 0
    MechaTama31 says:

    Well, either this is some kind of reverse-psychology stunt, or the guy is a moron.  Privacy is enshrined in our constitution for a reason.  If you want to broadcast your entire life, knock yourself out, but nobody should be compelled to do so.

  6. 0
    noahdyer says:

    Right now, I'm in a legal nightmare where the government can spy on me, imprison me, and torture me without due process (unless you count secret courts and military decisions).  I'll take my chances with the courts if I skip some paperwork.

    The isolation concern is a real one, but I don't think it's going to go that way.  I may just have to spread myself around a little more than I typically would, but I think most people in my network can handle being on camera for an hour or 2 every now and then.  And I think some of my friends can handle it more persistently.  But I could be wrong on both accounts.

  7. 0
    Sean Thordsen says:

    I have a feeling he has absolutely no idea what a legal nightmare he is in for when he actually tries to produce this.  If he truly intends on it it will have to at least be tape delayed or contain a lot of footage of paperwork being filled out.


    Also massive isolation because if I were a friend of his I would not want him in my house if he's going to stream everything.  Also banks will be a problem, government buildings and so on and so forth.

Leave a Reply