There is a little known idea in medieval theology called the “liber occultorum,” or “the book of hidden things,” or idiomatically, “the book of secrets.” It comes from Revelation 20:12-15, in which John the Elder encounters the Book of Life according to which all men are judged.

Saint Augustine identified this book as the book of man’s secrets because it is the closed book of man’s conscience and memory. When the apocalypse happens, it will be opened by a divine force. Alain de Lille further commented that it contains all things hidden in each soul.

Hugh of St. Cher added that the liber occultorum is “the book of the heart” to be read at the end of time. When people discuss how “future historians” will judge so-and-so, they’ve typically done so to invoke an apocalyptic moment of revelation, but not one so acute.

In other words, people usually just mean “when all the facts come out, we’ll decide that this guy was a jerk.” But I think that with the extreme level of digital surveillance that we have now, people are increasingly referring to something akin to the liber occultorum.

The harvesting of digital metadata by both corporations and the government carries profound implications for what the construction of history can accomplish. Because we’re growing accustomed to having no privacy, we’re starting expect a record of so-and-so’s inmost thoughts.

Javier Marías argued that the exhibitionism people engage in on social media must owe at least partly to the loss of faith in God. With God, people could feel that they’re being watched by at least one primary spectator. Without God, people seek the witness of society in general.

Perhaps this need for an omniscient witness might explain how surprisingly indifferent people are to digital surveillance. They may take some unexpected solace in the notion that at least some authority is quietly copying everything down.

I suspect that within the next few decades, we’re going to get a test run to see what the liber occultorum can tell us. Don’t be surprised when some political scapegoat’s porn-watching history is revealed through an anonymous leak from a “whistleblower” with access to his data.

When it happens, pay keen attention to the reaction.

That is all.