Privacy, From Outside The Paranoid Fold 65
An unnamed reader points to this: "Good, non-technical article on privacy running at The Atlantic." Though the article is non-technical, it isn't ignorant. The author realizes (or rather, reports that other people are realizing) that privacy is not inimical to business, but that the two can have a complex and more-than-occasionally troubling relationship.
Re:What "privacy" is (Score:1)
Generally people, at least in big cities, feel that despite (or because of) the large number of people around them, no one is watching *them*. But being under the "gaze" of a camera isn't like that. The other people have other things to attend to but the cameras and the people behind the cameras are there specifically to watch. That plants the question, "are they watching me?" Say hello to the cop in your head. He isn't like that friendly little cricket who is your conscience, he's a big, broad guy who taps you on your shoulder with his baton at the most unexpected moments. [Okay, that's over the top but I'm serious about the "cop in your head" thing.]
What's really creepy is the combination of cameras and face recognition software. I'm not sure how likely it is, at least within the next 5-10 years, but the two combined could make tracking the activities of individuals on the street as automatic as a Doubleclick cookie. Actually they'd want to throw in some license plate reading software too, which is much easier to do.
I think there's an important distinction to be made about different camera systems. I think to be a serious privacy concern the cameras have to all be part of the same system. Law enforcement today sometimes collects surveillance tapes from a variety of places around the scene of a crime, building cameras, ATMs, etc. It's a lot of work but they do it when it's worth the effort. The fact that it requires effort and is difficult or impossible for individuals outside of law enforcement to take advantage of that makes the difference. A city-wide camera network may be meant for law enforcement purposes but it's easy to abuse so it will be, either by law enforcement people or others.
Re:"May you live in interesting times" (Score:2)
Re:"May you live in interesting times" (Score:2)
"May you live in interesting times" (Score:3)
This was the part of the article that leaped out at me and sent a chill down my spine.
A split-second later, I thought of the times when being able to get an instant fix on the location of my niece or nephew using something built into my watch or cell phone would have saved me a few anxious moments, which I get enough of anyway from those two.
Just your standard, double-edged sword, the future's rushing at us so fast it's already the past, type dilemma.
any sort of "tracking device" (Score:2)
No utopian leader is going to use smooth talking and bullshit to get us to bow down to this, but if they do, you can beat I will be one of the "crazies" in the sewers eating rat burgers.
Re:any sort of "tracking device" (Score:2)
Carrying something voluntarily is something MUCH different than being implanted w/something. I can choose not to bring the damn thing w/me if I feel like it.
Sorry -- wrong thread. (Score:1)
Re:What "privacy" is (Score:1)
Tried talking to the CEO? (Score:2)
--
COME IN, I'M LONELY [omnifarious.org]
Re:Here's another article along the same lines (Score:1)
Another one for the cries about "The End is Nigh" (Score:1)
I mean, could you get any more perfect fodder for Christian beliefs of the "end times" and ramblings about the "mark of the Beast"?
Forget any rational arguements about why they shouldn't let such a device get implanted. All you'd have to do quote a little from their Bible to get your average Christian worked up about this.
Ethics are important, but rarely observed. (Score:3)
Within a couple years, I worked for a service bureau that did the accounting for Evergreen Air (CIA contractor for airplanes during the Vietnam War - their monthly income was in eight figures). This was about the same time as my draft lottery number came out above 300 - high enough that I was not pulled into the meatgrinder. I recall asking the owner if servicing that CIA Vietnam contract company was ethical. His reply was that someone would do the work, it might as well be his firm. I didn't quit, but I didn't feel good about this.
Later, I worked for a systems integration company that was building the new control system for the Northwest power grid. It ran on a dual PDP-10 system (anyone remember TECO?) with lots of lower level PDP-8 telemetry and control systems. It is likely still there, BTW. They had lots of grad student programmers, and those guys would go out water-skiing on Saturday and log it as overtime! I mentioned this to them, but they didn't want to hear about it. They were late, and needed programmers.
Another employer was a Savings & Loan. They did not pay interest on impounded funds (for property tax, insurance, etc.) and eventually lost in court over this. After I left, they got screwed worse by the Feds, who - after forcing them to combine with insolvent S&Ls - suddenly changed the rules, forcing them to be acquired by Bank of America. There are relative levels of power and betrayal.
Then I spent a couple of years at an insurance company. After pointing out that the CIO's pet project wasn't working and should be scrapped (for which I won a $50 suggestion award), I was fired. So much for helping a corporation see its errors.
Another company's stock tanked; they were acquired by a corporate raider who proceeded to move them to Florida, extracting all the cash and leaving an empty shell for the creditors. By the time the SEC and courts prohibited him from owning another public company, Victor Posner was too old to care. With money and lawyers, you can get away with the corporate equivalent of murder, ethics be damned.
At another shop suffering through downsizing, I saw posted: "Youth and skill is overcome by old age and treachery." True, don't trust a company. Management looks out for themselves, not people who work for them, and least of all stockholders.
Then I worked for two Big-8/6/5 firms for over ten years. When directed to lie to a large client on the issue of mainframe capacity, I refused to do so. I'm now working elsewhere, for a better firm.
You can see ethical lapses around you, but unless you're in a position of power, you often can't affect things in any meaningful way. But, if you can, do so: it feels better.
Re:any sort of "tracking device" (Score:1)
Since I live in one of the only European countries (maybe even the only one) where you have to have an ID on you all the time, I want to add a few comments.
Since my 12th birthday, I have had an ID card with my name and address on it (and some minor things like birth date, sex and so on).
Some years ago, another item was added: the "state register's number". This is a unique number for every person (based on the birthdate), which is used by several government-related agencies.
At first, it was optional. You had to select it on renewal form. (Because of privacy issues, I left it unchecked... only to have the official check it right before my eyes.)
And it's going to get worse: the next generation of ID cards will have a chip to store the current contents of the card. It will also store health insurance data, and it should be able to submit government forms over the Internet with this.
(Of course, there's going to be encryption for that. But what if it's broken?)
Europe still has more strict privacy laws than the USA, but that is changing rapidly.
Chipped Prisoners, plus (Score:1)
Yeah, start with prisoners. In fact, you could eliminate prisons: instead of keeping them _in_ (requiring a cage), keep them _out_ (their chip locks doors that would otherwise be open).
Of course, you could control lots of things with these chips. And as you point out, why use them just for prisoners? Anyone who wants to do mainstream commerce would have one. Checks and cash would be obsolete, or at least inherently suspect.
Inmagine the fine granularity of reward and punishment in such a system.
Re:What will WE do? (Score:4)
It puts your mind into the right frame to question what you're being asked to do.
Speaking as one who has quit two jobs because of faulty ethics on behalf of my employers, I now state up front during the interview process, "Be aware. If you ask me to do something against my sense of ethics, I will quit." In my case this flows natually from the usual, "Why did you leave this job after 6 months?" question
--
Remove the rocks to send email
Re:any sort of "tracking device" (Score:1)
Or, to put it another way, if there's any possible benefit in it for the State, sooner or later they'll do it.
Mobility, Community and Security (Score:2)
Note that no "globalist conspiracy" is required to generate coherent action toward these ends -- merely the incentives inherent in global mobility.
To take a simple example, multidrug resistant strains of TB have arisen due to the abuse of antibiotics in the Former Soviet Union. Soros has been promoting an "Open Society" in Russia and, in so doing, is now privy to the data on incidents of multi drug resistant TB transmission occuring during air travel within the FSU. The threat of this epidemic spreading to other parts of the world is profound, yet Soros and his globalist cohorts can't seem to come to grips with the fact that in their push for putting the globe through a mix-master as fast as the societies can stand -- they not only run the risk of reactionary backlash, they are setting the stage for a variety of epidemics of not only biological disease, but of criminal activities and political degeneration that is so rapid, the social control structures of civilization simply will not be able to withstand the onslaught.
In Soros's case, he at least recognizes some of his responsibility to do something about multidrug resistant strains of TB [soros.org], but this sort of after-the-fact reaction to a manifest problem has not influenced him to recognize his underlying ethical conflict-of-interest in putting the world at greater risk through ill-considered mobility.
One of the primary reasons for local communities is to allow experimental controls -- a societal laboratory in which many diverse ideas and structures can be tried and tested in isolation from one another lest the lessons learned be obscured by too great a number of variables in too short a time.
People say they want security, and I believe them -- but I do not believe it when globalists say they want global security. What they want is to secure their own position by increasing the necessity for globalists -- even if that puts the entire globe at unacceptably high levels of risk.
Re:"May you live in interesting times" (Score:1)
That doesnt sound terribly small to me. I can see kids on the playground in a couple years "Hey look at that big lump in Jimmy's neck, guess his mom finally got tired of him running away and had him tagged."
Re:Tried talking to the CEO? (Score:2)
Re:any sort of "tracking device" (Score:1)
Re:any sort of "tracking device" (Score:2)
Why? What have you got to hide? You must be doing something worng if you're trying to hide. Everyone else has no problems with showing thier IDs...
My point is if you have to willing ask to be anonymous, most people will be suspicious, and it will stand out in against others who don't care/know better. Similar to caller ID, how many people in the general public even know who to turn it off? Or for that matter are even aware that they can turn if off?
Re:What "privacy" is (Score:2)
The problem is that social phenomena apply to people, not to large corporate entities like companies and governments. Ordinary people are willing to let others have privacy because they don't want their own privacy violated, but when you start dealing with a corporate entity that reciprocity is not applicable. Companies and governments generally assume that other people are trying to steal their secrets, so they rely on active measures to protect them rather than the politeness of others. That also means that they are less likely to respect the unprotected secrets of others.
More importantly, even social conventions about privacy can be violated with reason. You might not read somebody's diary if you found it, but a suspicious person might very well try to lay their hands on the diary of the person they were suspicious of to find out if their beliefs were well founded. Those investigation companys exist because people are willing to violate others' privacy on occasion. Companies and governments are much more purposeful than individuals (they basically exist for a specific purpose, after all), so if they decide that invading people's privacy serves their goals you can bet they'll do it. They're less socially constrained and have stronger motivation, which is a very dangerous combination.
Re:any sort of "tracking device" (Score:1)
Re:good, but... (Score:2)
The two methods aren't mutually exclusive; privacy laws simply provide a legal foundation you can use to protect your freedom.
Ultimately, laws only work if you catch the lawbreakers, and if you can prove that they broke the law.
That's true, and it's why we have law-enforcement agencies and a criminal court system. Lawbreakers are caught, prosecuted, and convicted every day, just because it's hard doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Technological solutions also have the advantage that they work against abusive authorities as well as private abusers.
This is one of the reasons why I think we should go so far as to make it a Constitutional amendment. The amendments to the Constitution tend to be limits on governmental authority, and legal history is full of rulings against the government based on the Constitution.
--
good, but... (Score:3)
--
Re:What "privacy" is (Score:1)
I see this argument all the time on slashdot. Well, maybe nobody cares about you because you aren't doing anything important. Good for you. But for anyone who wants to change the status quo, surveillance is a possiblity. That includes a whole lot of people working to better society as well as those who aren't.
Because they're not watching me, they're watching the city
No, they're watching specific people and groups. Most people, like you, aren't that important.
And even if this data was accumulated for every person in the city, and even if it was stored, that still wouldn't make a difference, because nobody cares about you.
You do make a good point about the effectiveness of a good tail. Most people could not tell if they were being spied upon, in person or not. That's why people need info like this [bikershome.com].
Re:any sort of "tracking device" (Score:1)
By Implanting it in children, for tracking/location due to abduction. Where I grew up there was a system called LOJACK which was a radio transmitter placed in your car and activated by the police when your car was stolen. It's hard to think of a parent who wouldn't want this sort of thing for their childern.
Problem is when the kids turn 18 and are adults, the tyranny of convience kicks in and not many will pay to have it removed, don't see a problem with it, or don't know they have it.
Not to mention the teen years. "Sorry Little Jimmy, we KNOW you weren't in class on Monday, and a counselor will see you now about your little adventure out with Little James".
Boom...realtime monitoring of your population since either the government or a corporation has the implants ID code (and I'm not sure which makes me more nervous).
I agree. Privacy is a right, not a privilege. (Score:1)
Re:implants?? (Score:1)
I'm reminded of part of the movie Virtuosity, where they let the guy out of prison only for him to find out that he had a tracking implant. "A little known fact about the implants prison inmates now receive upon release is that they contain a pinhead capsule of neurotoxin. The satellites they use to track you can also trigger the release of this neurotoxin with microwaves. Upon release, the implant's host dies...within 30 seconds." They almost ended up using the neurotoxin on him, even though he was set up.
---
Check in...OK! Check out...OK!
Re:Here's another article along the same lines (Score:1)
Here's another article along the same lines (Score:2)
http://www.digitrends.net/marketing/13637_14459.ht ml [digitrends.net]
Re:Privacy Business on the rise (Score:1)
You demonstrated no real understanding of the paragraph, when many obvious comments could be made.
- The credit card company American Express opted to promote customer privacy over the massive amounts of purchasing data it could sell and distribute to other companies.
- new e-mail systems are being developed to introduce more privacy, but the paragraph did not seem to mention good encryption.
- I don't get the direct connection between personal bodyguards and privacy, but perhaps the paragraph is implying that people do not feel safe and seek protection from others to safeguard assets.
If anyone would like to argue or discredit something I'd be interested to hear. I'm no expert at privacy or privacy technology, so I'd be interested to know how "self-deleting e-mail" works through the standardized internet.
Re:any sort of "tracking device" (Score:4)
Problem is, the implant idea can be introduced slowly and carefully. First as an option - a matter of convenience to those who don't want to carry cards, and perhaps the implant would carry other info like credit card #, elec. password, etc. making them very convenient. Then as it becomes widespread, it becomes law that everyone must have it.
Personally, I see no problem with everyone in the world having an advanced ID capable of many convenient things. My concern is that it should be the choice of the user to be anonymous in a tracking system. So I can walk through the streets of Washington D.C. and no one would know where I was if I tried to buy a subway ticket (i.e. ID would not be required more than it is now).
Re:Chipped animals (Score:1)
Tracking children and animals is just the tip of the iceberg.
Re:implants?? (Score:2)
Uh... plastic surgeons make a lot of money performing unecessary surgery involving implants a lot larger than the ones we're talking about.
Much larger.
Much, much larger.
Privacy Business on the rise (Score:2)
And the snippet I gave above is only the smallest fraction of the content of the article. It isn't even a primary point. It is just a part of the introduction.
I'm going to have to bookmark this mag, just because it helps excercise my brain cell.
;-)
Re:Privacy Business on the rise (Score:2)
Exactly. Words can be hard. I am tired and it is late, and the article actually deserves being bright eyed and awake and alert with both brain cells functioning at full power.
So I will sleep first, and then give a proper answer when I have the time, possibly tomorrow night.
Not everyone lives in the California time zone, you know. Or stays up to 3 am, shocking as that may seem.
Re:Jews Had To Be Good For Something (Score:1)
You can't shoot someone for coming on to your property without either
a) Warning them first
b) Them openly attempting to directly harm you
My son was getting picked on in school and got into a fight with another student. That other student's father is a pretty big low-life and pulled up into our yard with his huge truck, really fucking up the lawn and stuff. Got out and came and pounded on the door. I leaned out the 2nd story window and popped him in the ass (literally) with a .22. 6 months for that shit you believe it?
Anyway, just a warning.
Re:good, but... (Score:1)
While I'm glad that privacy protection has become a thriving business, I'd rather see some more thorough privacy laws go into place.
I wouldn't. I think the idea of privacy laws is fine, but I see a danger: since the laws exist, people will believe that technological solutions are unnecessary. Ultimately, laws only work if you catch the lawbreakers, and if you can prove that they broke the law.
For example, the U.S. now has anti-spam legislation in place, which requires that senders of bulk e-mail put a notice on the bottom that allows one to "unsubscribe" from their "service". However, it's clear that many spammers use that "unsubscribe" notification as a way to verify the validity of the e-mail address; unsubscribing just results in more spam! Under the law, this is illegal, and the recipient has a right to sue and the law guarantees some hefty damages. However, it's quite difficult to verify that you recieved mail twice from the same spammer, making the law almost irrelevant. It could be modified, but chances are spammers will always stay one step ahead.
I would much rather see us pursue technological solutions to the privacy issue as far as is possible, use more technology to facilitate finding the perps we can't stop outright and then use legal means to shut them down. Technological solutions also have the advantage that they work against abusive authorities as well as private abusers.
Re:I would use one (Score:1)
Re:Chipped animals (Score:1)
That is the direct point. You have something that can do a lot of good for many things. However, in a fit of excitement you apply your new toy everywhere feasible.
Personally, I would like a choice of something being in my body for tracking purposes. There would never be a time when you knew that no one knew your whereabouts. Those are wonderful moments, feeling of completely alone.
Too much of a good thing. We need to stop trying to stick our fingers in every hole we see cause we can.
Re:What will WE do? (Score:1)
Perhaps you're looking for the goatse.cx guy?
Re:Prisoner's Dilemma (Score:2)
While we shouldn't panic and reject all such advances out of hand, we'd do well to subject each to a healthy dose of public deliberation before handing over another nugget of liberty.
Oh, I agree with you completely here; it would obviously make things simpler for government if people didn't interfere with them--which is why dictators become dictators and not presidents or prime ministers. Since we have the opportunity to watch and (to an extent) limit what government does, we should absolutely take advantage of that and make sure the government doesn't do things we don't want it to do.
What I'm saying is that that will happen without extensive worrying about the matter. I recall a quote from the article by some political figure saying that privacy would be one of the major issues, if not the major issue, in the next 3-5 years (correct me if I misstated it). That's society saying "we want privacy, give it to us."
As you say, of course, we should definitely be aware of what's going on, and if there is cause for alarm, it would be that government is trying to slip things through behind our backs. But I'm pretty sure that most people are at least aware of privacy issues at this point, which is why I say I don't think we need to jump up and down and panic just yet.
--
BACKNEXTFINISHCANCEL
Re:What "privacy" is (Score:2)
The cameras allow you to be followed invisibly, you never know if someone is watching you through the camera, you're in the panopticon. It's not the same as being seen by others on the street.
Is it now? Do you really think you could spot a skilled tail in a crowded street, or even a not-so-crowded one? Detective agencies were around long before the Internet and networked video cameras, and they didn't survive through failure. And for that matter, in a crowded street, could you even begin to guess at who might be watching you? I didn't think so.
But being under the "gaze" of a camera isn't like that. . . . [T]he cameras and the people behind the cameras are there specifically to watch. That plants the question, "are they watching me?"
To which I say, "Do I give a damn? No." End of story. Because they're not watching me, they're watching the city, in which I happen to be (at least in this hypothetical circumstance). As I said in my original comment, they have absolutely no reason to focus in on me in particular, because I don't make a whit of difference in the grand scheme of things. Now, if I pulled out a gun and started shooting people, that's a different story; but in that circumstance I'd deserve what I got anyway.
Suppose you were a cop, assigned to watch the other end of all these cameras. Would you really feel like writing down what every person who passes one of the cameras is doing? For that matter, could you even physically do that in the time available? I didn't think so.
Even computers don't really change the equation that much; they provide a lot more eyes to watch the cameras, but that's all. Even with face recognition, that would at best let you determine when someone was in view of what camera--no more than your typical detective agency could tell you, and probably less. And even if this data was accumulated for every person in the city, and even if it was stored, that still wouldn't make a difference, because nobody cares about you.
Even supposing the face-recognition software failed, and identified you as Jack Q. Serial Killer, computers don't arrest people--cops (i.e. people) arrest people, and they could tell the difference more easily. In the worst case, yes, maybe some people will be falsely arrested, but even then, society will respond as it sees fit, either getting the silly system trashed, or accepting it as one of the costs of a safer city. (And if they did accept it, and you don't like it, well, just don't go there.)
--
BACKNEXTFINISHCANCEL
What "privacy" is (Score:4)
There are some good points here, and I hope people read farther than the bit about the Digital Angel on the first page (there are four pages, in case you didn't notice). I like the author's assertion that business will itself provide an answer to the question of how to control our private information in the "information age"; it's a refreshing change from the doomsayers. But one thing I found a bit disappointing was that the author only touched briefly on just what sort of beast "privacy" is, because I think it's a misunderstanding of that basic area that's causing a lot of unnecessary alarm.
As the author of the article points out, privacy is, above all, a social phenomenon. In other words, privacy is something that exists because society (i.e. people) considers it a Good Thing. But what a lot of people seem to forget is that that works both ways; because it is a social phenomenon, ordinary people won't take advantage of it even if they had the ability to, such as via a cracked server. If you noticed that someone had dropped their diary, you might pick it up and return it to them, but you wouldn't open it up and start reading, would you? (I hope not, anyway.) That's what privacy is.
Besides, if someone really wants to find out stuff about you, they can do that just fine with or without computer/Internet assistance. Hidden cameras, bribes and/or threats to friends or neighbors, that sort of thing. Investigation agencies don't make their money sitting at their desks and hacking into servers, either. But the fact is that no one cares about you, in that sense. We are still a long way from anything like 1984, despite what the doomsayers would tell you; nobody cares enough about what individual people are doing to monitor everyone (not that people would stand for it; such a proposal would go down in seconds, I think, at least in the US). Even the video camera surveillance system in Britain mentioned on Slashdot occasionally is a far cry from Orwell's world; some people seem to have forgotten that when you're in public, well, you're in public, and you shouldn't have any expectation of privacy anyway. Or perhaps that's just British society's view, and U.S. society is different? I don't know.
If society changes its collective mind and decides that it doesn't need privacy any more, then yes, of course you should be afraid (if you like privacy). But I haven't seen any massive shift in people's thinking that would suggest anything like that; if anything, as the article points out, people these days are looking for more privacy, not less. So let's stop the panicking now, okay?
--
BACKNEXTFINISHCANCEL
Re:Chipped animals (Score:1)
Live inside a Faraday cage [dixel.co.il]. Or hack the protocol and make a jammer. Or overload the chip with bogus data. The point I'm trying to make is that any technology can be countered by more technology. If these things do become required, you can bet that they will be hacked before the end of the next day. Of course I don't want a tracking chip in my body. That doesn't mean that I can't do anything about it if it's already there.
implants?? (Score:1)
The only way would be for the government to make it ilegal not to have a tracking implant.
The propoganda would have to be huge for there not to be a revolt against it. I know people who were born at home and dont have birth certificates etc. whould they be hunted down and 'taged'??
I dont see this happening in anyones lifetime.
-------
Drink Coffee - Do Stupid Things Faster And With More Energy!
in 20 years (Score:1)
Chipped animals (Score:3)
In Sydney, Australia you must by law register cats and dogs and implant a microchip inside them which allows the animal to later be identified.
Through eveoloution, the next phase of this technology will be chips which allow you to track your stray cat.
This technology is also useful in the assistance of saving endangered species etc.
I am not sure if this is already happening or not but, imagine if you could track panda populations in the wild just by tracking the chips that were implanted in them as babies instead of having to have humans go in the wild, tranquilize the animal and then check to see what it's been upto.
This in fact could open up an whole new era of humans being able to track animals in their natural habitat and find out animal behavioural patterns etc without having to physically enter/disturb the habitat.
But picture this also.
30 or so years after this technology is in place with animals and is seen as safe and solid, they could start to trial this technology on prisoners for example to see how they go in society at first and slowly introduce it to every baby born.
I think all technology can be used for good. It's just a matter of doing so.
Re:implants?? (Score:1)
I think the point that was trying to be made is that there aren't going to be long lines to get "privacy-invading" implants put into people's bodies.... (though I would love working colour cyber-eyes).
Kierthos
Re:any sort of "tracking device" (Score:1)
Here's my problems with the 'plan' of requiring implants:
1) Right to Privacy. Obvious, here.
2) Violation of civil rights. This is invasive and unnecessary surgery. There is always the possibility of death in surgery. Requiring this implant for every man, woman and child in the USA would no doubt lead to quite a few deaths on the operating table.
3) Time and resource constraints. Okay, line up everyone in the city/county/state! Time to get your implants! Oh, and where are they getting the trained personnel to perform all these operations?
4) Presumed innocence. I don't like the idea that the government has the 'right' to track me through an implant even though I haven't done anything.
Now, hopefully, this idea of implanting the masses will never happen. I'd prefer to see this as some sort of optional, high-cost option that rich kids and jaded adults would go for, leaving the rest of us alone, as usual.
Kierthos
Privacy and Ignorance (Score:3)
Try telling the average person that paying for a movie ticket or DVD instantly augments marketing profiles of themeslves...They might not believe you!
People in general need to be appraised of the fact that all this is happenning. We can shout and intellectualize and scream all we want about it on slashdot. It won't do anything because we're still a fringe community composed mostly of techies and other technologically in-the-know people.
All the stuff about ID tags embedded in bodies and dynamically updated databases will be hurled steadily towards us until the majority of people wake up and realise what's going on, and what governments and corporations are trying to push on them "for their best interests." In this case, people are not stupid. They are ignorant.
O'Toole's Commentary on Murphy's Law:
Prisoner's Dilemma (Score:4)
And really, no matter how much our society values privacy, there will always be individuals willing to trample it. Most likely the first abuses will rise from very noble intentions ("Lo-Jack for kids! Never worry about losing your child again! If he's kidnapped, Lo-Jack will recover him within 45 minutes!"), but how easy it would be for a small group of people to build on that complacency and take it to the next level.
While we shouldn't panic and reject all such advances out of hand, we'd do well to subject each to a healthy dose of public deliberation before handing over another nugget of liberty.
Information and privacy (Score:3)
Re:I would use one (Score:1)
No, members of the criminal undreground in Thailand do the conspiring. And it's any children not just white (incidentally my Uncle's wife is a pacific islander from Naru, so my cousin isn't white)
"Ah. He has stories. I'll buy that. But is there any reason to believe any of them?"
Of course one should be sceptical when hearing anecdotes of this kind, here are some links regarding the practice:
an article from the Bangkok Post [google.com]
a report that explains the issue very well [unifem-eseasia.org]
And for further reading:
the results of a search using keywords "bangkok kidnap children" on google [google.com]
I would use one (Score:2)
He's got a few stories about ex-pats over there who were not so lucky with their children. Provided they were SAFE I would have one of these implanted in my children in a second, and once they are old enough have it removed.
However, having had a scare a couple of years back with a guy who was stalking my girlfriend, maybe it'd be better to leave it in.
Re:What will WE do? (Score:1)
What will WE do? (Score:2)
Paradoxon (Score:1)
So what's different with the right for privacy and dignity? You should notice that dignity is a very rare quality, not a right , and that privacy is an ability becoming rarer. Any word about individuality? Just read slashdot. Always the same. The trolls are always the same, and the mod5s are always the same. You could not only write write a slashdot article generator, you could also write an automated discussion thread generator and moderator. And if you want so I'll write one.
What of your privacy should be protected? Are you afraid of anybody could read in some file that you are laughing/barfing/wanking on goatse.cx? As long as you value your personal comfort and happiness higher than anything else you just should not complain about privacy issues. There is always the the way to be the one in a clay hovel. Or the one in the flat that is found after two weeks because it stinks.
Someone with the ability and the intention to do something cannot be prevented from doing so. He can only be prevented from doing so twice.
So the ability to know anything you want about a certain person is there, if you have the money. You just have to prevent the intention. And the best protection is worthlessness.
If you can't beat it, join it! (Score:1)
Re:any sort of "tracking device" (Score:1)
Won't be long now before we're cursing Emmanuel Goldstein and the TV doesn't have an off switch.
Doubleplusgood - not (uh-oh - thought crime!)
Ouch! (Score:3)
Re:any sort of "tracking device" (Score:1)
In Europe there has been much planning regarding identity cards. All EU citizens would be required to carry around an identity card stating who they are as proof of their identity at all times. This idea has been very popular among European politicians for at least ten years, across the spectrum. The right wingers like it because of the social control aspects and the fact that it stands as a barrier to illegal immigration. Left wingers like it because it would allow them to exert further control of the state in more socialist ways. Thankfully it has not been implemented yet, thanks to vetoes in various countries at some times (Britain stood against the scheme in particular a few years ago).
Although this is far removed from internal tags as you describe in some respects, in others it is remarkably similar. Sadly, I think that in Europe it may be inevitable that this system is introduced. The European Parliament and EU institutions in general are not noted for their democratic leanings, being highly beurocratic, and are extending their powers slowly and surely in all directions. I fear that it will happen for sure, though not perhaps for 10-20 years.
Democracy seems to be withering in Europe.
--
Clarity does not require the absence of impurities,
Am I Supposed To Feel Safer Now? (Score:2)
Privacy: a bad thing? (Score:1)