Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy

Fighting For Privacy With Art and Words 177

Posted by timothy from the your-biodentic-equivalent-of-papers-please dept.
HomeSkillet writes contributes this link to an interesting NYT feature on the recent works of privacy activist, wearables pioneer and artist Steve Mann. Mann has been mentioned here a few times before, but in light of current moves to scan, monitor and track your every move by subtle and unsubtle means, it's never been more relevant. Can anyone suggest a non-registration source for this story?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fighting For Privacy With Art and Words More

Fighting For Privacy With Art and Words

Comments Filter:

  • no reg req'd at archives (Score:4, Informative)

    by sTeF ( 8952 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2001 @03:15AM (#2351589) Homepage Journal
    check this link:
    http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/09/25/science/phys ical/25CYBO.html [nytimes.com]

  • Fighting for Privacy on the Internet. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zeio ( 325157 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2001 @03:24AM (#2351602)
    Privacy is of the utmost importance. Its the freedom we need the most. The art highlighted in these article is a relevant and valuable expression of things that have come and are to come.

    The article's spiked chair being useable by cardholders/citizens only and the other link to the wearable camera is an allusion to the underpinnings of fascism.

    I get worried about the direction the US government is taking towards us. Half my company is foreigners, and good ones at that. The plausibility that they will become suspect or deported is minimal, but given some of the new legislation in the mill, it is possible to deport resident aliens if they contributed to an organization that terrorizes or makes threats. That could conceivably include Greenpeace.

    Expatriate resident aliens are the best people, most of the time. They are not eligible for welfare, must take care of themselves, do no vote and pay taxes. I would fight to defend the rights of my friends at work.

    The advent of the Orwellian era is near, I urge everyone to go to the EFF (www.eff.org) as soon as possible and write the senators and congressmen. And if you are from the EU or Canada or some other place, write them too. I'm still in shock about Skylarov not even getting a semblance of habeas corpus, and is being tried on laws that do not apply to him or what he did. And now the SSSCA and the Anti-Terrorism (Implement Fascism) bills by Adolph Ashcroft.

    I am hurt by what happened September 11th. Black ops, special ops and "surgical" retaliation is a good thing. But suspending the rights of people who aren't even Arabic, and coining new criteria for "cyber-terrorism," proposing national ID cards and indiscriminately deporting people is NOT a smart thing to do. And developing legislation with such broad and far reaching wording is dangerous to everyone the world over.

    The brain drain will begin, where mega corps of the US will have expatriates arrested for violating something inane. Soon, all the people will stop coming because they are afraid. And possible the greatest nation for development with the soundest fiscal policy will become and intellectual pariah.

    Remember, stay moderate. Don't jump to conclusions about things, and make sure to check out the art in these articles, its an expression of what's to come.

    - Z

    • Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet. (Score:4, Offtopic)

      by reflector ( 62643 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2001 @04:12AM (#2351655)
      But suspending the rights of people who aren't even Arabic,

      While I agree with the rest of your post, don't make it into a racial issue. If you really believe in freedom, you believe in the freedom of all people, and that laws apply to all people equally. While today *some* Arabs may be our "enemies" (and Afgans aren't Arabs, BTW), yesterday Russians were the enemies and tomorrow it may be the Chinese.

      The track records on terrorism of nations should be recognized, with regard to allowing entrance or immigration, but once here people need to be equal under the law.

      • I agree, the 'not even Arabic' thing in retrospect seemed exclusive of a group of people who in general I have no gripe with so long as they are law abiding.

        I mentioned surgical / black ops, etc, because I know full well that the Afghans in general are not the problem here, its militant factions. Collateral damage towards the Afghan people is killing allies for all intents.

        I am for middle ground solutions. Now, there would be a merit to temporarily instituting martial law, possibly interning a bunch of "suspects" and processing them quickly. The 48 hours the government has to hold people should be plenty. Extended internment, such as REX84/RX84, or the Japanese in WWII, was an interesting miscarriage of justice. If people who are not citizens or citizens who are interned on racial profiling, which, while wrong, has some merits, they must be handled quickly and if they are found to be innocent, they must be compensated.

        Martial law and temporary internment are temporary. They may be wrong, annoying, or seem unfair. If a job NEEDS to get done, and mob rule must prevail, then lets be fair. On the other hand, horribly vague and far reaching legislation is more dangerous over the long term.

        People want to do things right now without any ramifications. If law enforcement has to be "ugly," then it should be ugly in front of the public eye and subject to criticism. This highly furtive and secretive approach the government is taking internally with legislation and other such things make me more nervous than anything else.

        Sorry for making it seem like Arabians were the exception. One of the guys at work is Turkish, and he is a good guy, and I had a Orthodox Egyptian roommate in college, and he was a good guy.

        Thanks for the input.

        - Z
        • One of Ashcrofts first orders was to let the INS hold people indefinitely, with no charge. There is a few hundreds rotting away as we speak. And this is no martial law. It will not be lifted when the enemy is defeated. Of course, terrorism can never be fully defeated, but that's yet another story.
      • While today *some* Arabs may be our "enemies" (and Afgans aren't Arabs, BTW), yesterday Russians were the enemies and tomorrow it may be the Chinese.

        That sounds even more like Orwell's 1984 than I'd like to think. (Hint: Oceania is in a permanent state of war with,... well, ... someone.)

        Now lets see who profits from this disaster....

        The US Govt of course:
        1. They get a nice recession to knock down pay - can't let the proles get too rich now. Didn't you notice that Bush's little recession wasn't getting deep enough before this.
        2. They get an excuse to bring in a whole load of privacy-invading surveillance legislation. Gotta get rid of that nasty encryption.
        3. They get a nice little war to use up some of that munitions stockpile that's been gathering since Desert Storm blew over. Keeps the defence industry moguls sweet, too.
        4. And if course it diverts attention from a whole load of other controversial stuff (SSSCA, DMCA, Dmitry Sklyarov, etc.) and adds a stack of points to Bush's popularity ratings.

        Now, who else could benefit from this? Well, err... Ideas, anyone?

        Sorry, I'm at just about my most paraniod at the moment. I don't really believe this. Or do I?

      • You just don't get it, do you...

        We are at war with the Arabs, we always have been at war with the Arabs, and we always will be at war with the Arabs.

        [Humor-impaired moderators, please don't touch this one.]
      • "The track records on terrorism of nations should be recognized, with regard to allowing entrance or immigration, but once here people need to be equal under the law."

        Nicely said, So when are you going to stop Irish, and Spanish visitors from coming to the USA? After all, ETA (the Basque seperatist movement) are Terrorists, and so are the IRA.

        And when is the US Government going to really do something about not funding Terrorists? Are they going to seize the assets of Noraid?

        How about the CIA? They've been involved with Terrorists once or twice...

        I don't Seriously expect the US government to be impartial about their "War on Terrorism" but I'm just so surprised at some of the convenient blanks in the collective memory.

        Z.

    • Re:Fighting for Privacy on the Internet. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2001 @05:32AM (#2351740) Homepage
      • developing legislation with such broad and far reaching wording is dangerous to everyone the world over

      Yup. I've been told to stop over reacting, that this legislation isn't even going to be used much because, hey, the USA are the good guys, and we need it to defend Freedom and such.

      I, on the other hand, think that it's not enough to just say that you're the good guys. You actually have to act like it as well. Even at the height of the Soviet Union's crackdown on samizdat [ualberta.ca], the oppression was all being done in the name of the greater good of the people, as represented by the state. Let's not take one single step in that direction.

      Why pass laws that effects 300 million people if you're truly only proposing to use them against 50 people or so? There must be ways to save Freedom without giving up freedoms.


    • "The advent of the Orwellian era is near"

      If you mean we only passed it about 15 years ago then you are right on. For those who are unawre Eric Blair (a.k.a. George Orwell) chose the date 1984 because it reverses the 48 in 1948 ... the year it was written. By 1984 it had become clear to many that Blair's horrifying predictions had been realized and then surpassed! Sadly, a large majority of Americans (especially) are so blinded by the light of Big Brother that they label those who can clearly see 'fanatics', 'nut cases', or 'green part members.' (8^} on that last one.)

      I'll just scratch the surface with a single example. Sadman Insane (sadhamm Huseinn for the phonetically challenged) was a friend of the US Government who wasn't such a bad guy, until the day when he was suddenly always a murderous dictator who must be stopped. Of course, even though it was well within our power to oust him, we never did. Instead the US government explained to us 'proles' that they couldn't quite get to him. Of course the reality was that we were afraid that, if we killed him, *ANOTHER* Sadman Insane would take his place and we would have to check his ego as well. I assure you I could go on ad-infinitum with myriad diferring examples, but I won't. At this point, you either get it, or you never will.

      • Of course, even though it was well within our power to oust him, we never did. Instead the US government explained to us 'proles' that they couldn't quite get to him.

        What utter bullcrap. Link me to a statement by the government that said we "couldn't quite get to him". Apparently, you weren't paying attention when we fought the gulf war. The purpose of the gulf war to prevent Saddam Hussein from seizing a great majority of the world's oil by seizing Kuwait, and then moving into Saudi Arabia (you'll notice that Saudi Arabia asked us to come in and defend them).

        The goal of the gulf war was ejecting Iraq from Kuwait, and if you read the UN resolution authorizing force, that's exactly what it said. I find it extremely ironic that the US is criticized for actually following the UN authorization, rather than going hog-wild and taking over the country.

        The Gulf War was never about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. No one would cry if we did get rid of him, and we tried a couple of times, but that's not what the mission was about. And lest you fill yourself with oh-so-righteous indignation and say, "SO!! You admit that it was all about oil???" Of course it was all about oil. Without economic freedom, all other freedoms are just an intellectual exercise.

        To steal a quote: "at this point, you either get it, or you never will."

        Maybe you should consider that many other of your cynical and paranoid "facts" are also untrue.


        • "What utter bullcrap. Link me to a statement by the government that said we "couldn't quite get to him"."

          "No one would cry if we did get rid of him, and we tried a couple of times"

          "Maybe you should consider that many other of your cynical and paranoid "facts" are also untrue."

          Or maybe I should consider the source when you make such a statement. Let's see how your logic works ... It is utter bullcrap to suggest that we couldn't get to Sadman, then you say later in the post that we tried a couple of times. So it is your reasoning that we tried to get him and couldn't. Hmmm ... I have to believe you are either stupid or woefully ignorant of the capabilities the US government. And for the record, you wouldn't know the difference between a fact and a reasonable conclusion drawn from empirical evidence if they turned out to be the same. 8^}

          That being said, I hope you get to retain your status as a Prole, because you are in for a very rude awakening if you ever have to wake up one day and have some idea what you are talking about.

          Cheers!

          Zero__Kelvin

          • Let's see how your logic works ... It is utter bullcrap to suggest that we couldn't get to Sadman, then you say later in the post that we tried a couple of times. So it is your reasoning that we tried to get him and couldn't.

            No, I said the purpose of the mission was not getting rid of Saddam Hussein. That doesn't mean we didn't lob a few missiles in his direction.

            That being said, I hope you get to retain your status as a Prole, because you are in for a very rude awakening if you ever have to wake up one day and have some idea what you are talking about.

            I notice that you can't refute one thing I said, other than to attack semantics. But you "just know" that your world view is correct, regardless of the facts, right? After all, the most cynical position must be the most "realistic" position.

            Cynicism/Paranoia != Logic/Facts.

      • I'll just scratch the surface with a single example. Sadman Insane (sadhamm Huseinn for the phonetically challenged) was a friend of the US Government who wasn't such a bad guy, until the day when he was suddenly always a murderous dictator who must be stopped.

        Hehe, I usually don't get into all of this conspiracy theory type crap.

        But, I do think it's funny that so many Americans, even the whacky conspiracy theory people that think The Government is behind it all, fall so easily into thinking that every foreign power we come up against is genuinely crazy. Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that every "enemy" of The United States is "insane". Hitler was insane, Saddam Hussein is insane, Osama Bin Laden is insane, Milsovec (sp) was insane. In WWII, the Japanese were not only insane, but usually dipicted in political cartoons as gorillas. Insane gorillas. Doesn't get much worse than that.

        People never seem to think about much of anything. They just pick a view and then run with it. Never reconsidering, never thinking. For instance.. everyone attributes every bad thing that happens as being the personal responsibility of George Doubleya, or whatever insulting names people come up with for whatever president is presently president. But, do you really think he is just sitting, isolated in some little room somewhere drawing up the plans for the demise of cryptography? No. Of course not. It's just stupid. Maybe he personally penned the details of the DMCA on his lunch break? No. It's all just business, and none of it so complicated. And I think Jesse Ventura illustrated the uselessness of any one political figure when he became elected governor. On his first day someone asked him if he was worried that with very little experience he would be able to handle the responsibilities of his job, and he replied "That's what I have all these people here to help me for". Elected representatives are usually just that. Representatives. They are speakers, and they usually have character. They are no more important to the business of government than Ronald Mcdonald is to the decision making process of wether to bring back the McRib sandwich at McDonalds. Just a happy face.

    • Privacy is of the utmost importance. Its the freedom we need the most.

      Indeed. As Kryten said:
      "Most of mans most popular persuits have been about being on his own - golf, fishing, and the all time number one"

    • Soon, all the people will stop coming because they are afraid.

      Not to worry. The British have had limited detention without trial to fight terrorism since 1974 and it has had no known effect upon foreigners seeking admission to Britian. The laws are disproportionately applied to Irish visitors without reducing the number Irish citizens coming to Britian to work or visit.

      Terrorism is a threat to resident aliens as much as anyone else. A resident alien, like an American citizen, has to decide whether the possibilities of a terrorist attack outweigh the new restrictions and hassles.

      If a resident alien is willing to stay in America despite the risk to life and limb posed by terrorism, he may find the additional risk from anti-terrorist measures a reasonable price to pay.

      check out the art in these articles, its an expression of what's to come.

      Never mind the art. Check out the anti-terrorism laws in other countries [homeoffice.gov.uk] where terrorism has been endemic for decades. Hundreds of resident aliens were killed in the attack on September 11. They have as much reason as anyone else to be clamouring for clampdown.

    • Privacy is of the utmost importance. Its the freedom we need the most.

      Is privacy really the freedom we need the most?

      I'd think I value more the freedom to live my life not having to be afraid of being executed the next day for a random reason or for no reason at all.

    • I find these two excerpts from your post terribly amusing:

      Anti-Terrorism (Implement Fascism) bills by Adolph Ashcroft. [...] Remember, stay moderate. Don't jump to conclusions about things,

      Maybe you should take your own advice. Cynicism and paranoia is NOT logic and facts.

    • ...proposing national ID cards ...

      Now, let's not be naive here, (y)our government has more than enough information on you to whip up a little card with your photo, DOB, SSN(SIN), blood type, yadda yadda yadda, and mail it to you without you having to do anything...(I'm Canadian and the same applies to me as well). I agree that we shouldn't jump to conclusions and hastily implement ill-thought-out plans, but on the idea of national ID cards, you're already there: simply apply duct tape to the edges of your existing cards to make one big one.

    • Privacy is of the utmost importance. Its the freedom we need the most. The art highlighted in these article is a relevant and valuable expression of things that have come and are to come.

      The article's spiked chair being useable by cardholders/citizens only and the other link to the wearable camera is an allusion to the underpinnings of fascism.

      Not necessarily fascism, but totalitarianism of some sort. The communists weren't fascists, but the Lubyanka KGB headquarters wasn't a pleasant place in the old days. There are frightening possibilities in "totalitarian democracy".

      I get worried about the direction the US government is taking towards us.

      I agree. In my greviously undermoderated earlier post on the subject [slashdot.org] ;-) I expressed similar concerns about the inevitable knee-jerk response to recent events. Lawmakers don't have any tools besides passing laws, and laws are generally permanent (on a related topic, there should at least be a period where an existing law must be removed from the books in order to enact a new one - maybe even two should be removed for awhile).

      Half my company is foreigners, and good ones at that. The plausibility that they will become suspect or deported is minimal, but given some of the new legislation in the mill, it is possible to deport resident aliens if they contributed to an organization that terrorizes or makes threats.

      That isn't a bad thing necessarily...what organizations do you support that "terrorize or make threats"?

      That could conceivably include Greenpeace.

      You say that like its a bad thing! ;-)

      OK, I do see your point about being deported for supporting Greenpeace being a bit unexpected...but Greenpeace has supported things like tree spiking in the past. I suspect a logger minus an arm from a failed chain saw blade would be inclined to class such actions as "terrorist", and I find it hard to disagree. Let's not have a double standard where such acts are concerned...

      Expatriate resident aliens are the best people, most of the time. They are not eligible for welfare, must take care of themselves, do no vote and pay taxes. I would fight to defend the rights of my friends at work.

      Personally, I'm not too happy with the powers that be importing cheap foreign labor to compete with me, in order to maintain high profit margins and high executive wages and perks. Isn't it great that the H1-B limits were increased so much last year? Of course, now the economy is tanking and many 'information workers' are out of work. Gee, I bet those low-paid H1-B folk are doing better than average at job retention...as in fact you apparently confirmed (at least in your case) with your "Half my company is foreigners" comment earlier. Just let me know when H1-B limitations are relaxed for CEOs...

      The advent of the Orwellian era is near, I urge everyone to go to the EFF (www.eff.org) as soon as possible and write the senators and congressmen. And if you are from the EU or Canada or some other place, write them too. I'm still in shock about Skylarov not even getting a semblance of habeas corpus, and is being tried on laws that do not apply to him or what he did. And now the SSSCA and the Anti-Terrorism (Implement Fascism) bills by Adolph Ashcroft.

      I am hurt by what happened September 11th. Black ops, special ops and "surgical" retaliation is a good thing. But suspending the rights of people who aren't even Arabic, and coining new criteria for "cyber-terrorism," proposing national ID cards and indiscriminately deporting people is NOT a smart thing to do. And developing legislation with such broad and far reaching wording is dangerous to everyone the world over.

      I generally agree with all of this...if anything I think it should be made clear that all changes to Constitutional freedoms will be temporary until the present heightened threat of terrorism is ended, i.e. its an "emergency" measure.

      The brain drain will begin, where mega corps of the US will have expatriates arrested for violating something inane. Soon, all the people will stop coming because they are afraid. And possible the greatest nation for development with the soundest fiscal policy will become and intellectual pariah.

      Since even after such laws America will still be more free than 90% of the world, I somehow doubt this will happen anytime soon. Regardless, I'm sure we'll somehow muddle through with just the intellectual horsepower available in the US. :-)

      Remember, stay moderate. Don't jump to conclusions about things, and make sure to check out the art in these articles, its an expression of what's to come.

      "What's to come" only if we let it.

      "Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
      --Ben Franklin--

      "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
      --Thomas Jefferson--

      Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

      Wow, well that was a lot longer than originally intended. Congratulations if you made it this far... ;-)

      299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!

  • Love the chair (Score:5, Insightful)

    by maddman75 ( 193326 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2001 @03:36AM (#2351617) Homepage
    I love his chair and the analogies it represents. It points out the idiocy of buying something that you can only use under certain circumstances.

    For the SSSCA, maybe a book that you buy that is chained to a desk. Its your book, bought and paid for. But you can only read it at the desk. If you try to take the chain off you go to prison as a terrorist. Because we all know only terrorists would want to read a book anywhere but a desk.

    These laws are madness, I can only pray that they are rejected by our leaders.
    • I love his chair and the analogies it represents. It points out the idiocy of buying something that you can only use under certain circumstances.

      Yes, I agree. I think all end user agreements should be done away with. Especially those that limit who can drive a car, and how. I think when you buy the car, it's yours, and you can do what you please with it. Just like with a chair. You bought the chair, and you can install spikes and a card reader in it if you please. Like an airplane. You bought it, and no one owns the skies, so why do you need a license? Everyone should be able to fly freely I think, the sky belongs to everyone. I wish the world would stop being so lame.
      • A set of rules made and enforced to bring order to a creation of the government (roads) is very different than giving corportations license to write new law.

        By your arguement if I take a knife and stab someone I've broken the "license agreement" on that knife. Ridiculous. I've broken a totally different law that has little to do with knife manufacture.

        Car manufacturers have no say in the rules of the road and that's the way it should stay. (refer to the corvair...)

        For similar reasons I feel software manufacturers and movie manufacturers shouldn't have much say in "rules of copyright". Giving them free reign to write laws enforced by the government seems foolish.
        • A set of rules made and enforced to bring order to a creation of the government (roads) is very different than giving corportations license to write new law.

          Yeah.. I figured you'd say that. That's why I threw in the airplane/sky one too.
        • By your arguement if I take a knife and stab someone I've broken the "license agreement" on that knife. Ridiculous. I've broken a totally different law that has little to do with knife manufacture.

          I meant to include this also..

          But, as a knife manufacture I would like to be able to include a user agreement along with my knives. Of course any violations you made in relation to my agreement would only probably be punishable by you not being able to use my brand of knives any more. Which would be pretty unimportant considering you would be in jail for killing someone anyway. But who cares?

  • reality mediator (Score:5, Informative)

    by pangloss ( 25315 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2001 @03:41AM (#2351621) Journal
    along with thad, steve is one of the best known wearables pioneers. one of my favorite examples to show to people new to wearables is steve's condomwoman sequence [wearcam.org]:

    in particular, the before [wearcam.org] & after [wearcam.org] photos =)

  • Ubiquitous Vision (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hackman ( 18896 ) <[bretthall] [at] [ieee.org]> on Wednesday September 26, 2001 @03:42AM (#2351625) Homepage
    I work in the Computer Vision and Robotics Research lab at UCSD. We have done research in many of the areas mentioned in the article, and are beginning some wearable computing starting with a PC-104 & i-glasses setup that another Grad student is working on. Wearables are cool stuff, we're already seeing phones, pagers, pdas, and watches unified.. next is more interfaces to the REAL world like he sums his article with.

    But on to my main point. We've been operating for some time towards a concept we call Ubiquitous Vision, which means that basically we will eventually be able to look at any space (indoors/out), from any perspective and resolution using a distributed network of a variety of types of visual sensors, including mobile ones. The decreasing size and cost of these sensors makes this approach possible, and also is interesting from a user's perspective because of the freedom to choose the view of the scene.

    We do get quite a few comments related to the potential impacts of such kinds of surveillance to people's everyday lives. Like he mentions in the article, as long as this kind of surveillance is possible for everyone - not just a select few (corporations, government, etc..) then there exists some kind of natural balancing mechanism. What's scary would be if only some specific organizations had access to the information and everyone else was prohibited from using it or doing their own surveillance.

    However it seems essential to mention a point made before by people more intelligent than myself. It isn't the technology that is at fault for comprimising your privacy. It is the people who use it that need to be responsible, and the people who feel it is being used irresponsibly that should speak up, as many of you /.'ers do already. But rather than blatantly rejecting any form of surveillance as I typically see on here and other forums, maybe appropriate questions should be asked about why/how/who has access to the data being taken. These are the issues at the heart of the problem.

    I personally think soon we will begin to see high-profile social organizations responsible for regulating the use of surveillance and making policy to protect us. EFF comes to mind. With the increased media attention now, I think we are on a collision course with this issue on a national/global scale. More to come, and it's going to be a very interesting and complex debate.

    Just my $.02
    Brett
    • Once again the naivety of people's views on surveillance rears its ugly head. Most urban centers are already heavily surveilled - they don't need advances in technology to provide 100% observational capabilities.

      Go into any mall or major store and you are on camera. Go into any major office complex and you are on camera. Most cities have cameras at busy intersections. Satellites can provide amazing surveillance of ground activity anywhere.

      Basically the only place you can be assured that you are not on candid camera is inside your home with the blinds drawn. Soon even this will evaporate - within five years there will be technologies that will allow someone to deposit a wireless camera in your house that will be too small for you to detect if it is well placed.

      • Yes, this technology pretty much already exists. Wireless with high-bandwidth is here. You'd have to have some kind of frequency scanner to detect some of the new tiny cameras on your lawn..

        But let's not be freaked about all the surveilance which already exists as you pointed out, after all, and really now, why does it bother you that someone can watch you pick your nose? Under what circumstances (and how often) does this stuff infringe on your life? Let's pick out the major objections (besides "I want privacy outdoor in public spaces" arguments), and present them as problems to the people who incorrectly use surveillance data.

        It's rather obvious now that fighting the surveillance technology itself is not practical. Focus on the use of the technology and people will listen.

        Brett

  • Scary Tech (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dragons_flight ( 515217 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2001 @03:45AM (#2351631) Homepage
    Does this kind of technology scare anyone else?

    Having glasses that let others see through his eyes and can modify what he sees to provide information or block nuisances seems nice enough at first glance. I can imagine alot of neat uses for this tech and can even imagine it becoming somewhat common, if made portable and high quality enough. But what about ways this might be exploited in the future?

    Once it's common, what's to stop a hacker or the government from breaking in to look through my eyes. Now, that's a scary thought. How about a worse one? Programmers and their backers designing these things to filter out aspects of the world because they are politically unpopular or show competitor's products? Or how about inserting ads into other parts of life? I wouldn't want to look at walls in my own house and be shown advertisements.

    So long as the user is truly in control I suppose it's okay, but who knows what a greedy corporation might try to do with his tech.
    • As far as i see it this kind of technology is trivial.... Dr. Mann states in his article that he can grant or take away access to directly write to his retina...

      The technology can be entirely personal.. besides if you don't want the tech don't wear/use it.

      Just my 2c

      • Does this kind of technology scare anyone else?

      It didn't, until I read this passage:

      • "Having 30,000 people inside my head drove me a little crazy, maybe," Dr. Mann said. "So I had to limit the number of people who had write- permission on my retina."

      There's phrase I don't ever want to hear applied to myself. Write permission on my retina. Shudder.

      I'd pass over your "corporate control" concerns, but thinking about the DMCA and the moves to get (largely futile) mandatory copy control in all electronic devices, the ultimate goal has to be to remove the pesky analogue transmission step altogether and put content straight from copy protected digital hardware right into Joe Consumer's brain. You'd have to go straight past the retina and wire it right into the optic nerve.

      Copy control right to your brain. It's unthinkable - today. I wonder if it will be unthinkable in ten, twenty or fifty years?

      • > There's [a] phrase I don't ever want to hear applied to myself. Write permission on my retina. Shudder.

        *shrug*

        Depends on your perspective. I like it.

        When I watch TV, I grant my TV write permission on my retina for the content. I continue to grant it write permission on my retina, but deny write permission to my eardrum, during the ads.

        The reason I like the phrase? Because it confirms that I am the one controlling who has write permission. When I cease to be the one in control of who gets to [advertise|communicate|amuse] me, I have a problem.

        But the use of the phrase reminds me that - at least for now - I have some say in the matter.

    • I figure that this will work like most other technology these days.

      The camera-glasses and associated computer equipment will be expensive. Companies will offset these expenses just like in the early days of the internet...with ads. Don't expect to see that pretty waterfall while you're in the john, what you'll be seeing is an animated ad for condoms, maybe with sound..arranged by the company that got you the glasses for cheap!

      And once the companies decide that ads are being ignored, they'll go to a pay-per-view model. Just make sure your subscription doesn't run out while you're driving.

      And come to think of it, what a great platform for subliminal advertising! You can insist to no visual ads, but paragraph 85(s) of the licensing agreement will subject you to ads beamed directly to your brain!

    • Re:Scary Tech (Score:3, Funny)

      by Nater ( 15229 )
      I wouldn't want to look at walls in my own house and be shown advertisements.

      Unless the glasses are surgically implanted onto your face, it's really not that big a deal.

      • Unless the glasses are surgically implanted onto your face, it's really not that big a deal.

        Kinda like Clockwork Orange and the scene where "rehabilitation" is done by forcing the eyes open while visual and audio environment is provided.

        It's almost that bad already with these Expletive above-the-urinal advertisements!

    • It's possible to limit access to the glasses. Whether it's by providing a list of allowed people or simply disconnecting from anything but a local network. Of course, you can always take the glasses off.

      When I was taking one of Prof. Mann's courses, I was tempted to try and hack his glasses and display a starfield simulation while throwing PVC pellets at him :).
    • I think I read some cyberpunk piece where a character suffers because *ackers insert Brazilian (?) spam into his vision.

      Maybe Neil Stephenson's Victorian book whose name I forgot, when the girl escapes her mother's house with her brother and they go along a porn district?

  • That reminds me... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    For an insight into why face recognition software is a threat to non-terrorists please take a look at this article [infoshop.org].

  • keep taking pictures acceptable--carry a camera (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mj6798 ( 514047 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2001 @04:57AM (#2351704)
    It seems likely that cameras will end up being restricted in many "public" places for "security reasons". There actually is a slight argument to be made that they might help in the preparation of terrorist attacks. But more importantly, neither the government nor businesses find it particularly desirable if their operations are being recorded by citizens. Another instance of this is that in many jurisdictions, you are not permitted to record your interaction with the police, while the police is permitted to record (and presumably use as they find convenient) their interaction with you.

    This isn't some grand conspiracy (if it were, it would be easy to do something about it). But look at it from the point of view of the people who get to make the rules. If they forbid picture taking, little happens. If they allow it, they are in trouble if something bad happens, or at least they risk exposing their organization to embarrassment if the pictures are used for something negative.

    I think it's important to document our life in pictures for many reasons, and that's why it's important to keep cameras acceptable whereever we go. What can you do about it? Carry a camera, the unobtrusive snapshooting kind, and snap away. Don't dress up like an alien or be in-your-face or antagonistic--that only upsets people and raises valid concerns. But do use your camera: take pictures of your girlfriend picking out a new dress, pictures of your family waving good-bye at the airport, pictures of having lunch at the mall, pictures of furniture that you may want to buy (to show your family), etc.

      • in many jurisdictions, you are not permitted to record your interaction with the police, while the police is permitted to record (and presumably use as they find convenient) their interaction with you.

      I thought we chewed this over and decided that it meant that you can't use as evidence an event that you've recorded without informing the other party that you're doing so. If you tell them you're doing it, it's fine to do so.

      On the other hand, that's still a steaming pile of horse puckey, and I agree with your point that it's flat out wrong. because it only applies to Joe Public. Freddy Fed can do it without any problems at all.

    • I don't know about legal issues, but most stores will try to confiscate your camera or kick you out if they catch you taking pictures.

      I found this out recently when trying to take pictures at the mall on a photo outing... we had to switch to a discreet point-and-click and even then we ended up getting caught twice and followed around by the security guard. Most stores, for whatever reason, really dislike photos being taken, but the mall in particular. I've shot photos in grocery stores and Wal-Mart, which is a bit easier due to the size and being able to duck away from employees... but they'll still ask you to stop if they find you.

      Places where I have been able to take pictures include Barnes & Noble and Starbucks; at B&N they look at you odd or just don't care, and Starbucks, as well as most restaurants/coffee shops, don't seem to mind as long as you refrain from disturbing the other customers. We usually sit at a booth against a wall, that way no "innocents" get stuck in the shots that could come back and complain about being stuck on the internet later.

      We also took photos at a Pier 1 imports, where the employees actually spent more time asking questions about what we were doing, mostly because they were curious. It seems to be much, much easier to take pictures in a "stand-alone" store or a strip centre than the actual mall. There's a big taboo on the mall... not sure why, unless it's just to make you spend $5.00 on those crappy photo booths. But if you do attempt to drag your camera into JC Penny, be prepared to put up a fight with the clerks when they try to take it away. :)

      Sorry for rambling, but it's very seldom a topic I actually know about is posted on here. ;)
      • I found this out recently when trying to take pictures at the mall on a photo outing... we had to switch to a discreet point-and-click and even then we ended up getting caught twice and followed around by the security guard. Most stores, for whatever reason, really dislike photos being taken

        I got kicked out of a mall for filming also. I think the reasoning is that the people who pay for space in the mall would think that it upsets customers to have some guy walking around filming people. Which is their right, and probably true. While you may be filming your girlfriend picking out a dress, I may be filming your girlfriend picking out a dress too. And what do you think of that? It's bad business. They have cameras, but they try to keep them unintrusive. Generally a good balace of "make them visible to potential shoplifters", and "make them invisible to average shopper" seems to be the norm. You wouldn't probably go to a store if they had security guards walking around with camcorders, it would just be weird. I wouldn't anyway.
      • I take a lot of photos each year, and I've never had a problem in malls or restraunts provided I'm with a group of people and they were clearly the subject of the photos.

        One case in fact I was with a group of 12 or so on a dinner outing, and after taking lots of photos of the group, I took quite a few of the "ambience", picking up lots of strangers along the way. Admittedly this is something that has drawn complaints in the past, but with so many people (and the fact we had been ordering multiple rounds) no one said anything. :-)
    • What's the way to hide from view for a terrorist? Disguise as a japanese tourist!!!

      Let's arrest all japanese tourists! It worked well during WWII.

  • The irony ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by purplemonkeydan ( 214160 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2001 @05:05AM (#2351717)
    Anyone else see the irony of a story on a privacy activist on a site that requires mandatory registration?

    • Re:The irony ... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by groomed ( 202061 )
      No, coz there isn't any. Privacy is not anonymity.

      And if it's anonymity you want, get off the Internet. Hide in a crowd, instead. You won't have any privacy tho'.
  • I was really shocked to read that in some stores there might be one-way mirrors in changing rooms with camera's behind them. Is there an easy way to detect these? Are there simple rules-of-thumb that might indicate a one-way mirror instead of a normal one?
    • I do not know how to distinguish one-way-mirrors from normal ones, but you do not have to. Just always take a big piece of clothing with you to the changing room and hang it in front of the mirror.
      There's usually plenty of mirrors outside changing rooms in stores, so theres still a chance to evaluate your new looks w/o being filmed in your underwear.

      --
      Nobody writes jokes in base 13. --DNA
  • fighting for privacy, and wearing a silly hat!
  • As long as we're giving artist chances to exploit the slaughter of 6,000, while others selflessly put themselves at risk in hopes of a miracle, let's think of some other art forms that have yet to be employed:

    Interpretive dance [links.net] - imagine the havoc this would wreak on any form of motion/gps detection/tracking

    Finger Painting [openair.org] - for all you Gulliani haters out there, I'm painting you a message with one of my fingers ... can't hear it ? here ... let me turn it up for you ...

    Origami [baubosworld.com] - oooh but hey, let's go one step further, instead of paper, let's use body parts as described in the linked article

    Opera [tenorissimo.com] - as a recovering wagnerian baritone, it would be easy to enter a subway train, and threaten to continue bellowing until passengers meet my demands.

    Certainly, we've got to be careful not to let our civil liberties become victims of the recent terrorist attacks. However, art forms that attract attention to the performer I think are more a narcissistic mockery of the madness than anything else.

    BTW, yes, I have an undergrad degree in the liberal arts, so there is a sense of ascetics with this nerd ...

    ... so let's have some fun ... can you think of some others ? Let's hear'm

    • Re:while we're at it (Score:3, Informative)

      by Howie ( 4244 )
      I didn't see anything in the article to suggest this thing was knocked up in two weeks. Do you really believe that prior to the 11th, there were no cameras or surveillance, and everything was dandy?

      A quick look at the Austin Museum of Art site confirms that the exhibition was opened July 21st, and actually closed last week. If anything you can complain about the NYT running the story, but not the original exhibit.
    • `Suicide bombing art show`

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/a rt s/newsid_1564000/1564188.stm

  • Um... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by benrd ( 60780 )
    Dr. Mann fights technology with technology, wearing computers on his body and cameras in his glasses so he can "shoot back" by recording everything he sees. The billboards and advertisements posted on every public surface are a form of "attention theft," he says, so he has invented technology that replaces these messages with whatever he would like to see. When he is wearing his "eyetap" glasses, which project an image onto the retina of his eye, a condom ad in a bathroom becomes a picture of a waterfall.

    "If the eye is the window of the soul," he argues, "then that window needs a shade. If the brain is a computer, then the eye is an open port, an unsecured opening against hackers."

    A wireless connection provides a constant Internet link. With his wearable computer, Dr. Mann can see and hear things invisible to his visitor.

    Is it just me, or does this sound a lot like something out of Snow Crash? While reading that article, I kept wondering if "Bruce Schechter" is actually a pseudonym for "Neal Stephenson". I wonder how long it'll be before long-range retinal scanners become the norm.
    • I'm quite surprised that you're the first one to mention this. The first thing I thought of upon reading this article was "Holy crap, this guy's a Gargoyle!".

      Anyone know Stephenson's position on making Snow Crash or Diamond Age into movies? While I'd hate for SC to be made into a bad movie, I would love to see it come to the screen in a good form. Maybe Ridley Scott (think Blade Runner, not Gladiator) could direct it. ILM do the special effects. Only question is casting: who would play Hiro? YT and Raven you could find anywhere, but a half-Nipponese, half-African American actor? I don't know many of those off the top of my head...

      Sure would be dandy, though, if the local Papa John's would employ the Deliverator. Maybe then I'd get my freaking pizza on time.

  • Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Wednesday September 26, 2001 @07:19AM (#2351899) Homepage
    The worst terrorist attacks in recorded history happened only two weeks ago, and you folks are discussing the recent works of privacy activist, wearables pioneer and artist Steve Mann? My *god*, people, GET SOME BLOODY PRIORITIES!!!

    I'm shocked that the deaths of so many innocent people mean so little to you fucking nerds.

    Priorities?

    We are not to be defeated. A proper amount of mourning has been observed. It has been fair and respectful and now proper respect is being paid to the living, to recovery and most importantly to damage control to prevent the situation from becoming worse. Within hours of the 9-11 events, politicians were proposing new law to restrict our freedoms. To turn a blind eye to those who would too far change our way of life for a reason of additional mourning would be an expression of misplaced priorities.

    I do not speak for everyone though I invite the support of those who agree with me. The price of a few lives unwillingly taken does not outweigh the way of life earned by so many who fought and died willingly for the freedoms and the way of life we have taken for granted today. Yet somehow, people feel an acceptable exchange for the lives of the unwillingly taken would be equal to restriction upon our very lives and our very way of life. But I am unaffected directly by the tragedy of 9-11 so I would pose the question directly to any of the families or friends of those who died on that day.

    If those innocent lives could have been spared, would it be worth changing our way of life forever? If you could restrict your privacy, freedom of travel, freedom of speech and freedom of religious practice, would it be a fair exchange to have their lives back?
    It makes me wonder if we no longer value the lives already given in the name of the lifestyle we have been living until recently. So I think it's important to maintain a clear perspective on the events going on in all arenas and no allow yourself to wear the blinders of mourning for too long. The time for mourning is done. The alternative to this is to remain cowed under the fear of attack not only from foreign enemies but from those [lazy asses] who would legislate our freedoms away so that it would make their jobs more 'convenient' to execute; those who would sooner 'control' the world using a television remote control rather than actually WORK for a living. I am all for protecting and securing the safety of all people everywhere. But I am not for doing so by way of restricting our rights and freedoms. I am for doing so by way of increased vigilance and a more agressive stance against those who would attack our freedoms and way of life. (The government should get off it's lazy asses and work on ways to secure our freedoms while at the same time securing our lives and our safety.)

    Priorities indeed. If you don't think your rights and freedoms are worth protecting, then I invite you to voluntarily enslave yourself to me now. I could use a little help cleaning up around here anyway.
    • It's easy to want it all and not do anything about it, isn't it?

      I am all for protecting and securing the safety of all people everywhere. But I am not for doing so by way of restricting our rights and freedoms

      I'm all for living in a fantasy world as well. What you suggest above is not possible. Securing the safety of people requires resticting rights and freedoms. Don't think so? Come up with a solution yourself.

      Take, for instance, the metal detectors in an airport. Do you think they should be removed? This is obviously an invasion of privacy, and possibly illegal search and seizure, is it not?

      How about encypted email? Is this part of the American "way of life"? How did you communicate 10 years ago? Did people encrypt their paper mail? Make up secret languages to talk over the phone? Did we have less freedom 10 years ago than we have today?

      You asked a question of the families above. Let me ask you a question:
      You were told that in 1 month, there was going to be a nuclear attack on the US which would kill 100 million people. The only way to stop it would be to allow the goverment to intercept all phone calls, mail and email. Would you be for allowing the goverment to do that?

      Well? 100 million is only 1/3 of the population, so you would be restricting freedoms for 2/3 of the population. I'm guessing you would let the 100 million people die.
      • As regards your question...

        There is a significant difference between temporarily curtailing freedoms in order to counteract a specific event and restricting them on an ongoing basis, just in case something might happen someday.

        One month of totalitarianism to save millions of people, just like rationing during World War 2, would be unpleasant and distasteful, but justifiable.

        Open-ended laws which expand government power without a well-defined terminating condition which do not address an imminent threat, however, are not acceptable.

        Note that I am not talking about numbers here, although they have a place as well. (Should 300 million people give up their rights for 10 years in order to save 1 life? I would say no.) My point is that heightened airport security for a couple months is tolerable, but it must not be permanent[1]. Long-term restrictions on crypto, which prevent lawful citizens from securely going about their lawful business, are not acceptable unless overbearing evidence is presented to demonstrate that lives would actually be saved, and even then, it would, IMO, be questionable. Laws which would permanently raise petty vandalism (web site defacement) to be a more heinous crime than multiple murder are an atrocity.

        [1] Bush's 'until every terrorist in the world has been dealt with' is the same as permanent. Even if that goal could be attained, we would have no way of knowing that the mission is complete.
  • Why is it you guys don't want to acknowledge the NY Times for the article and abide by THEIR "license" agreement? I mean the license issues (re:GPL) are so important to Linux you spend hours arguing about minutia, but you feel free to skate around the NY Times quite reasonable (and free) requests. How hypocritical is that?
    • Until you learn the difference between a group, Slashdot, and its individual members, you deserve to be ignored and down-moded.

      In case you meant this seriously, let me point out a few differences between the two, that could explain people's differing opinions.

      1) The GPL license lets you use and view content as you wish, unlike the NYT's license.

      2) The GPL is, for many, an intermediate step to getting rid of, or significantly weakening copyright law. As such, the only violations that matter are those of entities that wish to tighten or prolong undue control.

      3) Privacy. The goal isn't to avoid banners at the NYT, it's to avoid the need to register so they know who views which stories, and can build profiling databases. The GPL can be complied with anonymously.

      4) Ownership. The NYT is big-media, they are part of an industry that seeks to control what people think by controlling what they hear. It is important to read what they say, if only to know what disinformation is being sown. The GPL is essentially about lack of ownership and freedom of use.

      5) There's a difference between creative and factual content. Nobody NEEDS creative content, but people require factual content. (Few people are reposting the NYT content, just enabling people to read it.)

      But, above all, remember that Slashdot is not a singular entity. Some members love MS and own much stock, others think BG is the anti-christ and strive to harm his business interests in any way possible. This is NOT a contradiction, different people have different views.
      • Until you learn the difference between a group, Slashdot, and its individual members, you deserve to be ignored and down-moded

        The message was a reply to the story posting, if you didn't notice; intended for the editors who posted the story and run the place and anyone else for whom the shoe fits.

        You wouldn't want someone to get around the GPL on a technicality. If you want GPL'd code you need to abide by the rules. Likewise, if you want NY Times content you ought to abide by THEIR rules. "Big media", your paranoia about being tracked, etc. is irrelevant.

        But, above all, remember that Slashdot is not a singular entity.

        Excuse me, but if our account #'s are any indication I've been around here a lot longer than you have, so piss off. The GPL is all about ethics, but they seem to only matter if it's the GPL that's being violated. Real ethics don't work that way.

        And if you think I give a flying rat's ass about the bullshit that passes for moderation around here then you've got another think coming. Real karma has nothing to do with Slashdot.
        • The message was a reply to the story posting, if you didn't notice; intended for the editors who posted the story and run the place and anyone else for whom the shoe fits.

          There are multiple editors, and they post news items they don't necessarily agree with. It's news for nerds, not propoganda for the proles.

          "Big media", your paranoia about being tracked, etc. is irrelevant.

          Not at all. Those are some of the reasons people see a difference between GPL'd free software and the NYT registration. You're free to think they're identical if you want, but it just shows you can't evaluate things based on the context they're in.

          I'm not even saying all or any of those reasons are valid, just that they are reasons people see a difference.

          Excuse me, but if our account #'s are any indication I've been around here a lot longer than you have, so piss off.

          Testy. I've also posted three times as much as you, so by my standards you're the relative newbie.

          Real ethics don't work that way.

          Real ethics are situational. That's the difference between murder and self-defense. Any morals worth having recognize the situational context and take it into account.

          And if you think I give a flying rat's ass about the bullshit that passes for moderation around here then you've got another think coming.

          The main use of moderation on Slashdot is to hide spam, crap flooding, or clueless/offtopic comments. I couldn't care less what your karma is, I merely advocate moderating down people who don't seem to understand the difference between individuals and a group. Even moreso, it's redundant. Every time there's a GPL or MS related post (very often) one or two people post something like you did, asking how Slashdot as a singular entity, can hold two conflicting views. Even if you had anything insightful to say, it's already been said.

  • One of my co-op students last year went to work for Steve Mann [existech.com]. He said it was a very strange experience - Mann had him come in to work at 11 pm, say, and work until 7 the next morning. Then two days later he would change it to 9-5.

    Mann sometimes puts on ALL his gear and wanders around downtown Toronto. I saw him once, and talked to him for a bit. Also a very strange experience - he was acting as though nothing was unusual about what he was doing.
  • another artist who has been doing the same sort of things probably for a much longer time & that might be worth sneaking a peek at is Stelarc [va.com.au]. There is also an interview with him at ctheory [ctheory.net] in the archives.
  • It's an age-old scenario--when you don't have the abilities to produce something truly artistic--take an artistic medium and add some socio-political twist to it and THEN say it's art. Looks to be Photoshop 10, pre-requisite for Photoshop 101.
  • Its a quaint protest effort raised by some amusing cranks, but it has to be said, once again, that you have no real privacy left to protect.

    Your credit history, purchasing habits, biographical information, tv viewing habits, web surfing habits and almost anything else you would care to keep to yourself can be revealed to people who do not know you with very little real effort. For most people reading slashdot, most societal notions of privacy were erased before they were born.

    Use a credit card? Use your SSN as an id? Have a driver's license? If you answered yes to two out of three, then you can pretty much forget about personal privacy because you started building your own consumer database long ago.

  • Has anyone actually seen any negative effects of registering for NYT access? I broke down and registered last week after hearing they had some unique articles on the WTC attack and haven't seen any fallout from it yet. My experience is shared by some others who have registered.

    Of course, I used one of my spam-target email accounts for the registration. Better safe than sorry.
  • I worked in this guy's lab for a year.

    Most of the stuff that you are reading about is embellished beyond belief...

    His "reality mediator" stuff is just motion tracking (and makes some pretty rigid assumption such as no parallax), all the sequences you see are post processed video (doesn't work in real time)...

Slashdot Top Deals

Talent does what it can. Genius does what it must. You do what you get paid to do.

Close