Privacy and Ubiquitous Computing 13
An anonymous reader writes "Wired News has a report on the concerns privacy advocates have about ubiquitous computing, which will use Linux and other platforms and tiny wireless devices to watch us all at every time."
Open or closed? (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't need more enablers (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, these would be tools that would let us put less and less reliance on our own observational abilities.
We should be watching the stove and paying attention to it. We should be keeping track of what our kids are doing (Sure, you can't watch your kids all the time, but one cookie snatch from the jar isn't really a problem; the problem would be endemic overeating or a disposition towards stealing or taking from others, and you *should* be able to watch for those). Also, a cookie jar monitor says that you don't trust your kids and that you can't be bothered to care whether they're trustworth or not.
The more tools and aids we use, the less we exercise those parts of our minds, bodies, and characters. We use cars and our whole country is getting fat because we never exercise anymore. Automatic spell checkers are turning people into bad spellers (sorry, no facts to back that up, just a hunch). And the Internet has made -- well, me, at the very least -- very lazy about looking up information. If I can't google it, generally I feel like it isn't worth my time. And if I can, generally googling is as far as I go. I don't bother to go to the library to look up journals or books on the topic.
Privacy concerns aside, it's time to start asking ourselves whether we want to live in a society where machines are no longer just useful tools, but are taking over our roles as mindful individuals.
Developing Commercial Prospects (Score:1)
How would you govern that though? The commercial aspect of the technology will certainly be a driving factor, I'd think. Any chance to their product in your face, they'll jump on. But think about walking into a Best
Well, of course (Score:4, Insightful)
And it's easy. This is the kind of thing that computers are really good at; collecting vast quantities of mindless data and doing statistical analyses. Someone notices that a peak in rush-hour train times correlates with a peak slightly later in McDonald's sales near stations --- hey, there's an opportunity there! Open fast-food franchises in the stations and make a mint.
And, of course, with enough information you can identify individuals. You don't care who they are --- all you care about is what they're likely to spend money on. A surveillance system notices that customer #282712 is passing your restaurant --- your database notices that it's near suppertime, he eats out frequently and he's particularly fond of spaghetti bolognase. Quick! Change that sign --- yes, that one there, in his line of sight --- there's a special on!
But here's the kicker: this is unavoidable. It's unavoidable because it's profitable, and in a capitalist society, profit is king. Database aggregation and automated identification systems gives you targeted advertising like never before, and unlike most advertising, it's something the customers actually want, because you're advertising something they're interested in. It's the holy grail of marketing. You can legislate against this sort of thing if you like, but advertisers have big money, and money makes the laws.
But let's say by some miracle you do manage to pass a law prohibiting, say, automated face recognition. Do you really this is going to make a difference? If my local takeaway can buy a system that sits on the counter and reliably recognises customers, so that they knew what I was likely to want whenever I walked in, don't you think they'd be tempted? It gives me better service, which makes me more likely to spend money there. Or a night club; put the camera somewhere near the entrance so it alerts the bouncers whenever known troublemakers come near. How do you know they're troublemakers? All the nightclubs in the district pass round lists. Illegally, of course, but they'll do it.
All this is inevitable. We are all going to be watched; information is going to be collected about is; that information is going to be aggregated. The only question is, when, and who gets access first. Legislate against it and you're just going to drive it underground. When you can build mechanical flies that can send HDTV images back to a base station, they're going to be used, legally or otherwise. They'll be used from everything from watching football matches, to getting a bank's safe combination, to busting organised crime rings, to spying on your local politician to see what deals he's making, to watching the girl next door showering, to checking up on your husband, to child-minding...
Privacy is dying. It's not dead yet, but it's dying. Currently we can expect to be watched whenever we go out in public. Within ten to twenty years, I expect most people in cities will assume that they can be watched at any time. This is going to change things.
For better or for worse, I don't know. On the plus side, there's accountability. If the police are watched, all the time, then they'll be forced to be honest. On the minus side, there are no secrets. Let's say you start going out with someone the same sex you are, but don't want your family to know --- well, they will know. If they look.
This side of things has been better explored by people other than myself. Try David Brin's The Transparent Society [wired.com], or Arthur C Clarke's The Light of Other Days [sfsite.com]. I don't know whether I'd like to live there; for someone who grew up in normal Western society, I think it would
Re:Well, of course (Score:2)
Yes, kind of.
The argument that it's something the customer wants or is likely to be interested in has been used to justify rather intrusive incursions into their realm of perception.
Consequently, we see advertising aimed at lower levels of our conscious wants and needs. We'll feel anxious that we won't be a desirable mate until the precise moment that we're engaged in the act of purchasing a produc
Inevitable, in what way. (Score:2)
Unbiquitous computing like any other techynology can be employed in a myriad of ways. You seem to be arguing that the profit motive will force this technology to be used in the worst possible way and that there isn't anything that can be done about it. I disagree.
I think that a rational and aware populace can restruct how this technology i
Re:Inevitable, in what way. (Score:2)
TIA was shut down, but others remain up and are multiplying. In fact, the government claims that TIA was never meant to track 'normal people', that's what NIMD and MATRIX are for.
These systems include CAPPS II, Bio-ALIRT, the Novel Intelligence from Massive Data (NIMD) and the Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange (Matrix) [these are the two products that are what TIAs worst case was), Rapid Analytic Wargamin
I want control. (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't care about some info. spread about me. I don't want my place of employment to know which tv programs that I like, or my political views.
Classic Slashdot answer (Score:1, Troll)
I want to profit from my own data (Score:2)
This idea would not stifle the valuble use of information in the economy or p
Re:I want to profit from my own data (Score:2)
You'd like to think that, but you would be wrong. Why do people so misunderstand copyright laws? In the US, and most other nations as well:
1. Companies are not directly copying your original works, therefore it itsn't a copy, therefore you have no copy rights.
2. Works consisting entirely of in