Well, government has had the ability to automatically look at health records and credit card transactions and debit card transactions and landline phone logs and your workplace swipe card records for how long now? For at least 15 years.
But at a deeper level it is simply stupid. Any loophole in transparency ‘to protect the meek’ can far better be exploited by the mighty than by the meek. Their shills, lawyers and factotums will (1) ensure that ‘privacy protections’ have big options for the mighty and (2) that those options will be maximally exploited. Moreover (3) as I show in The Transparent Society, encryption-based ‘privacy’ is the weakest version of all. The meek can never verify that their bought algorithm and service is working as promised, or isn’t a bought-out front for the NSA or a criminal gang.
Above all, protecting the weak or meek with shadows and cutouts and privacy laws is like setting up Potemkin villages, designed to create surface illusions. Anyone who believes they can blind society’s elites — of government, commerce, wealth, criminality and tech-geekery — is a fool…
"We don't need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you've been. We can more or less know what you're thinking about... We can look at bad behavior and modify it."
Did the brother give up cellphones and the internet too? I doubt it. Opting out of the surveillance society takes considerable sacrifice these days. Not bothering with Facebook is lip-service.
Someone with access to the centralized system can look you up and just press "rewind" and see where you were and what you were doing and hear what you were saying in every moment of your life.
There isn't some huge eye looking over everything you do online or with your phone.
Surveillance expands the reach of the enforcer class and thus of the elites. Every camera, drone and so on reduces the number of eyes needed on the ground. The Stasi had millions of informers; surveillance reduces that requirement and the cost of the enforcer class.
Lawsuits and jail time are a powerful incentive, and are what stopped the stuff in my first paragraph from happening,*
“Stop the Cyborgs” launches public campaign against Google Glass
“In generation two, when you've got better battery life and apps that do better face recognition—maybe we're crying wolf a little early to a certain extent—but [what happens when] you get to competing products?” Adam said. “The idea that you'll have recognition of objects and infrared tags so it will always know what you're looking at—that kind of thing, it will be gathering information. It's more the face recognition stuff that changes society. You're never going to see a stranger as a stranger again.”
"Google Glass simply lowers the transaction costs of taking photos and videos and learning about your surroundings," the law professor said. "If Glass has a high adoption rate, it will significantly increase the likelihood of information that was assumed to be obscure or ethereal being discovered, recorded, and subject to publication. The law has yet to figure out how to unravel the fact that there are many situations where individuals expect privacy in public. So perhaps the best approach to this, at least initially, is a vocal, context-based opposition."
« Older Givens occasionally wonders why his unique fitness... | A short video of a diver shaki... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt