Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Tech gets under your skin


I think I am just about ready to go become a screaming, rock throwing, tree hugging Luddite now. That, or a true reformer starting a techno-commune.

See, if the FDA approves this technology use, that means, like most other things the us gov't puts it's stamp on, that it is well in use elsewhere. To the best of my knowledge, the FDA has never pioneered anything new - they are, however, really good at squelching things under huge requirements and beurocracratic processes. FDA stads for Funneling Dollars Away.

Here is my thing: I love this kind of technology, and the "miracles" applying it properly could create. This only becomes a reality at the sharp loss of privacy. Personally, I am willing to forgo my personal "privacy" and make every detail of my life a matter of public record, providing that everyone has equal access to all the data.

Fuck reality TV - lets make reality life.

Jack everyone with rfid, chips that record their whereabouts, sattelite cross feeds, thermographic transponders - when the tech is available, store live video feed 24x7. Instead of all this information going into covert hands, put it in public libraries. Anyone can look up anything about anyone anytime. The data your transponder records can and will be used against you in a court of law, if you get nailed for something.

I got into this tangle a little bit over the weekend. This is something I really believe in, wholeheartedly. Right now, the tech exists to strip all the privacy from a person, but only certain people have those keys. Put all those keys into everyone's hands, and, in a generation or two, the changes will be so widespread, people will wonder how we ever lived in the before times.

Think of it as the jump from outhouses to waterclosets. Same amount of shit, many more social ramifications.

No more secrets. No more lies. No more blackmail.

The forced ethical evolution implementing something like this would create: unavoidable.

Oh yeah, and, of course, the fascist element - everyone is in, and if you fuck with the tech, you go to jail as if you were tampering with evidence on a federal case we kill you.


( 22 comments — Leave a comment )
Oct. 14th, 2004 01:16 pm (UTC)
But then what about identity theft? People would have access to everyone else's social security #, ATM PIN #, etc. They would know where your hide-a-key was and could break into your house just by doing research on you at the library. No one would ever feel comfortable going to the bathroom or showering again, let alone having sex, because we're all being "watched."

Forget Pam Anderson porn...I could watch my best friend have sex with her boyfriend. Privacy would be obliterated. I would personally rather be an honest person WITHOUT someone watching me everywhere I went.
Oct. 14th, 2004 01:19 pm (UTC)

There a gajillion-billion-million people out there, why would anyone want to watch you have sex?
Oct. 14th, 2004 01:21 pm (UTC)
most people would be watching the same 17 people they always fantasize about.

i think the fear is that they _could_, but msot people don't realize how much thier life is already under tabs already...
Oct. 14th, 2004 01:25 pm (UTC)
Re: exactomundo

If someone wants to watch me make my back pimples shimmy, that's their problem.

Oct. 14th, 2004 04:19 pm (UTC)
Re: exactomundo
how much are we under tabs? I'm not being sarcastic. Is there shit beyond the standard credit card/atm/metrocard/cellphone/email/IM/Text message/LJ spying that I already assume is in progress?
Oct. 15th, 2004 11:56 am (UTC)
i'm not even talking electronic tabs
though there is plenty of that - if it is touching the itnernet, i assume it is being read.

i'm talking traditional surveliance - cameras, like hte fact taht more than 1000 clusters have been installed across manhattan ALONE since 9/11. They aren't all for traffic monitoring despite what NYC.GOV says about it.

Records of your travel, your income, how that relates to your bank account floats, and back to where you live (which is why you have to now have state id on file with your bank when you open an acocunt).

I doubt rfid is in widespread use yet the way they say it could be, mostly because of the impracticality of it in it's current stage, but i garuntee that will be out there for years before we do know about it.

Oct. 14th, 2004 01:24 pm (UTC)
The point is...they could. If I wanted to embarrass a friend, I could just DL their "file" and be like "OMFG look at his technique! HAHA! What a loser!"

It's not a matter of "who would want to" rather it's a matter of "who could if they chose to."
Oct. 14th, 2004 01:26 pm (UTC)

And they could just return the favor.

The first couple of months would probably be like an internet forum full of 13-year-olds but I imagine it would settle down eventually.
Oct. 14th, 2004 01:31 pm (UTC)
Somehow I feel like there would still be those people out there who continued to act like voyeurs. I have to admit, if everyone's sex life was available to watch, there would be some people I'd love to download. It's gross and pervy, but I would never peep through their bedroom windows or tape them in secret. But if it was right there...it would just complicate things. There would have to be certain laws that protected those files from being viewed or it would never work. This country was founded by prudes and puritans. Sure we're getting less inhibited, but if we can't even have topless beaches without causing an uproar, how on earth can we sanction this kind of stuff?
Oct. 14th, 2004 01:35 pm (UTC)
not everyone even goes to the beach, much less a nude one. noone needs "protection" from sexual content, unless it involves hurting another person. what sanctioning something like this would create is an enviornment in which people would _have_ to change.

also, you mentioned downloading - i never mentioned the ability to copy this data for personal use - anyone can view, but you can't d/l a copy for "private viewing" - would you jerk off in a library? i'm sure there are people who would - but the primary purpose here is to make information available no matter the cost.

people who are voyers - they can pimp thier streams, maybe make money off it - who knows, i'm sure the gov't would appreciate the tax income.
Oct. 14th, 2004 01:37 pm (UTC)
Re: because
Well private viewings aside here...what I'm talking about is a person's right to privacy and that is something that should be allowed to be taken away, no matter what anyone thinks is being hidden from them.
Oct. 14th, 2004 01:41 pm (UTC)
i understand your concerns
but what i am saying is this:
if (reality) people are constantly abusing a "right to privacy" would it not be better to have everyone have equal access, rather than elite groups who can afford it/use it against you/for thier own aims?

la-de-da "it is illegal" or "they shouldn't be doing that" doesn't apply here - this is real - have you counted the cameras they pout up since 9/11 - you are on the boob toob every time you gou outside.
Oct. 14th, 2004 01:54 pm (UTC)
Re: i understand your concerns
I don't mind being on tv every time I leave a house. Surveillance is one thing...watching people every step of the way is a different matter altogether. Sure there are people who are going to abuse the right to privacy, but that doesn't mean everyone should suffer because some people can't be trusted. There are many rights that we have that can and will be abused, but you can't fix every problem by taking away more and more rights. You just have to deal with it as it happens and try to make this world a safer place without turning all but the ruling government into slaves.
Oct. 14th, 2004 01:20 pm (UTC)
lets play your scanarios:
someone steals your pin, hide a key, etc - you notice when you get robbed, or get money taken out of your account - the bank would know where and when this happened, and would have a record of everyone who walked through the door at the time it took place - you review 5 minutes of footage time 200 people, and your crook is nailed dead to rights.

as to the sex thing: right now, there are all kinds of uber perfvs who spy on people all the time - not to mention illigal or (legal) survalience.

noone would be forcing anyone to watch anything illicit, the prudes can still sit at home and watch PAX or PBS - how does it change the effect to know someone could be watching, when, in reality, for the last 210 years at _least_ someone could always be watching?

honesty, as a concept has taken such a beating because it is an issue of trust - people can always lie, but you can't always disprove it. you create a system where you can prove everything, why would anyone lie? honesty becomes more of a requirement than a percieved social construct.
Oct. 14th, 2004 01:28 pm (UTC)
Re: heh
Sure, I'll give you the fact that it is possible to be watching someone no matter where you are. Hidden surveilance could be placed anywhere. But it isn't legal and government-sanctioned so you don't expect that it is happening, and as far as most people are concerned, they're basic human right to privacy isn't being taken away from them. But if what you're talking about happens, nobody would feel safe, nobody would have privacy, and we would all know it. I would personally rather go about my business, not assuming that someone is watching me. If someone wants to tape me taking a crap or jerking off, they can go ahead, as long as I don't have to know about it. But I don't want to know that everything I ever do is available for public viewing or downloading. Not because I'm dishonest, but because some things are just private and nobody has the right to invade that personal zone.
Oct. 14th, 2004 01:39 pm (UTC)
you mentin a human right to privacy
that is not a law of nature, it is a concept which ahs been fostered by a legal code.

i agree that life may be more compfrotable assuming that noone is watching - the reality is, they are, all the time.

however, if EVERYONE is on the same page, how could you not feel safe? people commit petty theft assuming noone would ever see it - rapes happen in dark allies because, honestly, noone can see it. this stupid tv show that has made forenzics a reality in people's minds is less than half the game.

if everyone could see anything anytime from anyone's point of views, only the seriously disturbed are going to fuck shit up, because everyone knows they might get caught - so you don't do it. in a generation or two, "doing the right thing" means "doing the right hting" not "escape getting gcaught doing the wrong thing" which is, in a charitable light, the MO right now.
Oct. 14th, 2004 01:49 pm (UTC)
Re: you mentin a human right to privacy
the problem is, you wouldn't just see either people doing the right thing or people doing the wrong thing. You would see people masturbating with cucumbers and picking their nose. You would see people crying themselves to sleep because their boyfriends broke up with them. Those are things that aren't necessarily wrong, but they are private. They're not just private because it's the law to not invade that privacy. They are private because they are things that people personally don't want other people seeing them do. The concept of doing things behind closed doors is in place for a reason. Not everybody wants their entire lives available for public viewing, and there are things that not everybody wants to view. It's not just there because we're prudes...it's there because some things are just better left to the imagination.
Oct. 14th, 2004 01:54 pm (UTC)
probably true - but, it is not like all these little moments you are talking about are going to be on broadcast tv - are there people out there who are going to fixate on every moment of a person's life? posibly - but i think that privacy, as a construct, is a fairly recent wing of the human building, and one which should be torn down, depsite all the mice and roaches that might be killed and displaced in the process.

the concept of doing things behind closed doors is rooted in fear - i'm saying put it all onthe table, and force people to deal with reality all the time.
Oct. 14th, 2004 02:06 pm (UTC)
Re: yep
The problem with that idea is that people are fearful for a reason. The girl who is masturbating with her cucumber is not afraid of people knowing she masturbates with a cucumber...she is worried that this behavior will affect her day to day relationships. How will her parents feel about this act? How will her boss? Will it affect her job at the vegetable stand? These aren't unreasonable fears. Gay people would never have a closet to hide behind, and they are still persecuted for being gay, whether people want to believe that it is happening or not. Sure I'm out and proud, but what happens if the guy next door loses his job because his boss did a background check on him and found a vid of him banging his boyfriend?

My point is that there is a reason for privacy, and it isn't to hide things that we are doing wrong but because we are individuals and the whole world should not be involved in each individual's life, at least not as deep as we're talking. It may not be broadcasted on the evening news, but I don't want the entire world even having the option of being with me while I take my shower, or when I'm singing at the top of my lungs. Privacy is a part of who were are as humans. It's not a new concept. We wear clothes for that purpose, otherwise Florida and Hawaii would be nudist states because it is so damn hot out. We have window shades and LJ filters and separate mens and womens bathrooms for the sole reason that privacy is a part of who we are as a species. It's not a cultural thing. Sure there are certain cultures that are freer with the body or with the public urination, but they still go home and shut their shades at night. Or close the door when their screwing their wife. And there is no argument in the world that is going to make me agree that this is something we should just get rid of, for the sake of humanity, because I think there are some things that deserve to be hidden and should I choose to hide something from the public, that is my prerogative, unless someone else can prove that I am breaking the law.
Oct. 14th, 2004 06:13 pm (UTC)
Setec Astronomy
Oct. 14th, 2004 08:43 pm (UTC)
tahiti is not in europe
i want peace on eart, good will towards men
we are the US gov't! we don't do that sort of thing!
Oct. 14th, 2004 08:58 pm (UTC)
Re: tahiti is not in europe
Hey, when you get the box, then you can give geography lessons. Until then this man goes to Tahiti.
( 22 comments — Leave a comment )


Steam Escaping!
The Son of the last of a long line of thinkers.

Latest Month

February 2017


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow