Slashdot Mirror
Privacy and Ubiquitous Computing
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."
I don't have any problem with this, as long as it's open. When I - and everyone else - can read John Ashcroft's email and listen to his phone calls and see who enters/leaves his house and track him as he drives around town and see his credit card statements, THEN - and only then - he's welcome to do the same to me.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
One of the things that these devices could do, according to the article, is to watch pots left on the stove or to keep kids out of the cookie jar.
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.
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
Hmm. The article's first bit about chinese restaurants sending out coupons to mobile devices, etc. is kind of interesting. I can imagine a bunch of people actually using it. I can imagine more people getting annoyed with it and launching some version of a Do Not Call list for the adverts.
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 Buy or Staples and receiving a text message about the newest sales. Would you find that useful or irritating?
Definitely something worth watching in any case.
Please, do not read this sig
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, or Arthur C Clarke's The Light of Other Days. I don't know whether I'd like to live there; for someone who grew up in normal Western society, I think it would
I want to control my data. I would like to limit the amount of info. about me that is floating around. I want to specify what info. that I want made "public", "private, or "limited to social club." Have you ever filled out any online purity test? Would you want those answers floating around?
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.
It uses Linux, therefore it must be good. QED.
On the plus side, there's accountability. If the police are watched, all the time, then they'll be forced to be honest.
I would like to agree with you on this. I used to believe that myself. And then I saw that it doesn't work that way when the police simply don't give a damn what the public thinks.
A pervert wearing a badge used a public traffic camera to watch young girls as they walked down the sidewalk. This camera feed was available to the public and everyone in town watching saw what he was doing.
And his superiors won't do shit about it.
They won't discipline him. They won't identify him. They won't even name him. So he abuses his authority and the advanced, privacy-invasive technology in front of the public, and nothing happens.
Read all about it
As a creator (co-creator at least) of all the data about me, I'd like to think that I own (or co-own) the copyright on it. If so, I would like to share in the profits made by those that sell and market this data. If a credit bureau wants to sell my data to a credit card company so they can decide to stuff my mailbox with exciting "new low APR rate" offers, fine. But they should pay me a little for selling a copy of _MY_ data.
This idea would not stifle the valuble use of information in the economy or put all telemarketers out of business, only ensure that the consumer individuals who the ultimate source of the data can share in the profits. People could decide how much their data is worth - some might ask for a few pennies per copy of their "private" data, other might ask for a few dollars. An extra charge on copying or sharing consumer's data would reduce frivolous use of data. For example, if I charge just a few pennies a copy for my e-mail address, then spammers would become much more selective in sending me offers.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
While I agree with you that the profit motive will encourage if not mandate the development of thee technologies I dispute your claim that all of this is "inevitable."
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 is used in some ways to avoid fitting into the dystopic fears that many of us have. Unfortunately, doing so requires effort and many poeple don't want to expend any.
Several years ago poeple said that CCTV systems in public places and face-scanning technologies were "inevitable." Yet some cities including San Diego have turned it down and, contrary to predictions., other cities are not snapping it up like crazy. At the same time CCTV adoption has been mixed even being rejected in some cities like Oakland California. Even the herald of Big-Brother, the Total Information Awareness Project was shot down.
So no, I don;'t think that our darkest fears will inevitably be realized or that we are powerless to do anything. I think that it is really up to us to decide and, given sufficient efforts, Big Brother can still be avoided.