Privacy In the Age of Persistence

Bruce Schneier recently wrote another essay on privacy for the BBC concentrating on how data seems to be the "pollution of the information age" and where this seems to be leading. "We're not going to stop the march of technology, just as we cannot un-invent the automobile or the coal furnace. We spent the industrial age relying on fossil fuels that polluted our air and transformed our climate. Now we are working to address the consequences. (While still using said fossil fuels, of course.) This time around, maybe we can be a little more proactive. Just as we look back at the beginning of the previous century and shake our heads at how people could ignore the pollution they caused, future generations will look back at us — living in the early decades of the information age — and judge our solutions to the proliferation of data."

Comments

Well

[alexborges]

First of all: Schneier is not "like" chuck norris. He IS chuck norris.

Having said that, I think that someone "up there" needs to start listening to this guy: we are on the verge of big brother and we happily go online and pay for some old gizmo on ebay.

Tomorrow, ebay will give us automatic sign-on with our webcam. We will tout it as "great" and think nothing of them having our pic along all the data of what we buy or not, our credit record will go to banks, which will then be able to cross-refference it all and then serve it to the government because "we are in danger" (we are always in enough danger to be fucked in our rights for some reason or another).

We deserve what we get.

We need concience.

Re:Well

[jakykong]

A) Since when? B) The information has to be stored somewhere. In 1984, the problem with this statement is that once the powers that be completely irradicate evidence that the current "facts" were ever different, you can simply say you're remembering things wrong. When the majority (for whatever reason) agree with this statement, then you're just a crazy. C) Sure. Harder, but not impossible. Well, maybe it's impossible right now -- but what if net neutrality is broken? I mean, clearly, right now we would have too much outcry. But if we had a sufficient reason that a majority of people were willing to go along with, I could see network neutrality being thought of as an okay sacrifice. Remember: 1984 is dystopian. It describes what could be, not what is. And, also, the GP said we're on "the verge" of big brother -- not that he's here now! D) Huh? In 1984, the telescreens could see you and hear you, as well as preach at you day in and day out (that's "pointing both ways", isn't it?). Either you said something you didn't mean, or I misunderstood you, but this statement makes no sense. E) The technology was available to everybody before the party took over in 1984, too. Clearly, I mean, because the party wasn't always in control -- what about before the revolution? And since scientific inquiry has all but stopped in 1984, I doubt the party could have invented the telescreens! F) .... yet. Also, as far as a conscience goes, individually, we do. Some people (I would like to count myself, here, for the record) have consumer consciences as well (open source folks seem to be more likely than most people in this regard, in my experience). But collectively -- as a society, as a nation -- we don't seem to have much conscience. I believe this is what the GP was trying to get at.