Posted by
blizzard
on from the big-brother-is-watching-you dept.
According to an
article in Wired, cable companies
are starting to deliver set top boxes that track what you view on
television. These boxes are already being rolled out in
suburban detroit. Treasure your privacy while you still have it, folks.
imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2
You can read "1984" online (!) at: http://www.alkar.net/moshkow/html-KOI/ORWELL/r19 84ch1.txt
1984 is a closer reality than most think, but it was not accomplished using violence as a mechanism. Rather, control over your mind (and thus your body) is acquired through satiation - the saturation of your senses with meaningless pleasures - fast-food, the commercialisation of sex, oily popcorn at sci-fi flicks, bombarding you with lights, sounds, and colors. In some ways, it is the antithesis of 1984.....but with equivalence results.
Fear fascism, fear tyranny, thanks for listening.
Eron
It won't take long to fix this, so...
by
Cid+Highwind
·
· Score: 2
They have the only power they need... *yoink* That was the sound of your cable being disconnected. Don't you wish that this so-called deregulation actually meant there was another cable company in town, insted of just making you pay higher rates to the only game in town....
-- 0 1 - just my two bits
It won't take long to fix this, so...
by
Crawl
·
· Score: 2
I know it won't take long for someone to figure out how to disable this tracking capability, so, question: When this happens, will it be illegal for us to do so?
Granted, if we are renting the set-tops then obviously, it will be. But if we buy them, and it's our box, we should be allowed to modify them in whatever manner we wish (as long as it's not to get those pay channels, since that is illegal). Would cable companies be allowed to tell us that we have to rent the boxes from them, or buy only boxes that are "approved" by them? And if so, could they also specify that we are not allowed to modify the boxes? If we do, could they detect that and cancel our service?
So, I guess my ultimate question is: How much power do the cable companies have over our freedom to use the set-top box of our choice?
--
"I'd like to live in theory, because everything works in theory, in theory." - Can't remember who said this.
This is not motivated by the desire for an invasion of privacy by the cable people. They want to generate a demorgaphic of their subscribers - to tailor their service and make more money. That much is obvious.
What concerns me is that programming will be tailored to the tastes of the majority. I believe that my viewing habits are in the minority. I tend to watch Nova and PBS, Discovery, etc... While most people prefer 90210, Friends and Baywatch.
It concerns me that, if most viewers in my area, would rather view a sitcom than a science show, my sci channel may get bumped from the line-up entirely - or be 'blacked out' during prime-time hours, for the benefit of the masses that prefer QVC to PBS.
This is akin to the Stop&Shop 'coupon' card, that gives the customer the 'privilege' of buying items at a 'reduced' cost. A cost that is on par with the other supermarket's regular price.
--
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Get rid of the TV. It just wastes your time and mental ability anyway. You can get the News off the Web, and waste just as much time on a computer, but at least you have to think a little more than staring at a blinking screen.
And yes, I have gotten rid of mine (Mostly for my children's sake though)
The argument for why this is bad, as seen by the claims that this is just like 1984, is an incarnation of the slippery-slope argument: once your privacy is violated in this manner, who will draw a line stopping further violations, where will the line be drawn, and how will it be drawable?
Are slippery slope arguments valid? This is essentially the same argument that was used to justify the Vietnam War; it's like we're replaying that old nursery rhyme about how, for want of a nail, the kingdom was lost. And yet...
We live in a world, now, where video cameras watch the public squares in many major cities (so the police can cut down on crime). Where parents log into the web to watch their children's day care center. Where televisions record their owner's viewing habits.
It doesn't appear that anyone _is_ drawing a line, and so the slippery slope argument is getting stronger... because we're slipping down it. Each invasion of privacy is perfectly rationally justified, and even supported by many people; and yet, when you take them as a whole, it becomes something sinister and dark --- we are running the risk of turning into a modern-day Venice, where the authorities are watching us at every turn. And we're helping it along --- we allow our televisions to record our viewing habits, and then someday those records will get subpeanoad. (sp?) [Hey! look at him! he used to watch the playboy channel, the allegations that he's a child molester must be true!]
David Brin suggests in his book that the solution is to throw the floodgates open, and allow _anyone_ to violate your privacy, rather than just the authorities. I'm not sure I buy that... it scares me... but something has to be done, and soon.
Slashdot Mirror
You can read "1984" online (!) at:9 84ch1.txt
http://www.alkar.net/moshkow/html-KOI/ORWELL/r1
1984 is a closer reality than most think, but it was not accomplished using violence as a mechanism. Rather, control
over your mind (and thus your body) is acquired through satiation - the saturation of your senses with meaningless pleasures - fast-food, the commercialisation of sex, oily popcorn at sci-fi flicks, bombarding you with lights, sounds, and colors. In some ways, it is the antithesis of 1984.....but with equivalence results.
Fear fascism, fear tyranny, thanks for listening.
Eron
They have the only power they need...
*yoink*
That was the sound of your cable being disconnected. Don't you wish that this so-called deregulation actually meant there was another cable company in town, insted of just making you pay higher rates to the only game in town....
0 1 - just my two bits
I know it won't take long for someone to figure out how to disable this tracking capability, so, question: When this happens, will it be illegal for us to do so?
Granted, if we are renting the set-tops then obviously, it will be. But if we buy them, and it's our box, we should be allowed to modify them in whatever manner we wish (as long as it's not to get those pay channels, since that is illegal). Would cable companies be allowed to tell us that we have to rent the boxes from them, or buy only boxes that are "approved" by them? And if so, could they also specify that we are not allowed to modify the boxes? If we do, could they detect that and cancel our service?
So, I guess my ultimate question is: How much power do the cable companies have over our freedom to use the set-top box of our choice?
"I'd like to live in theory, because everything works in theory, in theory." - Can't remember who said this.
This is not motivated by the desire for an invasion of privacy by the cable people. They want to generate a demorgaphic of their subscribers - to tailor their service and make more money. That much is obvious.
What concerns me is that programming will be tailored to the tastes of the majority. I believe that my viewing habits are in the minority. I tend to watch Nova and PBS, Discovery, etc... While most people prefer 90210, Friends and Baywatch.
It concerns me that, if most viewers in my area, would rather view a sitcom than a science show, my sci channel may get bumped from the line-up entirely - or be 'blacked out' during prime-time hours, for the benefit of the masses that prefer QVC to PBS.
This is akin to the Stop&Shop 'coupon' card, that gives the customer the 'privilege' of buying items at a 'reduced' cost. A cost that is on par with the other supermarket's regular price.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Get rid of the TV. It just wastes your time and mental ability anyway. You can get the News off the Web, and waste just as much time on a computer, but at least you have to think a little more than staring at a blinking screen.
And yes, I have gotten rid of mine (Mostly for my children's sake though)
-- Keith Moore
This sig is the express property of someone.
The argument for why this is bad, as seen by the claims that this is just like 1984, is an incarnation of the slippery-slope argument: once your privacy is violated in this manner, who will draw a line stopping further violations, where will the line be drawn, and how will it be drawable?
...
... because we're slipping down it. Each invasion of privacy is perfectly rationally justified, and even supported by many people; and yet, when you take them as a whole, it becomes something sinister and dark --- we are running the risk of turning into a modern-day Venice, where the authorities are watching us at every turn. And we're helping it along --- we allow our televisions to record our viewing habits, and then someday those records will get subpeanoad. (sp?) [Hey! look at him! he used to watch the playboy channel, the allegations that he's a child molester must be true!]
... it scares me ... but something has to be done, and soon.
Are slippery slope arguments valid? This is essentially the same argument that was used to justify the Vietnam War; it's like we're replaying that old nursery rhyme about how, for want of a nail, the kingdom was lost. And yet
We live in a world, now, where video cameras watch the public squares in many major cities (so the police can cut down on crime). Where parents log into the web to watch their children's day care center. Where televisions record their owner's viewing habits.
It doesn't appear that anyone _is_ drawing a line, and so the slippery slope argument is getting stronger
David Brin suggests in his book that the solution is to throw the floodgates open, and allow _anyone_ to violate your privacy, rather than just the authorities. I'm not sure I buy that