Absolutely right. Precedent for this already exists - our local utilities only own the pipe or the wire up to the meter. A few months ago, we had a water leak in the main line coming to the house. Our utility informed us that since the leak was after the meter, it was our responsibility (and $$$) to fix.
I agree that privacy issues are part of this debate, but I think that some people are missing large holes in the consumer privacy/user-data tracking angle.
1) Women. 2) The paradigm of one-user-one-product, that is so pervasive in the tech world, does not necessarily apply to clothing in particular.
Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that RFID is commonplace and clothing outlets do not deactivate them upon leaving the store. Also let us assume that there are scanners that cover every possible place that humans might venture. I volunteer to place a scanner on top of Everest! But I digressâ¦
In that world, it is the usage habits of clothing by women specifically, and people in general, that would make user-data tracking of those clothes pointless. Why? Women share clothes all the time. I don't think that my girlfriend's closet has any of her own clothes in it anymore. Sometimes I even wear some of her clothes (draw whatever conclusion you will from THAT;p )
So, what happens when RFID scanners try to create database entries based on the movements of a piece of clothing not necessarily worn by the person who purchased it? The personal profile gets all buggered up, from a data-integrity point of view, and becomes useless. That is assuming that a marketerâ(TM)s (or some dark govâ(TM)t agencyâ(TM)s;p ) point in collecting this data is to track a particular userâ(TM)s habitual movements/activities. However, if youâ(TM)re collecting data on where a particular piece of clothing goes, then your data can be captured with a high degree of integrity. The question is, in the letter case, is that data useful?
Now, I know that not everyone shares clothes and that the user-data could be âoeclose-enoughâ to drive some really interesting processes. When it comes to the legal angle, though, the issues of plausible deniability and reasonable doubt come into play. How can anyone be absolutely certain that a specific person is wearing a specific set of clothes? They (itâ(TM)s always âoeTheyâ) could always make sharing clothes as *ahem* illegal as sharing software in order to maintain user-data integrity, but who would sit still for that?
Please feel free to pick this post apart mercilessly. Debate is the key to understanding an issue!
Slashdot Mirror
Roddenberry already wrote the Fall of the Federation storyline. It became the Kevin-Sorbo-laden TV series "Andromeda".
"Systems Commonwealth" == "Federation"
Wanna real reboot? Option THAT material and remake it as it was originally intended.
Absolutely right. Precedent for this already exists - our local utilities only own the pipe or the wire up to the meter. A few months ago, we had a water leak in the main line coming to the house. Our utility informed us that since the leak was after the meter, it was our responsibility (and $$$) to fix.
From Pod People:
Kid: "Trumpy, you can do magic things!"
Servo: "It's called evil kid"
From Santa Claus vs. the Devil (or something like that)
Servo speaking for Lupita "We must rise up against the Bourgeoisie."
They tried to kill me with a forklift.
I agree that privacy issues are part of this debate, but I think that some people are missing large holes in the consumer privacy/user-data tracking angle.
;p )
;p ) point in collecting this data is to track a particular userâ(TM)s habitual movements/activities. However, if youâ(TM)re collecting data on where a particular piece of clothing goes, then your data can be captured with a high degree of integrity. The question is, in the letter case, is that data useful?
1) Women.
2) The paradigm of one-user-one-product, that is so pervasive in the tech world, does not necessarily apply to clothing in particular.
Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that RFID is commonplace and clothing outlets do not deactivate them upon leaving the store. Also let us assume that there are scanners that cover every possible place that humans might venture. I volunteer to place a scanner on top of Everest! But I digressâ¦
In that world, it is the usage habits of clothing by women specifically, and people in general, that would make user-data tracking of those clothes pointless. Why? Women share clothes all the time. I don't think that my girlfriend's closet has any of her own clothes in it anymore. Sometimes I even wear some of her clothes (draw whatever conclusion you will from THAT
So, what happens when RFID scanners try to create database entries based on the movements of a piece of clothing not necessarily worn by the person who purchased it? The personal profile gets all buggered up, from a data-integrity point of view, and becomes useless. That is assuming that a marketerâ(TM)s (or some dark govâ(TM)t agencyâ(TM)s
Now, I know that not everyone shares clothes and that the user-data could be âoeclose-enoughâ to drive some really interesting processes. When it comes to the legal angle, though, the issues of plausible deniability and reasonable doubt come into play. How can anyone be absolutely certain that a specific person is wearing a specific set of clothes? They (itâ(TM)s always âoeTheyâ) could always make sharing clothes as *ahem* illegal as sharing software in order to maintain user-data integrity, but who would sit still for that?
Please feel free to pick this post apart mercilessly. Debate is the key to understanding an issue!