This analysis is very well scoped out to the extent that it focusses specifically on the topics of privacy, internet security and computers. But it seems to raise more issues than it defines.
In a networked environment that is increasingly defined by technological convergence, the lines between physical and online presence are already becoming blurred.
When the day comes that computers are able to routinely link to and manage our material comforts and all of that "stuff" is networked in, who defines our rights to privacy and the level of access we are allowed to what we already have?
The EFF says the individual should have the right of ultimate access.
(It's hard to disagree with that, isn't it?)
But some sectors, if not most sectors of the government could argue that, "for security reasons", they have a legitimate claim on the right of access to private identity. Identity theft is one issue that tends to feed legitimacy to this argument, as do the precedents of social security numbers and drivers lisences as accepted standards if identification. Privately governments are mostly concerned with being able to identify, locate and regulate people (that's what governments do).
Of course businesses that produce convergence technology will argue publicly that they should have God rights because they "understand" the technical issues better than the mere mortals they service, while privately conspiring to lock in their market and stake out their claims to access and distribution. (That's what businesses do)
But who defines where the concepts of ownership and privacy starts and end, when our computers become wearable and our consumables are wired in?
That's what individuals should do. But with all these other interests out there, will they?
Slashdot Mirror
This analysis is very well scoped out to the extent that it focusses specifically on the topics of privacy, internet security and computers. But it seems to raise more issues than it defines. In a networked environment that is increasingly defined by technological convergence, the lines between physical and online presence are already becoming blurred. When the day comes that computers are able to routinely link to and manage our material comforts and all of that "stuff" is networked in, who defines our rights to privacy and the level of access we are allowed to what we already have? The EFF says the individual should have the right of ultimate access. (It's hard to disagree with that, isn't it?) But some sectors, if not most sectors of the government could argue that, "for security reasons", they have a legitimate claim on the right of access to private identity. Identity theft is one issue that tends to feed legitimacy to this argument, as do the precedents of social security numbers and drivers lisences as accepted standards if identification. Privately governments are mostly concerned with being able to identify, locate and regulate people (that's what governments do). Of course businesses that produce convergence technology will argue publicly that they should have God rights because they "understand" the technical issues better than the mere mortals they service, while privately conspiring to lock in their market and stake out their claims to access and distribution. (That's what businesses do) But who defines where the concepts of ownership and privacy starts and end, when our computers become wearable and our consumables are wired in? That's what individuals should do. But with all these other interests out there, will they?