Would you mind the federal government doing the exact same thing? - Edit 2
Before modification by Joel at 05/12/2012 10:39:57 PM
I find that comparison spectacularly good at providing perspective on new technologies and practices. The parallels are not perfect, of course, but the differences tend to even out in the end; businesses lack governments power to exploit and compound abuses with law enforcement and other official means, but the public lacks the ability to hold businesses accountable for abuses as they can elected officials. I would love to be able to expect the best of people, but experience, observation and knowledge of history has taught me just how dangerous that expectation is (hence the need for governments and a Savior.)
Surveilling peoples homes precludes discretion. Your system (or its software) DOES aggressively monitor your input to figure out what to sell you: It just does not monitor your every word and deed for that or any reason, which is as it should be. Sorry, but people monitoring my living and bedrooms should definitely be "opt in" rather than "opt out." I sincerely doubt this "feature" would be heavily publicized given the natural and quite justified public alarm it provokes. More importantly, if it became the industry standard public awareness would be moot for anyone unwilling to live off the grid: One would either accept telecommunications companies monitoring them and their homes through electronic media or do without them entirely. If that is the price of media access it will sell just fine, more is the pity.
The bottom line is technology to surveill people in their homes without a warrant or even their knowledge has no "proper use." Verizon said outright it wants to listen to people having sex in their own homes so it can sell them birth control: That alone is improper (and extremely creepy.)
It is stunning to me how fast people rewrite both recent and distant history to fit their narratives.
We have a cultural very interested in privacy and we descend principally from cultures who had little expectation of privacy, typically living in one or two room huts in villages or tribes where everyone knew everyone and every rumor and past infraction they'd ever committed. Most of our lack of privacy these days comes from idiots voluntarily airing their dirty laundry on Facebook or Twitter anyway.
Ancient history, maybe, but ever since people stopped hunting mastodons and living communally in caves they have had a reasonable and substantial expectation of privacy. Perhaps not always within their own family, but they did not tolerate strangers snooping through their homes and monitoring speech there for personal profit (or any reason.) Certainly since Madison and Co. declared "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," the US has preserved a strong right to privacy.
Obviously publicly volunteering ones personal information does not infringe that right, but others invading ones privacy to obtain it definitely does. While the Constitution does not prevent private individuals from doing so, many other federal and local laws DO, for the very good reason that since the dawn of civilization people have rightly felt entitled to say and think what they like in the privacy of their own homes without strangers or the general public looking over their shoulders. Anonymous strangers going around town in the dead of night to ensure everyone slept in the right bed went out with the Inquisition. If my wife asks me to remind her of my bank account number while we are sitting on our own sofa I should not need to fear my TV is listening.
This is literally right out of 1984 (in Soviet Russia, TV watches YOU!) People who celebrate business acts they would call their militia captain about if performed by government are as perplexing as those who celebrate government acts they would call their lawyer about if performed by a business. With very few exceptions, behavior ill-advised and dangerous from one is no less so for the other, because if the means vary slightly, the ends vary only superficially.
If the system, when actually product tested and developed, offers people individual anonymity and discretion, as well as an off switch and an incentive not to push it, then it's good tech. If not then not, and it wouldn't sell. I for one wouldn't much mind if my system paid attention and popped out a note saying "Hey, you've said the word coffee 93 times this last month and never soda, how would you feel about me relaying that factoid up and you start getting coffee not soda commercials and a little less commercials overall?" "Why, yes, good idea." Says I or "No, I don't drink soda at all, and I always drink brand X of coffee" then says it, "Cool, I'll mark you as non-receipt for both then". That's useful tech, when used properly, same as an Xray machine can seriously invade your privacy but is also handy when used properly. Determining best usage has to wait till the tech is developed because Röntgen didn't know we'd be using Xrays to detect broken bones when he first studied them, and patents are part of that process. I don't see the big deal, it's a huge leap to assume mandatory usage.
Surveilling peoples homes precludes discretion. Your system (or its software) DOES aggressively monitor your input to figure out what to sell you: It just does not monitor your every word and deed for that or any reason, which is as it should be. Sorry, but people monitoring my living and bedrooms should definitely be "opt in" rather than "opt out." I sincerely doubt this "feature" would be heavily publicized given the natural and quite justified public alarm it provokes. More importantly, if it became the industry standard public awareness would be moot for anyone unwilling to live off the grid: One would either accept telecommunications companies monitoring them and their homes through electronic media or do without them entirely. If that is the price of media access it will sell just fine, more is the pity.
The bottom line is technology to surveill people in their homes without a warrant or even their knowledge has no "proper use." Verizon said outright it wants to listen to people having sex in their own homes so it can sell them birth control: That alone is improper (and extremely creepy.)
The concept is just plain creepy. It is stunning to me how fast the digital age has produced an entire generation that is willing to basically give up all of their privacy. I am just dumbfounded at the idea that anybody would be OK with a concept like this.
It is stunning to me how fast people rewrite both recent and distant history to fit their narratives.
We have a cultural very interested in privacy and we descend principally from cultures who had little expectation of privacy, typically living in one or two room huts in villages or tribes where everyone knew everyone and every rumor and past infraction they'd ever committed. Most of our lack of privacy these days comes from idiots voluntarily airing their dirty laundry on Facebook or Twitter anyway.
Ancient history, maybe, but ever since people stopped hunting mastodons and living communally in caves they have had a reasonable and substantial expectation of privacy. Perhaps not always within their own family, but they did not tolerate strangers snooping through their homes and monitoring speech there for personal profit (or any reason.) Certainly since Madison and Co. declared "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," the US has preserved a strong right to privacy.
Obviously publicly volunteering ones personal information does not infringe that right, but others invading ones privacy to obtain it definitely does. While the Constitution does not prevent private individuals from doing so, many other federal and local laws DO, for the very good reason that since the dawn of civilization people have rightly felt entitled to say and think what they like in the privacy of their own homes without strangers or the general public looking over their shoulders. Anonymous strangers going around town in the dead of night to ensure everyone slept in the right bed went out with the Inquisition. If my wife asks me to remind her of my bank account number while we are sitting on our own sofa I should not need to fear my TV is listening.
This is literally right out of 1984 (in Soviet Russia, TV watches YOU!) People who celebrate business acts they would call their militia captain about if performed by government are as perplexing as those who celebrate government acts they would call their lawyer about if performed by a business. With very few exceptions, behavior ill-advised and dangerous from one is no less so for the other, because if the means vary slightly, the ends vary only superficially.