Sponsor |  homebase | Feb 27, 2005 7:39am | | The way technology is developing - the ubiquity of video cameras and computer use - are we going to have to learn to do without the type of privacy we currently enjoy? |
|
| 
Sponsor | | MrPopo | Feb 27, 2005 8:00am | | I don't think that its the level of technology that dictates the amount of privacy. Its the attitude of the nations government. If a nation feels it is in crisis it does more information gathering. When the crisis is over the costs of increased surveillance become too high and privacy is regained. Technology can cut back on the cost of surveillance but it can never eliminate it. |
|
| | | ClareQuilty | Feb 27, 2005 8:00am | This put me in the mind of the movie Gattica. Even sloughed-off DNA-bearing skin cells were a potential source for privacy abuses. How long will it be before the technology is such that a company will offer a "Home Paternity Test," requiring but a few cells.
Edit:
#1 Was your question specific to governments or were you talking about the increased ability for everyone--individuals, employers, credit bureaus, governments and so forth--to leverage new technologies in infringing upon ones privacy? |
|
|
Sponsor | | homebase | Feb 27, 2005 8:36am | All sources. Many of the video cameras pointed at public spaces are owned by private citizens or businesses. Companies collect data on people and sell it. And of course, the government - who knows what they are doing.
Email use. Credit card use. Internet use. Store discount/ frequent customer card use. Cell phone use. Drivers license practices. GPS tracking of vehicles like On Star. It all seems to be reducing our privacy. It's really going to be an issue once there are systems that can correlate all this data.
And good point about dna - what about the possibility of taking dna samples of every newborn? |
|
| | | JC68HC11DLL | Feb 27, 2005 9:25am | | Likewise, couldn't a person enjoy a great deal of privacy by not enjoying many of these perks. If you are not connected to the internet and everyone else is, and assuming that information gathering is heavily invested in monitoring online activities, then you'd practically be invisible. Of course, this wouldn't address privacy issues not related to online activities. It's a trade-off between convenience and privacy/security. |
|
|
Sponsor | | homebase | Feb 27, 2005 10:01am | Yeah, you are right, it's a trade-off. I know there are some ways to keep your privacy and still use technology: internet cafes, pre-paid cell phones, paying with cash, false info in your registration for frequent customer cards, etc. But who wants to live like that? Even if you did, there will still be public video cameras, drivers licenses, credit cards... maybe smart dust nanotech.
I'm starting to think that technologies will basically prevent any real privacy in the future. And, actually, I don't have a problem with it, as long as the laws are reasonable. Right now, I don't consider our laws to be reasonable. I'm expecting the technologies to arrive before the laws become reasonable.
Maybe the arrival of the technologies will help bring about the reasonableness of our laws. |
|
| | | JC68HC11DLL | Feb 27, 2005 12:25pm | #6 It may seem like there should be less privacy now and in the future, but we can't dismiss the reactionary forces either. Sometimes the abuse of privacy and security motivates people into taking steps to counter the abuse, and these steps may more than compensate for the loss of privacy.
I don't know if I'm imagining things, but I kinda notice that companies/sites are less pushy nowadays about wanting credit card numbers and such, possibly due to the amount of abuse and fraud that exists or existed out there. They don't tend to twist peoples arms as much now because the abuse changed the culture of what is 'normal' and 'acceptable.'
Likewise, we can thank companies like Microsoft for open source, we can thank crooks for legitimizing the use of encryption by individuals, and credit card abuse/fraud for making it normal not to use credit cards at all.
I kinda think many things have improved since the old days -- not all, of course. But some of these improvements occured as a reaction to what we don't want to see happening. |
|
| 
Sponsor | |
|
Sponsor | | homebase | Feb 27, 2005 12:47pm | 7 - I'm not saying there should be less privacy - I want more, personally, but I don't think it is going to be feasible. I can convince myself this eventual loss of privacy is okay, only if our culture and system of laws becomes more reasonable.
You have a good point about the changes, the corrections that have occurred as a result of some of these modern problems. And I agree that many things have improved since the old days, in fact, I think the improvements outweigh the changes-for-the-worse. |
|
| | | ClareQuilty | Feb 27, 2005 12:58pm | #6 "I know there are some ways to keep your privacy and still use technology: Internet cafes..."
If you're using your own notebook in an Internet café, you'd better spoof the MAC address of your wifi card. I wouldn't send any files or emails created with Microsoft Office either, especially if you bought it legally. There is all manner of personal information hidden in, for instance, the unseen meta data of an M$ Word file. Software companies and media conglomerates are lobbying for all manner of potentially identifying components to be included in future versions of computer, ostensibly to impose their licensing schemes. |
| |
| |
Futurism → Discussion