Maybe I am too much of a romanticist, but I miss the old days, absent of all the technology which obtrusively permeates today's current social landscape. It's not those technologies which contain inherently a purpose which makes our lives better and healthier on a day to day basis I raise issue with, but those which, much like this blog, are completely arbitrary. I remember the day when starved for attention, I could do misdirected stupid stuff, act like a complete moron, and not have to fear someone taking a picture or video of my mischievous, although harmless, frolicsomeness. At the risk of sounding too much like Thoreau, I prefer those bygone days, where technology was there for those who sought it out, but remained somewhat distant, at least relatively, in our private lives. Now I can't even run through the mall shirtless, in cut off denim shorts, while mimicking the Macarena without being placed on YouTube.
How can we defeat this intrusion and how did it get so bad in the first place? I believe the culprit is not so much the photographic devices themselves and their ability to capture images, but rather how small and somewhat inexpensive they have become, not to mention their inclusion in cell phones. To fix, what I consider a large part of the problem, we need to take these camera's out of cell phones, first and foremost, then force companies which manufacture camera's and camcorders to emphatically increase their size, to no less then three feet wide, four feet long, and over 60 pounds. This way, you would at least need a tripod to operate it, and you wouldn't be able to carry it around all the time in your fanny pack or man purse to pull out whenever you see anything even remotely amusing. At the very least, give cell phones somewhere in the neighborhood of over 300 buttons, most of which won't do anything, or randomly change their functionality during the operation of the device. However, keep the most basic functions intact and easy to accomplish, so that functions like making a phone call will be the most frequently used out of all the features.
There are numerous cell apps,like FourSquare, that will let you, "check in," at your present location. These are becoming increasingly popular and to stop this trend they should simply change the names of the apps to inform the user, appropriately, that they indeed are a loser. Perhaps something like, "No one gives a crap where you are at app," would be most affective, or at least, "Hey, if I liked you at all, I would be there with you already now wouldn't I?" Actually, come to think of it, it seems more-so that they would have to like you personally, to even entice them to invite you to their current location. Great, now every time I see one of those check-ins on Facebook I am going to get really depressed. Terrific. Sometimes I really hate writing blogs. I never thought of that. I despise those check-ins where everyone was apparently invited except you, then they rub it in your face like a jackass. Dammit.
Facebook, though has been cited by many for trespassing against individual privacy, though to be honest, Facebook, I feel, isn't the main perpetrator of this, given the choice of our decision to join the social networking site and the numerous privacy options Facebook gives its members. The real online threat to privacy, is the online search engine powerhouse which is Google. I wish I could say, that due to this I have jumped on the Bing bandwagon, but I haven't. I do use Google as my default search engine, so if I had any logical continuity concerning my convictions then I would cease to be the hypocritical person I am being today. Yet, because I occasionally indulge in my hypocrisy, I feel strangely comfortable attacking Google.
For a long time now Google has been creeping society out by their peeping-tom like indulgences, and, although sometimes it does take the hassle out of being a peeping tom, by alleviating those chance encounters like being chased by a dog, accidentally hiding behind some poison ivy, or falling out of a tree, what you can see or discover is somewhat limited. A real shame. Yet, overall, I find the service, which you aren't even civilly ffered to opt into, to be crossing a boundary into being completely inappropriate. In fact, I have taken up quilting, and by me taking up quilting I mean forcing my family members into quilting, so that I can cover up my house and car-part laden lawn from aggressive satellites.
They followed up this endeavor, obviously not satisfied with their satellite view featured on Google Earth, due to its lack of possible partial nudity, by something called "Street View." When I first heard about this, I was nervous about the venture, because I was frightened they might catch me with their camera equipped vehicles washing my van while, of course, dressed in my form fitting one piece swimsuit. I don't mind my neighbors viewing, in fact I encourage it, despite their colorful verbal objections, but me being all over the internet is quite another matter.
Now Google has announced the "Find Your Face" feature for Google+. With this technology, you can scan your face and Google will inform you whenever someone has posted a picture of you. Great, exactly what I want to be informed of, whenever someone places my ugly mug on the internet. I don't like being photographed and I would rather live in ignorance of the profound degree of my ugliness. Now if this technology was used in the confines of social media, then maybe it wouldn't be so bad, it would just be like Facebook's "tag" function, but automatic. Yet, of course, this feature will help in supplying evermore intrusions into our daily life.
The movie, "Minority Report," contains similar technology which is currently being developed. In the movie, John Anderton, played by Tom Cruise, is bombarded with ads that recognize his face and appropriately, or inappropriately, display advertisements specifically suited for him. This very thing is being developed today, and currently, the technology will be able to determine race, weight, color of hair, and other physical characteristics and display ads which jive with the computers conception of you. I anticipate seeing a lot of Krispy Kreme, dog food, and Kaopectate ads in the not too distant future.
When many people hear of such emerging technologies, there is a school of thought, in which the reply is simply why worry about it if you don't something to hide? To me the biggest issue is that our inclusion and participation in such technologies is just assumed by large corporations and this is increasingly putting us in an environment where we are constantly being recorded on private systems 24 hours a day. Thus, our individualism is being belittled by those in possession of this technology, often times simply for the purpose of acquiring more capital from us by accosting us with unnecessary intrusions into our lives. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with capitalism or the concept of advertisements, but with how frequent they are getting, I can't help but feel annoyed by it. In fact, sometimes, if the ads are repeated or annoying enough, I won't buy the product just out of spite.
Remember the days when you could go see a movie, or watch something on YouTube without ads being thrown in your face? Ads in movie theatres to me is ridiculous, that's one of the reasons I pay for a movie if I choose to go, to not be advertised to in the form of commercials. Yet, now a long list of commercials plays before the movie. It won't be long before our DVD's are filled with ads, which we will be unable to interrupt by skipping through to the movie menu in order to enjoy our purchased film. The scariest part is that I think the governments application of like technologies is already pronounced in our lives and if we were aware to what extent, no citizen would stand for it. Thus, I have to say it is the ol' "slippery slope" I am most against. Even given that these technologies present no danger, the fact is, the someday could.
It is easy to allow such freedoms to the government and corporate giants when we don't see any effect, but this doesn't mean big brother won't become a hindrance to freedoms in the future. How much this technology is progressing is evident in a rocket that was just launched yesterday by Japan. The rocket has the ability to zoom in and present details on any place on earth within a three foot square parcel of land, or anywhere on earth for that matter. I try to not be a paranoid person, but its not hard to imagine how much vast information is being gathered by those who can afford such technology. Can we really trust such people to only use it properly 100% of the time? I also wonder if they are honest with us on the full extent concerning the information gathering properties of any like devices.
I heard from an old boss, who happened to know, supposedly, that in the Vietnam Era the US had a satellite that was advanced enough that it could read the license plate off a car. Now, this is complete hearsay, but if it is true, who knows how much people can be spied on, tracked, and viewed without any warrant or congressional order currently. In addition, can we assume its only visual information that is being collected. I think such "slopes" need to be examined and spoke out against by the general public, not because of how it may be used currently in a peaceful fashion, if one is to assume this as fact, but because all it would take is some corrupt officials to break the rules of decency to trample on our right of privacy.
No comments:
Post a Comment