Comment Re:Context?Is Google vs. Domestic Surveillance? (Score 1) 671
Same issues but different context.
"One who is deaf cannot hear music. Neither can he hear the radio. So he might say, never having heard them, that such things do not exist."
The palm reader's reply to Robert Jordan. From: "For Whom the Bell Tolls." Earnest Hemingway.
The collapse of privacy into full surveillance is not a binary event, it is more like radioactive decay - its' unstoppable. Like a slow leak through a pinhole, overtime Privacy drowns. The modern problem with "reading and collecting everyone's stuff," is that the search for the is tentatively for an indefinite period of time - principally occurring whenever [...] according to a fee schedule.
With continuous unabated surveillance and aggregation, Google searches for the notional and variable among us. Notional when and why justification is needed to control surveilliance otherwise a qualified "no" ceases to exist. In the coming generations, it is possible they may have no personal privacy ever. Having never experienced a private moment; they might say that such things do not exist.
You can argue that people can protect their privacy but the core problem is that people have no idea when they are being surveilled because aggregators like Google re-assemble a user's activity at a later date. People do not know when their Privacy is being compromised; they are unable to appreciate the privacy threat as it is less tangible. Therefore, they are unable to take proactive steps to protect it. What is the motivation to trust Google when they themselves have reached a size where information has become a force of real power - Google saying "trust us," is a way to reducing the profile of a company that has reached or will surpasses the force-multiplier threshold of aggregated information as a projection of power.
Just because its not private (anymore) does not mean that it should remain un-private. Old rules don't apply anymore.
Der Wachter
The collapse of privacy into full surveillance is not a binary event, it is more like radioactive decay - its' unstoppable. Like a slow leak through a pinhole, overtime Privacy drowns. The modern problem with "reading and collecting everyone's stuff," is that the search for the is tentatively for an indefinite period of time - principally occurring whenever [...] according to a fee schedule.
With continuous unabated surveillance and aggregation, Google searches for the notional and variable among us. Notional when and why justification is needed to control surveilliance otherwise a qualified "no" ceases to exist. In the coming generations, it is possible they may have no personal privacy ever. Having never experienced a private moment; they might say that such things do not exist.
You can argue that people can protect their privacy but the core problem is that people have no idea when they are being surveilled because aggregators like Google re-assemble a user's activity at a later date. People do not know when their Privacy is being compromised; they are unable to appreciate the privacy threat as it is less tangible. Therefore, they are unable to take proactive steps to protect it. What is the motivation to trust Google when they themselves have reached a size where information has become a force of real power - Google saying "trust us," is a way to reducing the profile of a company that has reached or will surpasses the force-multiplier threshold of aggregated information as a projection of power.
Just because its not private (anymore) does not mean that it should remain un-private. Old rules don't apply anymore.
Der Wachter
