Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
In the olden days, when we lived in villages and were lucky to hit 40, everybody knew everybody's business. When people speak of the internet as a global village it is no metaphor.
(Privacy via anonymity is a recent invention dating back to the mega-cities of the 20th.)
|
No no no, you're approaching this the wrong way. What's new is that our governments know more about us than our own family members. While it may or may not be creepy if your neighbour knows that you're sneaking out of your village hut at night to visit Ms. Goldilocks, it should, I believe, at least make you a bit uneasy that the people you've elected to serve you and your interests and who hold more or less power over your life, know your every move.
Those in power need to be held accountable and in check. That's a very simple, very important truth that citizens of the US claim to hold dear. If you want to know why, read
1984,
Animal Farm or any history book about a dictatorship.
Right now, we let our governments and corporations get away with this, because we think it doesn't really affect us and because people just don't know how pervasive and effective data mining has become. "It's just Amazon/Facebook/Google," we say, "I don't have a problem with a bit of targeted advertising." You guys in the US have a fourth amendment and your (snail) mail is safe from prying eyes, but the rules for new forms of communications have not yet been established and you're letting your government get away with stuff that would make some of the great men and women in your country's history turn over in their graves (not that we Europeans are any better).
If Google asked you about your sexual history and fantasies, the state of your marriage and your finances and would like to get a list of your friends and how often you talk to them before it allows you to use its services, you'd probably get angry. But then, that's exactly what Google most likely knows about you anyway (or could know about you, if they wanted and analyzed your data).
Then, let's say that one of your former college roomates gets swept up in a terrorism investigation by accident (he knows a foreign exchange student who traveled to Pakistan, or whatever) and because you've talked to him on the phone regarding a reunion, all this info is handed over and processed by the government. And suddenly that book you bought about the hunt for Bin Laden seems a lot more sinister.
And then you're on a no-fly-list[1] and nobody will tell you why and you'll probably get a mention in a salon.com article, but the rest of the world will go on thinking everything's alright, because they're not doing anything wrong and have got nothing to hide.
Checks and balances aren't there for your average reasonable government, they're there for the day when the government tries something outrageous, so that there's someone who can stand up and say "That's not how we do things round here." and not be silenced.
And when this has finally been accepted as a fact of life and the way that the world works, what chances do people in China, Russia, Egypt, North Korea or Iran have when they're hunted by their own government?
Sorry for the rant. It's just a bit weird to me how people keep shrugging this off as "that's how the internet is". If it indeed is that way, isn't it high time we changed it?
Matt
[1] Think I'm joking or exaggerating? I'm not.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...he-fbi/257316/