Adam Cohen has a great piece at the New York Times on the end of locational privacy:
“Verizon online knows when I logged on, and New York Sports Club knows when I swiped my membership card. The M.T.A. could trace (through the MetroCard I bought with a credit card) when and where I took the subway, and The Times knows when I used my ID to enter the building. AT&T could follow me along the way through my iPhone.
There may also be videotape of my travels, given the ubiquity of surveillance cameras in New York City. There are thousands of cameras on buildings and lampposts around Manhattan, according to the New York Civil Liberties Union, many near my home and office. Several may have been in a position to film dinner on Elisabeth and Dan’s roof.
A little-appreciated downside of the technology revolution is that, mainly without thinking about it, we have given up “locational privacy.” Even in low-tech days, our movements were not entirely private. The desk attendant at my gym might have recalled seeing me, or my colleagues might have remembered when I arrived. Now the information is collected automatically and often stored indefinitely.
Privacy advocates are rightly concerned. Corporations and the government can keep track of what political meetings people attend, what bars and clubs they go to, whose homes they visit. It is the fact that people’s locations are being recorded “pervasively, silently, and cheaply that we’re worried about,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation said in a recent report.
People’s cellphones and E-Z Passes are increasingly being used against them in court. If your phone is on, even if you are not on a call, you may be able to be found (and perhaps picked up) at any hour of the day or night. As disturbing as it is to have your private data breached, it is worse to think that your physical location might fall into the hands of people who mean you harm….”
My Comment
And of course, that’s what I’m liking about my stay down south. The feeling of having someone always looking over your shoulders diminishes a lot once you leave the country.
To add to Cohen’s litany of surveillance, take Google accounts. There’s an option that lets Google keep track of your web browsing, of every site you opened, and all it takes is a check against the box. Say someone hacks your Google account. Or a Google employee decides to do it as a prank or from malice. They could check that box and keep tabs on what it was you were reading and investigating.
That’s only one possibility. Obviously, someone could also hack your account and browse through it to create a fake history of what you were investigating or browsing. You could without your knowledge have been reading “jihadi” sites….or racist sites…or hate sites of some other type…or child pornography…or anything else your enemies might want to recreate you as.
People who think Google and wiki are going to bring down the establishment have got to be kidding or very naive. Google and wiki can, have, and will work with the establishment when it suits them.
Hi Lila – I agree with you about the greater sense of freedom and privacy here in the global south. Nevertheless, this greater sense of freedom is not the result of choice, thought, or political action, but simply because things are less technologized here. It seems to me the responsibility of all of us who live in North America or the so-called “advanced” world to RESIST the technologizing of everything, to learn to place hindrances and protections in the path of the Beast, and to learn how to do with less, renounce, do without – frustrate the Beast gently, so to speak, by consuming less, doing less with things that involve “technology.” How we humans are to turn aside the Beast-Machine that we have created: this is the supreme task we face today. The greater ease and innocence I experience here in Argentina is a wonderful break and vacation, but I feel the real work remains elsewhere.
Yes…
but I don’t know that you can place restraints on technology..
we can place restraints on ourselves so that we don’t use some technology and that would reduce the market demand for it and then it would disappear..
But that’s for individuals to do.
I also think that a degree of “friction,” some impediment to uniformity, transparency and all the other things that globalization demands might not be bad.
Of course, the globalists themselves don’t submit to such demands (uniformity, transparency) so even in their case, it’s a propaganda term. Uniformity and transparency for thee but not for me…
could write a book on this..but thanks for the comments..I’ll check out the weill essay. It’s a while (sorry!) since I’ve read her .