Last week, I pointed out that instead of picking Julian Assange (the runaway winner in its Readers Poll for Person of the Year) TIME magazine chose Facebook founder Marc Zuckerberg. Facebook, in no small way, helps the powers that be, and marketing corporations, track individual citizens interests, tastes, and friendship circles. I found TIME's choice, while predictably anti-democratic, to be especially revealing because they ignored the critically relevant issue of whistle-blowing on government and corporations (Assange) in favor of celebrating increased "transparency" so to speak on you and me.
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x17812 Months ago, I posted an essay from the WSJ showing Google's CEO bragging that their Android smart phone operating system (which they give away for free because the intelligence they gather is so lucrative) allows Google, and anybody else with access to that system, to know not only who a person is, their address, friends, and interests, but also to know "to within one foot" where you are located at all times. (Unless you leave your "smart phone" behind.) Remarkably, responding to a WSJ question on whether google would remain committed to its search engine business, the CEO of Google responded "I don't think people want Google to answer their questions, I think they want Google to tell them they should be doing next."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8972515&mesg_id=8972515 I can't find anyone who wants Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, to tell them what to do, and certainly nobody in that thread did, but that was a direct quote from Google's CEO nonetheless.
He apparently believes that people want him to tell us what to do. Incredible.Today, the Wall Street Journal adds to that "transparency" with an investigatory article on Smart Phones. It shows that the apps on Smart phones will send unique identifier information, demographic information, and location data to as many as nine different places just by using a single smart phone app such as the music app Pandora. (Which is kind of cool if you know what it is, but there's a serious downside to why they provide "free music" similar to a tune the user requests)
Read the many details for yourself:
YOUR APPS ARE WATCHING YOU: A WSJ Investigation finds that iPhone and Android apps are breaching the privacy of smart phone users.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704694004576020083703574602.html I want to repeat, for emphasis, that
the big picture here is government and corporate secrecy and individual lack of privacy or the high availability of "transparency" when it comes to individuals. The lesson of Liberty 101 is this: The Transparent Person/Entity is the Servant or Slave entity. Government and entities created by it (including corporations) are supposed to be the servants or slaves, if you will, of the public interest. Instead, it is very nearly completely the opposite of that, with the public expected to have "nothing to hide" and the government and corporations expected to have broad claims to secrecy and privacy. About the only times individual privacy is upheld it is used as a precedent to expand government/corporate secrecy.
Unfortunately, one good example of this is decisions upholding the privacy of, say, DU posters or internet posters generally. On account of the broad and radical principle of Citizens United not to permit of any distinctions between corporations and individuals, any perceived "gain" in individual privacy is subject to what amounts to an automatic COLA increase in the rights of corporations, on the grounds of non-discrimination principles (regarding corporations) that are the heart and soul of the Citizens United decision.
Do I think DU posters should have some privacy rights if they wish? In most cases, yeah. I just want ya'll to know that the few victories we see or get for individual privacy are directly harnessed to serve corporate secrecy interests. I'd like to draw a line between individuals and corporations, and it's easy to draw a principled line between them. But, under present law and legal trends, the corporate powers that be have harnessed the drive and desire for individual privacy and are using it as the engine to consolidate their own secrecy and power.
You may have to stop and think, because I know I do, and consider the implications for politics and strategy when fighting for one's own individual rights presupposes a "COLA" in rights for corporations, too. In the mean time, those corporations -- if you carry a smart phone -- know who you are, where you live, who you talk to and who your friends are, your demographics and all your interests, and they know where you are at all times to within approximately 12 inches. And that's a close paraphrase of the quote from the Google CEO in the link above, the same CEO that is convinced that people want him to tell us what to do next. I remain convinced people would much rather tell Google where to go.
It's not enough that your life and political opinions be an "open book" -- you have no way to stop them from making up smart phone data that implicates you, or in-debts you, even for things you never did. You don't have to worry about being set up like that - unless you're effective and relevant in politics.
1. Greg Palast often calls Choicepoint "America's KGB" because they have a dossier on every American but clearly this business is expanding explosively and the KGB simply never had this much detailed information on so many people, 24/7, so using the term KGB is now understating the actual facts.
2. Fighting for individual rights will in most cases be the same as fighting for parallel increases in corporate rights, (Citizens United principles) thus insuring that we are on a political treadmill and can't really get ahead.
"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't quite understand the problem." Yes, I think there are some answers and adjustments that can be made, but first the reality has to sink in so we understand the problem well, before we try to "solve" the problem. This situation will not be solved at the level of an email campaign urging citizens to do this, or do that...
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
