>By 2003, All wireless phones in service in US have to be able to be
>"automatic location identification (ALI)" capable.
<SNIP>
>
>This essentially says that your right to privacy is lost in regards
>to your personal safety in an emergency, but that you have the right
>to not have your location revealed if you so request, to other
>parties.
So once again, we are legislating against stupidity? I can't disagree that
it'd be nice for the emergency crews to find you, but once again people's
lives are being micromanaged into oblivion. It just doesn't sit well with
me.
>It does mean that if you carry a cell phone in the future, that
>technically you can be tracked, but not legally, except in the case
>of an emergency.
Ah yes, but it's only illegal if someone catches the person doing it, now
isn't it?
>> really, that is their right. I personally don't want my location
>>to be available to everyone. Not because I have anything to hide,
>but because my comings and goings are no one's business.
>
>I disagree. I believe that it is my business. Unless you can certify
>that you will in fact not commit any crimes, victimless or not. This
>was a primary facet to Brin's arguement regarding two way
>transparency.
Arguments like this give me agita. I should have my movements monitored *in
case* I *might* feed the parking meter illegally? You want to say that
every person should be tracked constantly on the off chance that he is a
sociopath? By the time a person has made the decision to commit a crime,
unless that person is being followed *constantly* by someone who can stop
it, it'll be done before this tracing can help.
You want to argue that it would make it simple to catch criminals? Sure.
But until we become a world of psychics, there will *always* be ways around
this, because the *truly* bad folks will find them. And as long as there
are classes of people on Earth, the ones who most need the watching will be
the ones who can avoid it.
I just don't buy your argument. A Transparent Society is nice in theory,
but there'll always be some folks who have too much to lose by joining it.
Knowing where everyone is and what everyone is doing will *NEVER* benefit
ordinary joes like you and me.
>
>> cappucino, I'll stop by and get one. I don't want them calling me
>>when I pass their store anymore than I want their flyer from the
>>guy they hired to stand out in front of it and hand them out.
>****SideNote***** I hate that in Las Vegas, where a bunch of losers
>try to give you sex-related advertisements.
That at least we agree on.
>>
>> To me, it's another case of people willing to trade their privacy
>>for convenience. Ick.
>
>Its also about financial and emotional gain. There are payoffs in
>signing your privacy away. You see plenty of people with a "Look AT
>MEEEEEEE" nerosis, more than happy to tell you their most private
>thoughts. You can get discounts and offers if you release your
>privacy and notify a commercial interest that you might be
>interested in buying their widget (or more insidious, they match a
>cross-match a profile from watching your behavior, that suggests
>what your are interested in, which is usually right!).
>
>People may claim that they want privacy, yet they offer information
>in surveys, they register at web sites, they fill out warranty
>cards, give out SSn, zipcodes and Phone Numbers, address to anyone
>that asks, and so on....
>
>If you want privacy, stop driving, stop using the web, using a
>phone, using a credit card, buying things, get a post office box,
>stop working and stop going out in public.
See, you just *had* to build a straw man here. If a person wants to
selectively give up his privacy, fine. But I still think there aren't many
folks who want the world knowing their precise locations. And if by
emotional gain, you mean those same sorry people who need to display their
"look at me" neuroses on Springer, well, those people haven't the foggiest
idea what civilization *means* let alopne how to participate in it.
>
>This is the price of civilization.
A civilization where we have given up the trappings of civility and decorum,
apparently. Do you like it when telemarketers call you? If you allow all
these places to call you when you pass their respective establishments, is
going to be like having that happen who knows how many times a day?
A civilization should certainly *not* be a place where no one speaks
face-to-face, does everything from the sanctum that is their home, avoids
human contact at all times, and yet somehow, *still* knows where everyone
is. That sounds more like isolation to me.
>
>You can have two attitudes about it. One, you can complain and
>grumble about it, or you can two, Pull your shorts down, bend over,
>and tell the world "Hey, Look AT MEEEEE!!!".
Yeah, um, thanks for that image. Really. <:-)
Jim
"What can change the nature of a man?" - The Nameless One
_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
