-Caveat Lector-

The Annual Paranoia Column
Fred Can't Help It. He's Crazy.


I remember looking once, with a woman I know, at one of those
subway maps with the arrow saying, "You Are Here."

"You see?" she said somberly. "They always know where you
are."


Every year they get a little closer to always knowing were we
are -- though I'm not always sure who "they" is. Or are. Every
year surveillance creeps forward, becomes easier, and begins
to be used. Every year we get more used to it. Every year we
probably read a dozen articles about the decline of privacy,
and grow numb.


The crucial question is: Should we care? Does it matter that
we are, or can be, tracked and watched ever more closely? Is
privacy really important? Or is the subject just another
worry-bead to be fondled by the congenitally paranoid?


Right now, when you turn on your cell phone, the telephone
company knows roughly where you are. There's nothing sinister
about this. It has to know, as otherwise it couldn't route
calls to you. With triangulation, you can be placed within a
few thousand square feet.

Paul Somerson, writing in the June issue of Smart Business,
says, "But the noose is tightening. Part of the 1996
Telecommunications Act mandated Enhanced 911 that would force
carriers to be able to locate all callers by October 2001. And
newer FCC rules require greater precision -- 164 feet for
GPS-based phones, 328 feet for network based triangulation."


Now, why does the government want to know where you are with
such precision? Ostensibly, and perhaps actually (though the
FBI, I promise, has other reasons), so as to be able to find
you if you call 911and aren't sure where you are. This really
does happen, regularly. Ambulance crewmen want to be able to
get to you as quickly as possible. They have not the slightest
totalitarian intentions. As long as you are not dismembered,
or turning blue, they aren't interested in you at all.


But of course drug dealers use cell phones, and the police
would like to keep table on them. And of course Sprint or
Cellular One might, for innocent purposes of marketing, want
to know the travel patterns of its customers.


Ah, but: Governmental agencies, says Somerson, believe the law
allows them to track you, without either a warrant or even
probable cause, if they decide that an emergency exists. What
the government can do, it usually will do.

Now, does any of this matter?

No.

Well, maybe not. At any rate, tracking will come, and nothing
bad will happen. Or nothing obvious. Not immediately, anyway.


Will the cell-phone company keep track of your movements?
Probably not -- except for traffic analysis maybe, and then
only in statistical form. Probably. Unless of course the cops
had a warrant. If they need a warrant.


But. . . but . . . but . . . .


If a company did keep records (and I don't know that they
don't) could they be subpoenaed? If, for an afternoon, your
phone and the phone of someone from a politically unpopular
organization always moved from one cell to another at exactly
the same time . . . .

In last year's paranoia column I wrote about Viisage, a
company that makes computer-and-television systems that can
pick faces out of a crowd. Unsettling, that. But it's
happening. We also have cameras that automatically photograph
the license plates of people who run stoplights. Neither has
brought the Republic to the edge of tyranny.

So maybe I shouldn't be uneasy to read about cameras being
used by department stores to watch the faces of shoppers for
reactions to merchandise. Department stores aren't the
government. Surveillance cameras, monitored by humans, already
watch to see whether we are shoplifting. Maybe it doesn't
matter if automatic cameras watch us for other purposes. After
all, stores are public places. So are the streets. If the
police can stand on the corner and watch me walk by, why
shouldn't a camera? What's the difference?


Lots, but I can't prove it.


When I go to Amazon.com, the software remembers me and tries
to sell me books that, because of my past purchases, it thinks
I might want. I like it. If I'm going to be subjected to
advertising, I'd prefer it to be about things that interest
me. But . . . do I want Amazon storing that I've bought books
about gay bars in the Caribbean, or how to have sex with
sheep?


The correct answer may turn out to be that it isn't important.
Maybe Amazon won't tell anyone. Maybe nobody cares. It used to
be that when you returned to the US from abroad, the
Immigrations folk just glanced at your passport. Now they run
it through a reader. I can't see how it has harmed me. Safeway
doesn't do anything malign when, using my frequent shopper
card, it remembers everything I buy. Maybe the hooha about
privacy is just noise.


But . . .


What is worrisome is not what is being done with the
technology of surveillance, or what necessarily will be done,
but what could be done. Many things can be abused, and aren't.
Search warrants, for example: Judges do not allow our houses
to be casually ransacked.


Yet we live in a time when legal and constitutional principles
are under attack. What once was to a large extent a government
of law has become more and more openly a government of tribes.
The edifice of civil rights has degenerated into a naked
spoils system. Hate-crime laws have come close to outlawing
undesired thought. The iron rule of political correctness has
distinct resemblance to Soviet-style social control. Much of
this is imposed less by the official government than by the
meta-government of academia, media, and Hollywood. Yet it's
there.


If the nation draws back from this path, surveillance will
perhaps be seen as merely a minor side-effect of modernity, as
a trifling annoyance, like advertising. But if we drift
further toward seeking to punish not just criminality, but
attitudes and beliefs, the machinery of watchfulness will
appeal powerfully to those doing the punishing. We need, I
think, to be very careful about this, if we still have the
choice.


�Fred Reed 2001. All rights reserved.

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to