Comments on: How technology redefines norms A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: johnpatinson Sat, 14 Dec 2013 12:50:46 +0000 I also benefit from learning the assessments, but learn that alot of people ought to stay on essay to try and add worth in the direction of the authentic weblog release.
Tv Online

By: fresnodanhome Mon, 20 May 2013 12:23:09 +0000 I tend to agree with Mr. Jarvis. For the vast time of human existence, the overwhelming majority of it was without privacy. Privacy however can be confused with “annoynimity” – a feature of the new, novel organization of people into cities, that can hide and disguise the “real” person. This can be a two edged sword.

For a long time, privacy extended and enlarged freedom – the freedom to be gay, to be sexually adventuresome, to be agnostic, to be pro 2nd amendment in Massachusetts, to be pro gun control in Alabama, to be out of the “mainstream.” In that sense, privacy is an important check on the majoritarian oppression and a feature that expands freedom.

But so much of the danger of modern life is hidden predation, as opposed to seeing the lion on the Savannah, is watching out for the predatory criminal or fraudster. Privacy is an enable of lying. Indeed, with laws so convoluted and complex, one is far more able to judge the value of legislation more by who is surreptiously supporting it than by a straightforward reading of the bill. Making politicians lives substantially less private (every meeting a politician has with a verbatim transcript) would make the reason for the opaque wording of our laws very transparent.
So the question always has to be: Who gets privacy and why?

By: Steve_Lockstep Mon, 20 May 2013 00:54:47 +0000 I’m surprised that Jeff Jarvis seems oblivious to an essential difference between Glass and the mere image capture devices that went before, including phone cameras. It’s the information! With Glass, Google converts anonymous image data into Personal Information, by the terabyte. The central and radical privacy problem with Glass is that a huge infomopoly will likely use it to monitor what we’re doing, when and where, and with whom we’re doing it. Google has famously little self restraint in how it uses the information it gathers from public. Look at the way it merged all its information silos, allowing itself to re-purpose any information collected for any purpose. And think about the way its Street View cars gathered the personal information in Wi-Fi transmissions. Sure, they denied that was deliberate, blaming an overly zealous programmer for leaving some test code in the production software. But what sort of company culture is so tone deaf to privacy that their engineers can think it’s okay to eavesdrop on private networks without consent? Just because they can?
Google Glass is to the Kodak Box Brownie as the motorcar is to the horse. The rules and mores of old really are broken by these sorts of new technologies, and to label critics as phobic worry-worts is pretty vapid.

By: JeffJarvis Sun, 19 May 2013 20:32:21 +0000 I point you, Felix, and Noah Brier to Hanah Arendt in The Human Condition: “A man who lived only a private life, who like a slave was not permitted to enter the public realm, or like the barbarian had not chosen to establish such a realm, was not fully human.”
Also to Patricia Meyer Spacks in Privacy: Conceling the Eighteenth Century Self: “The word privacy derives from a Latin word meaning deprived; deprived of public office; in other words, cut off from the full and appropriate functioning of a man.”
And to Lawrence Friedman in Guarding Life’s Secrets: “Privacy is a modern invention. Medieval people had no concept of privacy. They also had no actual privacy. Nobody was ever alone. No ordinary person had private space. Houses were tiny and crowded. Everyone was embedded in a face-to-face community. Privacy, as idea and reality, is the creation of modern bourgeois society.”

By: JeffJarvis Sun, 19 May 2013 14:44:14 +0000 It would generally be a mistake to regulate technology. We already regulate behavior. And we cannot anticipate all the uses, good and bad, of a technology.
The same with norms. There’s nothing necessarily different, as — I feel silly with this attribution — GRRR points about above, between taking a picture with a camera or Glass except Glass is new and thus various media worrywarts sound alarms about it.
I was appalled with Nick Bilton’s blog post in The Times worrying that people would use Glass to take pictures of his junk in the men’s room. They had that capability before. They had not good reason to before. They certainly have no good reason to now. If anyone tried with any technology, I can predict what will happen (and the media trend stories that will then be extrapolated from that event).
I don’t dismiss the concerns of the good ladies and gentlemen of Newport, Felix. I point out that in the interim, we did indeed figure it out. We do. Society does. To imagine that we cannot figure it out or that we’ll do a bad job of it is instead rather dismissive of all of us today, wouldn’t you say?

By: GRRR Sat, 18 May 2013 23:43:55 +0000 I really don’t think the norms are changing at all. What’s actually changing here, is HOW we take pictures and videos. Glass and its ilk are no less invasive than the smartphone camera, a GoPro mounted on your helmet or Street View.

What might freak out people, is face-recognition (that’s not to say that it’s currently built into Glass). But you should recognize that face-recognition will be coming to every one of those security cameras in the public and private realms. Right now, Androids have the capability to unlock phones via face-recognition, though I’m sure most people are not aware of it.

If people are upset about the pervasiveness of this capability, then Congress should step up and make it clear that such software shall be limited to those in your contacts (Google, iOS, FB, Twitter, etc), or for the purpose of personal security (home security, device security, etc).