 |
 |
 |
|
Re: disappearance of anonymity
The BBC article Eric mentions puts a slightly different spin on his "unknown vs. unacknowledged" argument. But most of what Bill Thompson is writing about are public activities. What makes the difference, as in other areas of privacy, is the capability of technology. I've read a few people making the case that back in the old days (the "village" example), people had almost no privacy. If there was only one doctor around, people could easily see who went into the office, or whose house he visited. Likewise the grocer knew each customer personally, and so purchasing habits weren't very private. Enter the multi-terabyte database, high-bandwidth networks, and supercomputers. The village has gone global. It feels different to have anonymous people know all about you. Well, there's the rub, maybe. I'm not anonymous to them, but they're anonymous to me. Is that the whole issue behind the anonymity/privacy thing? If I don't know who they are, how do I know whether I can trust them with my private information? But back to the face-recognition issue. If you left your village, then you could be truly anonymous. But technology will catch up, as both the resolution of common surveillance cameras and face-recognition software improve. I'm pretty gonzo on privacy, and I'm not certain how much this bothers me. If you're out in public, well, by definition, how much privacy or anonymity can you expect. But the technology issue throws us a curve. We've been making the connection between DRM and identity, WRT individuals being able to exercise DRM-style control over their identities, and the meta-data which goes them. Do we need the equivalent of a "broadcast flag" for our faces now? Oh, I forgot, it's called a ski-mask. Or at least some really large shades, and maybe a sombrero?
|
