The technologies we rely on, both new and old, are now very effective tools that both governments and private firms are using to gather, analyze, store, and sell information about our private lives, habits, purchases, whereabouts, and even thoughts and beliefs. But some of this invasion of privacy pays a welcome dividend in convenience and power in our own lives. Where do we draw the line, and how can we use this potentially-invasive technology for our benefit, without sacrificing our private lives to commerce?
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
Which is of course not true. Inexperienced drivers can much easily cause an accident since they run into situations they haven't seen before more easily and they don't have the experience to deal with the situation properly. Spending more time on the road in itself can mean exactly nothing if one wants to get some estimate about the likelihood of an accident. Even having spent a long time on the road without accidents can mean nothing if one doesn't take into consideration what type of car has that person been driving during those years and currently. Also, age in itself can mean nothing either, without complementing with other information about driving experience, fine history, type of car driven, etc.
[edit: added the following]
This is the same smelly argument that's so fashionable to use in the US if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. It's not sympathetic, beacuse it's a twisted argument and it can easily make innocent people look like being guilty, forcing them to prove their innocence, which is really not OK, to say the least.
I wouldn't argue against having to pay a somewhat higher price if one wouldn't want to have the tracking device, but going any further than that just calls for trouble.
Edited 2008-03-19 14:58 UTC
Member since:2006-01-11
It reminds the story about the fact that most accidents happens near home and some argue that it is because people become careless as they know the area.
The twist is that you spend more time near home, so you will statistically have more accident there.
(Disclaimer: I didn't read the article yet. I know I'm off topic)
Member since:2006-01-11
Member since:1997-10-01
Perhaps I was unclear in the point I was trying to make. I mean that every mile/hour driven is more opportunity for a driver to be in an accident (be hit by a careless driver, or fall victim to a road hazard, for example). Experienced drivers will of course have less likelihood for an accident, but people who only drive for 30 minutes per week are less likely to be in an accident than people who commute 2 hours per day. Currently, insurance companies must ask prospective clients how much they drive, and have to way to verify.
Member since:2008-02-28
This all, of course, presumes you have a car that contains a tracking device. Another reason for keeping that old car!
If the tracking device is associated with the body, the concept makes more sense. Does this person engage in risky behaviours? Go to dangerous places, travel fast at low altitude regardless of what seat in the car he/she is in, go past dangerous places, or consort with other known felons...oops...gone too far maybe...
Edited 2008-03-19 19:14 UTC
Member since:2006-06-03
Actually, technically, it is true.
The probability of having an accident can be seen as an integration of probability over time. Since the probability of having an accident at any time is always positive, and never zero, the longer you spend driving, the more likely you are to have an accident.
Member since:
2008-03-19
Steven Rambam gave a two-and-a-half hour lecture on electronic surveillance and privacy at the Hackers On Planet Earth (HOPE) conference in 2006. It is a must-see presentation for anyone with an interest in these topics. You can find it on-line here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-383709537384528624
or http://tinyurl.com/3xjvzn
or order the 3 DVD set via 2600.org at
http://www.2600.com/news/view/article/4384
Member since:
2008-01-08
Interesting, but I would like to add another item for consideration: how you feel in such an environment.
this is more important to me, than most of the points you've mentioned. for instance, I once worked at an ISP company, who had surveileance means of monitoring what happens on my computer screen (think vnc-like), and recorded the incoming calls and my responses.
they could have used this data at any time, but to know that you are followed was very discouraging.
you limit yourself, you are acting less freely, and less spontaneously, because it's not a one-on-one talk anymore. others can know a side of you that you don't want them to know. so you limit yourself.
and do we want such a society of people not behaving like themselves? we lose much of the humane characteristics, and fall into a depressing mood environment. The right to privacy is also that you decide to whom you open up to, and without fear that it'll come back to haunt you from unforeseen places.
Member since:1997-10-01
It's true that being watched tends to make human beings alter their behavior significantly. And it makes most of us uncomfortable unless we are performing some kind of rehearsed action that we expect to be watched. It's like the study that showed that even putting a picture of some eyes on an "honor system" payment jar dramatically increased payment rates. (couldn't find citation)