----------------
This curious letter appeared in our local paper, and as you read it you may find yourself wondering if Ms. Geis actually thought about what she was writing. Read on...
---------------------
Why all the fuss about exposure of government secrets? (There has been a fuss from some quarters about the government's program being revealed, but most of the outrage is regarding government collecting private data on American citizens without a warrant.)
There are no secrets and no guarantees of privacy in our modern world. About 1,000 satellites orbit Earth, revealing secrets about our world and its inhabitants. (Note the shift from government secrets to generalized flow of information. Ms. Geis seems to be suggesting that because there is surveillance that she has no problem with surveillance. Is she conveying here resigned acceptance of the situation, or is it that she doesn't mind being surveilled?)
Communications satellites collect information we give up every time we search the Internet, access social networks, or use a credit card. Information out in the “cloud” cannot be called back, but other computers can retrieve it and use it to influence our choices. GPS satellites find the way but can follow us by tracking our receivers. Scientific satellites help predict current and future weather, take pictures showing how humans are affecting the environment, follow people in very small areas and keep track of “space junk” that could endanger the planet. (So Ms. Geis makes a lengthy presentation of the ways information is collected. Can we ask what the purpose might be?)
Close to Earth and on its surface there are aircraft, smaller drones, weather balloons, TV, radio and cellphone towers; police and emergency response vehicles, all receiving, sending and storing information. Phone lines can be tapped. Personal conversations can be bugged. (Yes, yes, we understand. There is a lot of information flowing around! I wonder if Ms. Geis is going to get to a point.)
Our privacy depends on what we put out where hackers and identity thieves can find it and if we respect each other’s privacy. (Is this her point, that we respect each other? There is a national debate going on regarding matters of legality and constitutionality. Serious breeches of secuirity. Serious violations of the Constitution. We are not talking about interpersonal relationships!)
So how do we foil the “enemies” who want to steal our military and industrial secrets? Why not make everything available to everyone, since it’s available anyway? (How can we make available things that are available?)
Enemies would know our secrets and could assume we know theirs. Terrorists would know who we are looking for and where, making it harder to communicate and plot. Entrenched interests and convictions make it impossible for these ideas to be implemented anytime soon, but why not dream of a world where no one needs to keep secrets? (Utopian dream = reality.)
“Big data” could then be used to make the world a better place for all life, (Has she read 1984? Does she really think that people in power will not use information for their own purposes? There is no reason to expect that people will do the right thing simply because Ms. Geis believes they will.)
and increase chances for survival of the human race. (Wow. I paused a long time after typing that word. Wow. It seems that Ms. Geis wants everything on the table; military, industrial, and personal. She thinks, without evidence, that secrets of any kind are automatically destructive, and that everyone knowing everything would make the world a better place.
Why all the fuss about exposure of government secrets? (There has been a fuss from some quarters about the government's program being revealed, but most of the outrage is regarding government collecting private data on American citizens without a warrant.)
There are no secrets and no guarantees of privacy in our modern world. About 1,000 satellites orbit Earth, revealing secrets about our world and its inhabitants. (Note the shift from government secrets to generalized flow of information. Ms. Geis seems to be suggesting that because there is surveillance that she has no problem with surveillance. Is she conveying here resigned acceptance of the situation, or is it that she doesn't mind being surveilled?)
Communications satellites collect information we give up every time we search the Internet, access social networks, or use a credit card. Information out in the “cloud” cannot be called back, but other computers can retrieve it and use it to influence our choices. GPS satellites find the way but can follow us by tracking our receivers. Scientific satellites help predict current and future weather, take pictures showing how humans are affecting the environment, follow people in very small areas and keep track of “space junk” that could endanger the planet. (So Ms. Geis makes a lengthy presentation of the ways information is collected. Can we ask what the purpose might be?)
Close to Earth and on its surface there are aircraft, smaller drones, weather balloons, TV, radio and cellphone towers; police and emergency response vehicles, all receiving, sending and storing information. Phone lines can be tapped. Personal conversations can be bugged. (Yes, yes, we understand. There is a lot of information flowing around! I wonder if Ms. Geis is going to get to a point.)
Our privacy depends on what we put out where hackers and identity thieves can find it and if we respect each other’s privacy. (Is this her point, that we respect each other? There is a national debate going on regarding matters of legality and constitutionality. Serious breeches of secuirity. Serious violations of the Constitution. We are not talking about interpersonal relationships!)
So how do we foil the “enemies” who want to steal our military and industrial secrets? Why not make everything available to everyone, since it’s available anyway? (How can we make available things that are available?)
Enemies would know our secrets and could assume we know theirs. Terrorists would know who we are looking for and where, making it harder to communicate and plot. Entrenched interests and convictions make it impossible for these ideas to be implemented anytime soon, but why not dream of a world where no one needs to keep secrets? (Utopian dream = reality.)
“Big data” could then be used to make the world a better place for all life, (Has she read 1984? Does she really think that people in power will not use information for their own purposes? There is no reason to expect that people will do the right thing simply because Ms. Geis believes they will.)
and increase chances for survival of the human race. (Wow. I paused a long time after typing that word. Wow. It seems that Ms. Geis wants everything on the table; military, industrial, and personal. She thinks, without evidence, that secrets of any kind are automatically destructive, and that everyone knowing everything would make the world a better place.
So let's see what kinds of secrets Ms. Geis is ok with revealing.
1) Government: The nuclear launch codes, military attack strategy, the vault codes for Fort Knox, the location of warships, the identity and location of SEAL teams, access to the Social Security Trust Fund, intelligence on terrorist cell locations, and President Obama's private phone number.
2) Industrial: Corporation bank account numbers, software code, product formulas, product development and R&D, business strategy, and insurance coverage.
3) Personal: credit information, bank account numbers, bra size, cholesterol level, religious affiliation and beliefs, exercise habits, where you spend your money, who you have sex with complete with video, and how often you use the toilet.
After all, we can't have any secrets, can we? It's automatically good for everyone to know everything. In fact, we should tell everyone else every secret we have, and the expect that they will do the same, because that's what they want too. Evil people will just change overnight. Dictators will see the light. All they need is for us to take the lead, and they will do the same, right?
Chaos is where these utopians will lead us. They believe that people are basically good, that people want peace, consensus, cooperation, and love. But they don't. Human history is not ambiguous in this regard. Instead of people following their better natures, they will embrace their base instincts and the world will descend into mayhem.)
Mary Geis
Bozeman
No comments:
Post a Comment