Map As Metaphor In a Location-Aware Mobile World 178
mattnyc99 writes "Two weeks after the launch of Google Latitude, your inbox is probably full of requests and privacy advocates probably have even more concerns than they did at first. But some tech pundits are already seeing the bigger picture of a digital lifestyle based around the always-on, GPS-based mobile map. The NYTimes's John Markoff has a great piece in today's Science Times about the map as metaphor for a time when 'future systems will probably begin to blur the boundaries between the display and the real world.' Over at Esquire.com's Tech Therapist, Erik Sofge talks to the geek behind Latitude and offers a similar reality check: 'Latitude will be precisely as annoying as e-mail and social networking sites and cell phones themselves — and just as useful. What won't stop Latitude, or the wider rollout of location-based tracking, is bitching about it. These are juggernauts of free, culture-reorienting technology. And you and me, we are but posts on the massive Facebook profile of history.'"
Hold on now (Score:5, Interesting)
People are weirded out now... (Score:5, Interesting)
...but that's because Google has the data. But let me tell you my vision of the future:
In about 20 years, everyone will be recording not only their movements, but basically everything they do. Audio at first and then video. This, however, will not be public information, it will be either stored on a device under the user's control at their house, or with a company that promises not to look at it or turn it over except in case of a warrant. (Google's just a problem because it doesn't promise this.) It will probably be via 'cell phone' at first, although it will probably subsume cell phones in the end.
Why would people do this? To stop crime. Not them committing crime, other people committing crimes against them, and to demonstrate that they were not the person who committed a crime. The first hardware like this will come with a panic button, which would send the last two minutes of audio, plus a live stream, and your location to the police. This will quickly evolve into ways of monitoring to see if you're in distress.
They will also have various other features. By that time, voice recognition should be workable so expect transcribed conversation, and expect the ability to look up information simply by talking about it. Expect a 'distress' code phrase to replace the panic button.
Expect it to automatically recognize when you're supposed to be meeting someone and work with the other person's device to navigate you two together, or even if you're not meeting but happen to be near each other and are friends. Likewise, expect the ability to tell the device to lie so you don't have to talk to that boring guy who thinks you're friends.
And let me clarify that by 'vision' I mean 'What I see happening', not 'Grand and noble scheme'. It's not what should happen or what I want to happen. I'd actually rather dislike it. I'd like the Supreme Court to decide that we have the right to record ourselves without it being subject to a search. At the very least it should be minimized...if the police assert you committed a crime at a specific time you should be able to demonstrate the recorder has you somewhere else without specifically stating where or what you were doing at that time.
Basically, think Brin's transparent society, but instead of society recording everyone, and showing it to everyone, like he hypothesizes, or the police recording everyone which is the worse case scenario, everyone would simply be recording themselves and be able to produce a recording for themselves. And various parts of that would be automatically accessible to other people.
Oh, and incidentally, I know that such a device would be illegal in many states, thanks to laws about audio recording. The laws will very quickly change to let you record anything you could have heard with normal hearing. (Laws outlawing the recording of something you could be sitting there transcribing are pretty surreal to start with.)
Re:You won't see me signing up for this (Score:1, Interesting)
I hope you deleted it properly [facebook.com].
Re:People are weirded out now... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you are being too credulous in assuming that people want these technologies to record an accurate version of their petty lives.
IMO, the future is in technology that will allow people to convince others, and eventually themselves, that they are living the lives they want to live, not the lives they bother to build for themselves.
Re:People are weirded out now... (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically, think Brin's transparent society, but instead of society recording everyone, and showing it to everyone, like he hypothesizes, or the police recording everyone which is the worse case scenario, everyone would simply be recording themselves and be able to produce a recording for themselves. And various parts of that would be automatically accessible to other people.
Check out Robert J. Sawyers Neanderthal Trilogy ("Hominids", "Humans", & "Hybrids") The premise is that of a bridge to an alternate universe where Neanderthals became the dominant species... they have a society pretty much exactly as you describe. Everyone has AI assisted personal recorders, and the data is stored securely and can only be accessed via court order or reviewed by its owner.
Its one of several themes in the books, and he spends a bit of time exploring its impact on society. (Its effect on crime, and social interaction in general, etc...)
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you know what a non-sequitur is? If Facebook didn't exist (and believe it or not, there was a time when it didn't), his sister would be just putting the pictures up on her website.. or on the wall of her cubical at work. He might well be opposed to that too.
And those might be annoying but nothing worse.
The reason something like facebook or google is a problem is that ALL the information in the network is owned by one entity, linked together and tagged in ways that a bunch of independant websites and personal blogs never could be. Tons of data in aggregate, actively being linked together by the very users being monitored is far more than the simple sum of its parts.
A few pics on the web of me, a couple in the foreground, and a couple in the background of other people photos is meaningless. But take enough of those pictures, put them together, link them and put them into a cohesive context and piles of new information starts falling out, even if NONE of it was explicitly written.
It goes from there's you at the beach with some girl. To "He's been dating that girl for about 6 years." (from seeing that girl start showing up regularly in photos 6 years ago)
They had child. -- She gradually becomes pregnant in the 3rd year pics.
He works at X, She works at Y. == Random pics of them at work with coworkers. Misc corporate branding in background, plus multiple pictures of those coworkers around a particular building. You are never in a picture outside at work, but based on who your coworkers are and the fact that a high number of them are pictured with this building and the building features the corporate branding means its probably your place of work. The building address is pulled via a correlation with streetview.
He drives an X. Its plate number is Y. - oops you got caught in a pic with your car a few times, and a couple had your plates. It happens. But now its all linked to your profile.
He lives in city A. - pictures of you at home, correlated to an address via streetview.
She moved in on date B. - again more picture trending.
The child goes to school at C - more correlations. pics of your kid on stage that other parents took of their kids, where those other kids parents tagged the school. Software matches your child's face to pics of your child at the beach your sister uploaded...
The school at Address D...
You went as a family to see Coraline 3D -- Caught in the background of a cell phone pic someone else uploaded to facebook, and tagged as a visit to coraline. Your faces were matched to those already in your profile. So even though you never told anyone you went, you get caught on some cell phone pic by complete strangers and its linked to your profile. Everyone who has access to the profile knows you were there.
Think that could happen if all these pictures were uploaded to dozens of different providers. Sure someone might randomly stumble upon the image who happens to know you. But the odds of it getting linked back to your profile are astronomically small.
The odds of anything that can be related or correlated to you from any content anyone anywhere ever uploads about anyone to a site like facebook is only a question of time as the data mining and facial recognition, and raw mass of data increases.
All online. All the web of associations and inferences already mapped out from a vast collection of data.
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Interesting)
You apply for car insurance, and are charged extra because they analyze all the places your car has been seen parked and decide you are high risk...
You apply for life insurance, and are charged extra because they analyze all the places you have been seen, and decide you are higher risk...
If you're a higher risk you *should* get charged more.. because if you're not getting charged more than *I* am getting charged more.
You cut off the wrong jerk on the freeway, and your 6 year old daughter gets a threatening phone call at school...
And? That is possible and scary but not nearly as scary as the idea of your 6 year old daughter having a phone.. freak.
A little data is meaningless. A lot of data becomes information. Facebook and Google have scary amounts of data to mine for information.
And what is your point? What is so terrible about having targeted advertising? If they can ever get the shit to work I might actually have a chance of seeing an ad for a product that I would actually like to buy!
Can you make an argument or do I have to make it for you? Maybe what you're trying to say is that data collected for such a harmless purpose as targeted advertising can be abused. Well boo hoo, you deal with the abusers.. you don't try to enforce your paranoia on everyone else - if you're not interested in giving out personal information, don't, but other people are free to give out whatever information they want and yes, that includes information about you. The world can not bend over backwards to accommodate your personal preferences.
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're a higher risk you *should* get charged more.. because if you're not getting charged more than *I* am getting charged more.
Except that its *you* getting charged more because *you* were deemed higher risk than me. If they get good enough at predicting who will need an expensive payout, they'll just stop insuring those people. Insurance is supposed to be about covering the risk of things you can't control.
And? That is possible and scary but not nearly as scary as the idea of your 6 year old daughter having a phone.. freak.
No. They'd call the school, moron.
if you're not interested in giving out personal information, don't, but other people are free to give out whatever information they want and yes, that includes information about you. The world can not bend over backwards to accommodate your personal preferences.
The world can easily bend over backwards to make collecting and correlating data about me without my express permission illegal. If other people want to submit information about me, fine, but they don't have to keep it. They don't have to index it. They don't have to data mine it.
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that its *you* getting charged more because *you* were deemed higher risk than me. If they get good enough at predicting who will need an expensive payout, they'll just stop insuring those people. Insurance is supposed to be about covering the risk of things you can't control.
So you're saying that insurance companies should not access risk now? Please, put down the crack pipe.
No. They'd call the school, moron.
You don't even have kids do ya? Anyone who put a 6 year old kid on the phone with someone claiming to be a parent would not be working with children for long.
The world can easily bend over backwards to make collecting and correlating data about me without my express permission illegal. If other people want to submit information about me, fine, but they don't have to keep it. They don't have to index it. They don't have to data mine it.
No... in order to do that we have to make a law, and enforce it. That aint free. It's paid for by "the rest of us" and we don't give two shits about your preference to be un-data-mined. Go live in the freaking woods. Become a sailor.