The fact that most mobile phones are now capable of capturing video footage is one way in which people's lives are at risk of change, in terms of their privacy being compromised. It is fairly easy to take a video of an unsuspecting person; you just need to pretend you're reading a message on your phone and point it at them. As the Law Reform Commision suggest, there are several "commonsense" laws that should be put into action in regards to mobile phones. People shouldn't be allowed to take video footage in public toilets, changerooms, or any other private areas. That seems reasonable.
The article also states that myki cards have a radio frequency identification device, that could be used as a tracking device. Again, this is nothing to be concerned about, as long as... Wait. My Myki card can be used as a tracking device? I'm not keen on that at all. Now, I am concerned. Billions of dollars were spent on the Myki ticketing system, which only seems to have one real benefit; that it is slightly cheaper than buying a metcard. I can't help but wonder why a Myki card can be used as a tracking device. Having read 1984 several years ago, things like this freak me out. I certainly didn't approve of my taxes going towards a concept such as Myki. I find it unnerving that someone I don't know and can't see has access to information regarding my whereabouts, and travel patterns.
As I found myself reading through the article, and having varied reactions to the different problems that the article raised, I noticed a pattern. Issues such as filming people in private places, and people filming violence for entertainment didn't bother me all that much. I don't approve of these things, but I feel there is a simple answer. If a law is made to prevent people from doing such things, then most people won't do them. There will, of course, be exceptions, where people break the law, and will then, subsequently, be punished. Whilst none of this is desirable, it seems to be simply a by-product of having mobile phones with video cameras, which, has many advantages for people who use it correctly.
Similarly, I wasn't all that upset about the notion of people working at airports using body image scanners “that affectively strip you naked” sending images of those they found attractive to their friends. Again, it isn’t desirable, but a quick fix seems fairly simple. Make it illegal for those who work at the scanners to share images with anyone. As for whether or not this technology should be in use at all, this is something we need to think about a little. Just as the case is when thinking about mobile phones that can capture video footage, we need to weigh up the pros and cons. The pro, assumedly, is that our planes are at significantly less risk of being attacked than they would be if we didn’t have this technology, as it allows authorities the ability to see if anyone is carrying a weapon, or anything that may harm others. The con here is clearly that those operating the body scanners can see more of our bodies than we might hope. Though, if we imagine these workers to be trusted authorities, this would seem far less of a problem. The reason that we trust doctors will react appropriately when seeing our bodies, but then we have less trust for those who work at the airport, seems due to our perception of who these people are. Whilst doctors are authorities we can trust, who, on the most part, abide by the doctor-patient confidentiality agreement, those working on the body image scanners, at this stage, have no strict guidelines as to what is and isn’t acceptable, in regards to the way they handle images of our bodies. If the Law Reform Commission look into whether these body image scanners are really necessary, and find that they are, then they should simply give those who operate the scanners a set of rules to go by. These rules should clearly indicate that it is unacceptable to share these images with others. One trustworthy person seeing me semi-naked doesn’t bother me all that much. An image of me semi-naked doing the rounds without my knowledge, does bother me. As the Law Reform Commission states, when looking at many of these issues, we simply need to use “common sense”.
What bothered me within this article was the way technology was being used without the public's knowledge for a higher power that we are not aware of. Myki was one example of this, another was Google Earth, and Street View, which put pictures on the internet of just about every house and street in Australia. Not keen on that at all. Why wasn't I consulted before pictures of my house were put on the internet? Whilst these images being online has no immediate impact on my life, I find it un-nerving that organisations of people who I don't know, and can't see or speak to, are putting my personal information online, for the whole world to see. The same goes for automatic number-plate technology, which seems unnecessary, unless you're trying to know where everybody is, all the time, which, in itself, is pretty creepy.
So why is it that some of these problems worry me more than others? I believe it's largely because with devices such as Myki, number-plate technology, and Google Earth, and Street View, I am not convinced that the pros of these technologies outweigh the cons. In these three cases, people get to know where I am or look at my house, but where's the benefit for me? These issues affect everyone, and haven't been discussed with anyone.
Here is where I draw the line: these devices that have been designed for personal use are completely acceptable. As long as we act respectfully towards others, and police ourselves, so that we don't invade others privacy using these technologies, most people will simply enjoy the benefits of being able to take videos on their phones, or of sharing photos. As this technology is relatively new, we are yet to fully establish a moral framework which dictates how we should use these technologies respectfully. Once we do, however, most people will take note, and the problems caused by these technologies will be far outweighed by the benefits. The same goes for those using "body image scanners" at airports. As long as they are identifiable, and held responsible for their use of these machines, I believe that by and large, these powers will not be abused.
Devices that have NOT been designed for personal use, but rather for commercial, or private use by large organisations, where the public have no idea who is controlling them, are unacceptable, as far as I'm concerned. As the general public cannot directly speak with those who are running these devices, these people generally need not answer any questions about the invasion of people's privacy, or what these devices are really being used for. Where is this information going?
I believe that technological devices that have been designed for personal use, are no great concern, as each individual can dictate how they want to use it. People generally understand that there are ways of using these types of technology that are acceptable and unacceptable. Again, common-sense is required. I will not take video footage of anyone on the toilet, as I wouldn't want anyone taking video footage of me on the toilet. It's pretty simple stuff. It is the technologies which can monitor many people's behaviour that are of concern to me, particularly as there is little I can do to prevent it. I am glad that the "Law Reform Commission" are aiming to prevent these devices from being abused. It's nice to know that at least one powerful organisation is on my side.
Works cited:
Dowling, Jason, and Austin, Paul, 13/8/2010, Mobiles a 'threat' to privacy, Available at The Age online, http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/mobiles-a-threat-to-privacy-20100812-121i4.html
Last accessed: 6/11/2010
No comments:
Post a Comment