Monday, July 28, 2008

Privacy Issues and The Dark Knight

After mulling it over a while, I have upgraded my opinions about the new Batman flick featuring the Dark Knight and the Joker. I can’t change my rating at IMDB, but I did modify my blog review, from an 8 to a 9 on the Richter scale.

Reality is, though initially critical about a few small things, the big questions it raised still loom large, knocking about against the walls of my wooden skull. The film touches on some important issues related to belief systems, good and evil, and the nature of how power should be used.

In this fictional construct, Bruce Wayne / Batman crosses a line in regards to the invasion of privacy. The technology may be fictional, but the realities are not.

Today I read an article about how Google wishes to photograph every front door in England, the aim of which is to be able to show people not only an aerial view of every place, but also what it is like to walk down the street anywhere and everywhere. Many people feel uneasy or even disturbed by this.

Objections include this one. It gives criminals a great tool for scoping out your place so they can plan getaway routes. And some people simply do not want a camera in their yard.

Cities all over the world have embraced the eye in the sky network of cameras, in the name of “security.” For the sake of personal peace and security, people will give up freedoms. But how much freedom do we put on the altar of security?

We have by now all heard stories of people whose computers were raided by “the authorities” for containing child porn or other illegally downloaded content. The most vivid story that comes to mind is a police raid in which a man had been downloading child porn. They show up and find he is not home. The wife is very cooperative, and offers his computer. They say, “We don’t need it. We already took all the evidence before we came.”

That’s a bit scary to me. What else can these legal, professional hackers steal from us without our permission?

And so Batman takes this new technology, the ability to “see” via peoples’ cell phones, and uses it to locate his arch nemesis The Joker. His purpose is admirable: save innocent lives. His assistant, Lucius Fox as the voice of conscience (Morgan Freeman) is repulsed by the idea, though not so repulsed as to fail to carry out the request. It’s an ugly business this law and order stuff.

And one wonders how much invasion of privacy is taking place today in our society, carried out by people “following orders” who are equally repulsed. Morgan Freeman says he will do it this once and then resign. How many others are there who resign rather than carry on clandestine surveillance?

Here’s yet another story that highlights grey areas of the privacy problem. Currently the state of Pennsylvania’s Auditor General Jack Wagner wants to put GPS units on the ankles of sex offenders in that state. It has been learned that nearly ten thousand registered sex offenders in Pennsy alone have disappeared and are unaccounted for.

A few years back I wrote about the thousands of Wisconsin sex offenders that likewise disappeared, escaped, were “out there somewhere”… predators. Isn’t this what our parents and grandparents were really trying to warn us about when they told us about the bogeyman? The bugger man gonna get you, chile. Stay away from the dark.

And so we have terrorists and sex offenders, and all manner of vile dangers to make us afraid. People dislike being afraid, so they make a trade-off. Yes, I will give up some of my freedom if you'll watch over me, Big Brother. Please help so I can sleep tonight.

But what if our government is not quite as benevolent as our favorite comic book hero? Where do we draw the line in how freely we should allow Big Brother to monitor all our activities?

Currently there is a case in court in which Viacom is fighting Google for the right to have access to all websites Google users have visited. The purpose is to bust people who illegally borrow (steal) Viacom images and video content. Theoretically this sounds noble, but how secure will that database be if or when it gets into the wrong hands? My alma mater's database was hacked so that all my personal info was taken. A year later my personal info was stolen in another dBase theft from a broker I’d ceased doing business with twelve years ago. And more than one bank has been similarly hacked. If Viacom wins, will that info be safe or pilfered for profit on the black market.

Alas, the future remains unwrit. But there are legitimate causes for concern.

3 comments:

LEWagner said...

>>>>>>>>>>Where do we draw the line in how freely we should allow Big Brother to monitor all our activities?

According to the 4th Amendment of the US Consitution, it's only allowed with a court warrant based on probable cause.
That seems a sensible line to me, but not to the Bush administration.
And just a week or so ago, Congress, including Senator Obama, voted to give the telecommunication companies immunity for past illegal activities ordered by the Bush administration.
People being sworn in to office all take an oath on the Bible to uphold the constitution. Obviously, they're not doing so, and no one is calling them to account. It's outrageous.
In addition to information that you provided, I'd like to add that laptop computers are being seized from airline passengers, including US citizens, and searched, at US borders, with no reasons given, and with no warrants showing probable cause.

Ed Newman said...

Yes, I thought the Constitution drew a pretty clear line in the sand. Mr. Nixon and his "Dirty Tricks" squad obviously did not think it relevant. And today... yes, there are outrageous things happening, and where is the media coverage?

This is my beef with the media... if it involves work, it doesn't get investigated. Or is it that the public is indifferent anyways and the media doesn't feel compelled to take risks if no one cares? Not sure there...

LEWagner said...

>>>>>>>>if it involves work, it doesn't get investigated.

You can PROVIDE them with easily verifiable information, at no charge. Instead of printing that information, they will go out of their way to print something else to obfuscate and cover up the truth, that they know as well as anyone else does.
That's because they're propagandists, and not journalists. They print what they're told to print by their corporate masters, and the truth goes by the wayside.
They know what the truth is, just as well as Pontius Pilate did -- they just don't WANT to know anything for sure that might cost them their jobs, so they quibble, and quibble, and quibble. And lie.
I don't know what they can have left for souls.
It's bad enough
to have to see 'em,
I'm glad that I
don't have to be 'em.

Popular Posts