You can't secure what you don't acknowledge.SM

Friday, March 27, 2009

Interesting new technology dilemma arising

Here's an interesting bit about something our legal system is going to have to try to get its arms around. In essence it's jurors using mobile phones to access the Internet to learn more about the trials they're currently serving on. Wow - talk about unintended consequences.

I suspect that one of these days, in a few more years once Big Brother has really established himself, we'll have some really advanced contextual controls on what we do - maybe even how we think - in these situations. For instance I imaging the courts will have the ability (and power, of course) to flag that a person is currently serving on jury duty, force the telecom/Internet companies to monitor for any activity contextually related to the case, and report back to the what has taken place.

The juror(s) go against the will of the courts are all of a sudden in a position of having to find themselves their own attorneys. I'm not saying jurors shouldn't listen to what their told to do by judges on such cases. I have the highest respect for reasonable rule of law. I'm just concerned about the politicians with their self-centered intent (ha! isn't that all of them?) seeing the opportunity in technology such as this. It'll be introduced as a neat way to "help" society that'll end up being used against us. Just watch what's going to happen with the mileage tax. It was recently shelved but it will come back and many of us independent thinkers will regret letting it happen.

I'm telling you folks, as wonderful as technology is at facilitating business progress and making our lives easier - not to mention helping to pay for our salaries in IT/security - I'm convinced it's going to eventually be the facilitator of the downfall of America and the world as we know it.


  1. The mileage tax does make sense, in a way, though. That's already how the government handles reimbursement for vehicle use as a business expense, and any concerns about it removing the incentive to drive fuel efficient vehicles could be addressed by making the tax tiered on fuel efficiency. It seems perfectly reasonable, if you're not the sort of person who'd hear the idea and immediately consider the privacy implications. I'd give the secretary the benefit of the doubt, there. They're not going to do it, and it's probably in large part because of the privacy issues.

  2. Good point...the long-term problem still stems from what I mentioned above. Once the lawmakers get their hands on this stuff the sky's the limit for both government control and insurance company oversight. GPS-tracking, ECU (car computer) monitoring, and so on can and likely will be used against us (or at least our kids and grandkids) *anytime* we step out of line accelerating too quickly, driving with the radio too loud, steering or braking too abruptly - all the things that every single one of us has done - regardless of the actual context/intent. Traffic cameras in metropolitan areas and smart highways such as this ( are just the beginning.

    The FICA tax is a perfect example of government control with (reasonably) good intent that has since been abused and misused and with people such as the current goons leading this country and spreading the wealth around it's only going to get worse.

  3. I meant to put the link in for the Federal Insurance "Contributions" Act:

    Read the History and Criticism and you'll see what I'm talking about...