Today in the NYT there was an article about the privacy stripping qualities of LBS. (personally, I hate the New York Times, but Xuxa likes it so we get it every weekend.) I just finished a paper on privacy and location based services last friday, and my thoughts on this are... approximately half of the country is volunteering  (indeed paying) to be lojacked, and they are starting to realize it.

The article really focuses on parents and children, and touches on the employer/employee relationship, but this wider implications. There's too much data to literally track everyone, but will the cops/courts be able to subpoena Verizon Wireless to check alibis? Does it matter? People will behave differently if they think they are being watched, after this article, and others like it, people are picking up on it.

What's happening with the parents and children illustrates that only the appearance of surveillance is needed for it to have its desired effect. "Mr. Lutz did not happen to be checking when Britney developed pangs of guilt for taking a train home later than she was supposed to, but the system worked just as he had hoped: she volunteered the information that evening."

It's quite apparent that mobiles (can we drop the cell phone moniker? it's completely archaic.) are very intrusive devices. Yet half the country has one. Clearly Mr. Lutz has no problems lojacking his daughters. His own piece of mind is much more important than his daughters' autonomy. The risks inherent in that autonomy outweigh the benefits. When they turns 18, perhaps Mr. Lutz will free his daughter from their bonds. They state might not, and their cell phone providers definitely will not. The state and the multinational echo Mr. Lutz, "They know I care. And they know I'm watching.

12:24:49 AM