What do you think?
As
a child of the digital age, the prospect that someone might seek to control me
through the technology I’ve come to love (facebook, internet searches, Netflix,
etc.) really disturbs me. Margaret Atwood argues that A Brave New World is applicable today because we continue to be a consumer
state (Atwood). She talks about the “Ministry of Love” and “Soma” in
generalities, but I think her article holds a few shortcomings in analyzing why
We, the future of America, should
consider Huxley’s dystopia as more than just a neat read: Specifically, how the
technology we love can be used against us.
When
we surf the web, check facebook, or subscribe to something on tumblr, we don’t
really think about what we’re doing aside from whatever need we’re satisfying
at the time. In Brave New World, the
downfall of society is that no one thought about what was given up in order to
achieve happiness, entertainment, and peace (Huxley). Aren’t we doing the same
thing? I think the danger we face, a danger that is addressed in Brave New World, is that the people have
allowed themselves to be distracted by gratification and failed to see methods
of control. I’ll give you an
example.
How
many of us use Google? I’ll bet you didn’t know this. I didn’t, until I was
made to learn about it Media and Society: EMC 3300.
Google’s
databases save every user query for up to three months under your specific IP
address. After three months, the data is “anonymized,” but reporters, users,
and the FBI has proved that they can de-anonymize data in order to identify
individuals by name, physical address, and often by phone number (since we
often use the internet via phone). All of us in this class have a Google
account since Google owns Blogger. If you have Googled anything while still
logged in, Google now has saved your query and has attached it to your account.
Think about all the things you’ve googled lately. What does google know about
you that you wouldn’t tell anyone else? Have you searched the symptoms of an
affliction you’re experiencing? Have you looked up something out of curiosity
that could be misconstrued? Have you researched something for class that would
raise eyebrows or have the FBI knock on your door, if they knew (Auletta)?
I’m
sure all of us have looked up something we wouldn’t tell anyone else about, or
wouldn’t want someone drawing the wrong conclusion about. Since the enacting of
the Patriot Act, the federal government has engaged in talks and law suits
against content aggregates like Google, AOL, and Yahoo for information about
their users (Barbaro). Google, as far as we know, has yet to yield. But AOL gave up the
game a long time ago, and not even to the government (Auletta).
In
2006, AOL released anonymized user data on the Internet. The New York Times took the data of a
specific user and traced it back to one woman. They found her name, her
address, her searches, and compiled an accurate profile on Ms. Thelma Arnold, a
woman who “researches her friends’ medical ailments and loves her three dogs” (Barbaro).
And although AOL removed all the data from their release point, once it’s on
the web, millions of people have it. No one knows how many people have that
“anonymized” data.
The
fact is, we’ve been giving up rights and privacy to the internet for a long time.
And I think we’ll continue to do so. Is this not similar to what the people of Brave New World did? They traded free
choice for happiness, convenience, and constant entertainment (Huxley).
I
think we are in serious danger of allowing ourselves to be overcome with being
entertained, like the society in Brave
New World. I think we’re apt to let the benefits of technology outweigh the
dangers of letting Big Brother or Our Ford into our lives. How much don’t we
know? How much have we allowed ourselves to be distracted from? What’s really
going on behind the scenes? What did that last line of that user agreement say? Will there be a day when someone takes advantage of our entertainment and uses that against us?
I
think the danger with our generation, and the point of reading Brave New World, is that we aren’t sure
how we’re being used in the machine. Yes, we all love our smart phones and laptops
and instant gratification, but whom are we serving with our use? Ourselves?
Corporations? The government? I don’t know, and that scares me. The point, I
think, isn’t that there’s soma, or zippicaminicks – we see examples of drug
use, consumerism, and promiscuity every day. Atwood says that those are things
we should compare our society to. That’s all way too literal, I think. The
point, I believe, is that Brave New World
shows us what ignorance begets. And what are we, when it comes to the things we
love, but blind?
Atwood, Margaret. "Everybody Is Happy Now." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 16 Nov. 2007. Web. 14
Oct. 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/nov/17/classics.margaretatwood>.
Auletta, Ken. Googled: The End of the World
as We Know It. New York: Penguin, 2009. Print.
Barbaro, Michael. Zeller, Jr., Tom. "A Face Is Exposed for AOL
Searcher No. 4417749." The New
York Times.
The New York Times, 09 Aug. 2006. Web. 14 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html?pagewanted=all>.
Huxley, Aldous. Brave New World. New York: HarperPerennial, 1998. Print.
Serena,
ReplyDeleteI love your blog post; I think it's very interesting, and you make some valid points. I agree with your statement where you said, "I think the danger with our generation, and the point of reading Brave New World, is that we aren’t sure how we’re being used in the machine." This statement made me realize that we are "blind" to how we are treated in society. John the Savage was blind when he was brought to a new environment and society; he had to see how things "really" were. I believe that Big Brother has a huge effect on our lives with controlling what we can and cannot watch on television, what we can and cannot search on the internet, and because of movie ratings (i.e. PG, PG-13, R), we cannot truly enjoy something because of age restrictions. Although they can find and use our information we post on the Web, do you believe that the government is actually helping us in a way? Or are they just trying to make us believe the same thing, that Big Brother will always pick on us and tease us for being different?
-David E.
Woohoo, glad y'all got what I was getting at. Awesome points, David.
DeleteI'm pretty sure that the government hasn't used too much private data against MOST individuals, yet. And I do think that it helps us a lot of times. For example, there's a section of the bureau dedicated to stopping and monitoring child pornographers, and they use internet data to track that stuff. We also have access to registered sex offender info via the internet, so that's good.
At the same time, though, I think there's definite potential for our information to be used negatively. For now, corporations that support internet use have been responsible over all. Like, g-mail, for example. G-mail scans the contents of your email to provide you with better advertisement, which is why it's free of charge. Most e-mail providers (save corporate) do this. Who's to say that in the future, the wrong people won't be able to access your private info via email? Like your credit card numbers, the types of things you buy, things you subscribe to?
With facebook, it's currently more than legal for companies to look at and discriminate against you based on what you put on facebook. I think this aspect applies especially to your last question. In a way, I think that by not protecting the privacy we should have on facebook, Big Brother HAS allowed potential employers to "pick on us for being different." Whereas before, if you had fun in your private life, employers really didn't have the right to know.
It's like, jut because we have this awesome portal to the rest of the world, it gives the bigger entities the right to dig into OUR lives. Which I don't agree with in the least.
So based on this collaboration between Serena and David, (if I understand correctly) basically what is being said is that we cannot have our cake and eat it too. If we wish to enjoy and benefit from the conveniences that the internet provides, we have to sacrifice our privacy to some extent. And the thing to me is that we do it without thinking twice, because most people really don't know to think twice before Googling something (me included), whether it be something that they would let the world see or not.
DeleteI agree with you, Serena. I don't think it is Big Brother we as society should be worried about. It is OUR OWN ACTIONS, and sometimes our ignorance. We made the decision to create a Facebook account, we made the decision to sign up for Pinterest, we typed in our credit card number to order those fab jeans. So because we didn't actually say that this information couldn't be used for other reasons, it will. In my opinion, we can't get mad at this situation because we engage in it.
We are giving Big Brother power, it isn't really being taken from us blatantly.
I have come to the conclusion that many things y'all mention, such as PG, PG-13, and R are definitely used for strictly protection. Government type agencies responsible for movies, youtube video, access, and etc. This reminds me of the question E.G. gave us, asking us to put ourselves in the shoes of a librarian and consider if we would put Brave New World on the shelf or not. David was my partner in this activity, and I discussed with him the "cover your ass" theory. Movie production companies are going to age restrict, age restrict, age restrict, not necessarily for the safety of the young, but rather, to keep there company care free and out of trouble. So do these
ReplyDeleteSerena, thank you for bringing that to our blog! I honestly had no idea that there was a database of that sort, and your questions made me truly wonder. I can think of most of the stuff that I google, and I can honestly say that I think that many people my age have googled some of the same topics.
I want to pose a question, this is obviously an invasion of space, but do you think that in criminal cases the need for this type of database is crucial?
I think of the Casey Anthony Trial. I am not sure if y'all are familiar with this trail, but it was ALL OVER the news. A little girl went missing, and evidence was found in a computer search engine.
I truly cannot even think of a one sided answer for this question. If I searched chloroform for a science project, but a murderer searched for chloroform in order kill someone close to me...
Watch this video, if what I am saying is making absolutely no sense....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXFGBaF1XFQ
If you have time to watch this video, I ask that you answer a question I have. Are these actions by google an invasion of privacy? Or are they detrimental in finding justice? This is just one example, but like Serena said the FBI uses this, and this is so common in many cases. It is called "net analysis", but if a student is curious to google something that seems odd, could it be misconstrued? I love that Serena brings up this point. What is too much? What is too little? What should be controlled, what should not? Who should question, are we being like Lenina not asking the officials why they have access to our privacy, when we purchase our laptops, and pay for our internet? It's hard to decide.
It is almost like law enforcement. If someone gets hurt, you want the cops there to help. But, if you're speeding cause you're late for work, and one pulls you over.. you might not be so thankful.
Brave New World, I think, was Huxley's way of illustrating that we should question higher power, but like the characters in Brave New World, these questions may cross our minds, but are we really going to approach them?
I like your comment on this post, Veronica. I watched the video, and it seemed pretty interesting and relevant to what our discussion is about. To answer your questions, I believe that the need for the type of database is crucial to finding evidence and previous researc on specific people. After all, according to the World Internet Usage Statistics, 78.6% of the population of North America use the Internet. The actions by google that they took are no an invasion of privacy because not many things, because of government regulation and control, are private on the internet. Big Brother can access all our e-mails and searches if they wanted to! We should approach the questions and ideas that Huxley brings up. I think it is vital for us to understand how pertinent the idea of government control is. They use "hypnopaedia" on us everyday as we daze into our internet searches. What if the government stopped regulating what we looked at? What if they let us do whatever we please without signing a terms of agreement? Without government control and regulation, our society would be in constant chaos.
Delete-David E
Veronica, I think you pose a really good question. Before before I give my opinion, I want to say something. And that something is if the government has the right to tap into one person's information, they have the right to everyone's. In other words, what's fair for one is fair for all. So although it would be awesome if we could say who's information is fair game and whose isn't, we can't. . .if that makes sense. We have to take the good, the bad, and the ugly. We can't pick and choose, moreover THE GOVERNMENT won't pick and choose.
DeleteI was totally creeped by the Anthony situation. My mom went on this big tear about it. Lol. And quite frankly, I think that the information found on the search engine was totally incriminating. Like seriously, how can you question that? Justice was served thanks to modern technology. And I would hope that as long as I keep my nose clean, nobody's going to be hacking into my queries . . . haha. If we question the higher power's authority to do these sort of things, we will not only be questioning their right to our private affairs, but also their right to serve justice. Like I mentioned earlier, are we willing to sacrifice anything we do on a computer in order for the government to have this advantage? Basically that is the same thing you are asking, Veronica. And honestly, I think things will have to get much worse before the government's right to the information we divulge is dissolved.
David, you point out that we "daze into our internet searches". And it is out of our own ignorance that we give out our information. Secure website means nothing.
Great points, Veronica. I definitely agree that in some cases the aggregation of user queries and user data can be helpful. Especially in criminal cases.
ReplyDeleteThe thing I worry about, though, is that when AOL released all that data in 2006, the FBI tried to subpoena ALL Google user data. And yes, it may have been done with the best intentions, but aren't Mustapha's actions done with the best intentions?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't be conscientious users, but I think that our ignorance of what the rules are and how much we've let others get a hold of should make us question the ones that enforce our laws. I'll reference an example. I tried to find the article I looked at in high school, but it seems that more recent cases have topped it when I google.
Back when the Patriot Act was first passed, or maybe a year or so after, my U.S. Government teacher gave us a photo-copied issue of the New York Times. There was this kid, maybe 14 or 15 years old, who had been arrested under the Patriot Act, because he developed "anti-american" photos for a school project at his local drug store. Since the enacting of the patriot act, photo developers have to notify law enforcement if they happen to come by photos that look illegal. The photos included pictures of kids in masks, wires, chemicals, and a few other things that definitely were misconstrued. He was prosecuted, and eventually his sentence was converted to a year's house arrest after his teacher and school attested to the fact that he was participating in a school project.
The kid is now considered a felon, and cannot appeal the charge. It's likely he still lives at home, because who's gonna hire someone convicted of something under the Patriot Act?
I wish we had more of a backstory aside from the brief "gas & bombing" explanation we get as to why Huxley's society came to be. From his article on Hitler, though, I think it's probably something along the "greatest dictator's" process.
The internet and other technologies offer us a world of good, but I think you're right in questioning whether we'll be able to question the powers that offer us all that good. According to Huxley, HItler was successful in gaining power because of the use of technology.
Do you think there may come a day where the government attempts to take control, or prosecute us in a different way than before through our technology? Do you think it gives a future "World Controller" the potential to infiltrate our lives?
Think about the Arab Spring, and the way technology helped spread their ideas, their movement, their fight. What possibilities does our technology give us? Give others?
Are we a little like Lenina, simply enjoying what we've got? Or should we be more like Helmholtz, and look for greater meanings within our world?
I love the questions you pose Serena. I am not very familiar with the Patriot Act, but your post made me do a little research and found out that it's anniversary is coming up, on the same day as my birthday!
DeleteAfter reading about it, I began to think quite a bit about email correspondence as well. I think these regulations are substantial to the safety of society, in the repect that the public is notified.
For instance, your comment pertaining to google database querys. Obviously, you were informed, but how many people are in Electronic Media and Communication, and why are not more of us aware?
Technology does us a world of good, but like most things, all good can also be bad.
To answer you question, I do not see goverment attempting to control us through technology, other than their ability to edit the media, what's being said, and miscontrue messages.
The thing that I find about technology that might be taking control, is advancements in our resources. Cars, for instance, I am not sure if you have heard, but supposedly in the future, cars will be able to drive themselves.
Check this out: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cars-drive-themselves.html
Are our possessions the reason that we fall behind sometimes in the world of education? One must learn to drive, it requires defensiveness, respect, control, and other sorts of machine operating skills, doing away that? Are we allowing ourselves to rely on technology to the point where we, as those who strive to gain intelligence and experience, are losing the ability to gain that intelligence and experience?
I'll go so far to say, that I do not think that government's control of technology will be our experience with Huxley's proposition, but rather our reliance on it. A gateway to the loss of education.
Think Spark Notes. Think Google. Many took hours to locate information, now it's at the tip of our fingers, but is it good, or is it bad?
I will be commenting ASAP, but I wanted to ask y'all if y'all would be willing to meet 20 minutes before class so that we can take our extra credit picture!? Does Friday work for y'all? I feel that would be the most convenient if y'all don't have class between 11-12, I'll make sure to see if I can remind everyone on Wedneday, if this works! I can bring cookies and the camera of course. :)
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I've got class all the way up to class and immediately after. I can meet on Friday anytime after 2:00PM, but not before.
ReplyDeleteIs anyone available Tomorrow after 2?!
ReplyDeleteYeah I am available after 2 but I have work at 5 but I do work at chili’s where food is present so maybe we can do it there?? But insightful thoughts guys! I think I’m going to go in a little different direction with this though. Do you think the internet and technology is actually doing the opposite of controlling us and is rather just enlightening us? How did you find the sources for your research? Before technology it was a lot harder for people to realize when their rights were being violated. Just look at segregation. Did people really realize how unequal they lived and that they could do something about it until riots and others such as MLK jr. voiced it over the radio and was shown on television? I am not saying that I think it is ok for the government to look into your personal life and track you everywhere you go but do you think they are really doing that just because they can?
ReplyDeleteAnd as to the food, I'm making a new thread because this is getting confuzzling to read. :)
DeleteSorry about that! Thank you!
DeletePerhaps not just because they can, but I do think that we know dangerously too little about what the boundaries truly are. Yes, MLK was able to spread the word faster due to technology, but riots broke out before then and the government and much of the public was already aware that there was dissatisfaction among the African American community.
ReplyDeleteAs to my sources, if you google "patriot act" "rights violation" and "internet" you'll find numerous cases in which young people, with no ties to any criminal organization, without records, without any material evidence, have been prosecuted without due process under the act and because of something that crossed their IP address.
The sources from my original post are books, a thoroughly critiqued news paper, and a source given us by our professor. Other resources I reference I was either alerted to by teachers or my current Media Studies professor.
I'm not saying that technology is a bad thing. As I hinted at about Arab Spring, the technology we have can enable us to accomplish much more than we ever have. I do think, however, that we are VERY ignorant as to what the rules are regarding the internet. I also think that the empowered organizations don't regard our favorite technologies with the same respect for privacy and personal rights as they do traditional methods of communication. Yes, when subpoenaed, the data of potential criminals, etc, should be viewed. But in the case of some, we know that good intentions have gone awry.
I think we're most similar in the society represented in BNW because the majority of our generation, and a couple older ones, don't question. I don't think that younger generations are being taught to question. This country was built on the principle that the government and national policy should be in the defense and for the benefit of its people. Yet, today, I feel that often the powers that be act without questioning us. Rather, those who stand only for their own interests are able to supersede the needs of those they supposedly represent.
Mustapha does indeed act in the interests of the "greatest good" as a few minds defined it. Do you think, if the Alphas and Betas were not conditioned, that they would want the world given them? John definitely doesn't, and by breeding he's an Alpha because of his blonde hue and brainpower. I mean, learning to read through Shakespeare? And his stature designates him as an Alpha, as well.
What do you think? If Mustapha's "Alpha Experiment" were conducted without the history of conditioning, and they were offered "civilization," would they take it?
So maybe the correct way in handling all of this would be to raise awareness rather than to try and change it. I admit that I am ignorant when it comes to half of the technology that I used in everyday life. If I knew the half of what was truly going on, I may actually think before I act.
ReplyDeleteI think civilization is something that is loosely defined. Kind of like the saying 'What is normal'? I mean civilized can mean different things to different people. So I think people would take civilization if there was no "Alpha Experiment that you refer to here, Serena.
I agree with Jordan there are many different meanings to civilization. Would you consider the island a civilization? or even the savage reservation? But I feel that nature and nurture play equal parts in human development, meaning that in any environment there is a sense of conditioning. So I believe that just as we struggle to find a place in this world, they would do the same. Some would choose and some wouldn't. Isn't that what makes us human? Because no matter how hard you try to mechanize a person you cannot take away the fact that they are still human.
ReplyDeletegreat post! I like how you pointed out that even we think whatever we are doing on our laptops or smartphones, is private, it is the opposite. corporations do keep track of all this activity, and the dangers of our habits being used against us, to control or othjerwise, is a very scary thought. i never really thought about it but if corporations did want to implement some sort of control on the population it wouldnt be that hard, given that we are constantly submerged in advertising, or some sort of media. you made some really interesting pooints and i really enjoyed reading this post.
ReplyDelete