Who Wants To Know?

A recent news item informed us all that a method was being developed to text 911 calls so they could be made silently, especially useful in the case of an intruder or another emergency. It was assumed that over the next few years we'd have a society in which everyone would have a “smart” cellular telephone with the capability of sending texts. With a GPS in the unit there wouldn't be the need to identify the location – an important consideration for those with limited time and the weight of anxiety causing confusion or otherwise limiting their ability to communicate.  However useful the tool though, the time will come when our privacy will be completely gone.

We're not so far from that society now. And we're certainly a society that revels in the ability to reach out to everyone we know. That used to happen at most once a year – in a mass mailing of a Christmas letter that was designed to let family and friends in on what had happened in the prior year. Now we see it as important to provide “real time” information on our feelings, activities, and ideas to as many of our closest friendsⁱ as we can locate. And in addition to what we've told the world, we can send individual texts and photographs of our pets, dirty dishes, and whatever else we can think of. It's so easy to take pictures with those same telephones and to include them in the messages. After all, we're sure that all our correspondents are interested – more interested than we are in their idiotic productions. And it's all so easy with the various social networks established by the latest group of billionaires.ⁱⁱ

Anyway, we're eager to tell everything to everyone – including internet vendors. We brag about how many “friends” we have. We enjoy the rapid publication of everything we think or “feel,” and we're eager to send immediate status reports and “tweets” to everyone; and to get feeds from the world. We want everyone to know everything about us and we want to know everything about everyone else.ⁱⁱⁱ

Well maybe that's an overstatement. But it's always been important to document and preserve our “selves” and our knowledge. In the past, it was often recorded on scrolls because that was the state of the art. And we might then store it in a warehouse of information that might be accessed at some undefined future time. The library at Alexandria was such a famed repository, but its destruction illustrated the tenuous nature of that attempt at preservation of knowledge. Modern computer systems are far more satisfactory in providing this service. And they should be used to serve the “people” in this goal.

Thus we may want our friends to know everything, but we don't want the government to know anything. It's a paradox. Governments were established for the protection of society but we fear our own more than any other. Espionage has always been around. It was known in the ancient Chinese and Indian civilizations and in Egypt as well. It is documented in the Bible,^iv so it is clear that this is not a new phenomenon. And it's gone on throughout history. “Everyone,” as the saying goes, “does it.” Two famous examples from the American experience are Benedict Arnold and Aldrich Ames. They were “bad guys”; they were spies. It's a given that all nations spy on each other, but that doesn't mean that we don't try to protect ourselves from such activity; yet that doesn't stop us doing the same thing. Only when we do it we term it “intelligence gathering.” Or at least that's what we call it when it's directed against others. When it's aimed at us,^v it's spying.

That's the source of our unhappiness with the NSA. When they collect records of all our telephone calls they're spying on us. It isn't intelligence gathering, it's spying. They may assure us that the material they have merely serves a database which will only be used to track the conversations of those truly threatening our security, but we know better. They may claim that what they're doing is legal and necessary.^vi But they're wrong.  And the courts may support that position, but they're wrong too – if not in fact then in implications. They may tell us that they need these records for future searches, but irrespective of that promise, the files shouldn't be saved. They should really be destroyed.^vii Who knows what use they'll be put to, and by whom.

I don't agree. I recognize the idea that society, and the protection it affords, are worth some sacrifice of privacy^viii in order to minimize the risk from those who oppose us. And I accept the view that information may be collected and saved for future use, information that has no immediate application and may, in fact, never be utilized, but will be available if needed. I have a large library with most of the books never read but they're there if I need to look something up. That's what libraries^ix are for.

Most people have no hesitation about providing information to surveyors and pollsters^x – information that we know will be used in the future – even though it will take time before its value is assessed and its applicability determined. Moreover we have no compunctions about spreading information ourselves which may or may not be accurate, and may or may not be damaging now, or in the future, to others. That information is in the form of gossip, innuendo, rumors, and the like, and we enjoy it greatly. It's OK if we obtain or provide confidential information, but the government has no right to do so.

The public is of two minds about privacy. Most people don't care who's “listening.” In fact, many are pleased by it. So much so that they compete for larger totals of “friends.” The fact that the Library of Congress collects every “tweet” sent is validation. It provides their fifteen minutes of fame. Some, however, are more sensitive. Among them are the ACLU and similar organizations that question the collection of information by any government agency. “Transparency” isn't enough, though they demand it of government officials. They adopt the “slippery slope” argument and maintain that the collection of any data now will eventually lead to the collection of all data in the future. It's the “camel's nose” argument.

I personally don't believe it makes sense. Absolutism may have some validity when discussing religious principles, however when relating to secular pursuits it assumes that people lack the ability to distinguish between principles and practice. It adopts a reductio ad absurdum approach to everything. And in instances like that involving the NSA it assumes that the government is evil. Eternal vigilance may be the price of freedom, but that vigilance may also be required by the government – not just the ACLU. It all depends on whom you consider the enemy.

That's enough for now. I'll finish it up next time. But, of course, I won't give my real name. I don't know who might be reading this.

Next episode: “Lean Back And Enjoy It” – If you can't lick 'em, join 'em.

I       We target “friends” and followers whom we invite to join our networks, and we, simultaneously join theirs.

ii       That makes them members of the one (hundredth of a) percent, though we don't think of them that way.

iii     We ignore the very real risk of hackers and identity thieves, though we may get additional programs to try to minimize the chances we're taking.

iv      See Numbers 14:1 and ff, and Joshua 2:1.

v       Or we believe it is.

vi      In keeping with the Patriot Act.

vii     As is the case with all such unevaluated and global solutions to situations we view as problems, a decision to destroy the records may result in the destruction, as well, of evidence in cases before the courts. For more on this subject see Wall Street Journal, February 2o, 2014: NSA Weighs Retaining Data for Suits. As the article suggests, this may result in the retention of more records than initially intended, but that would be the unintended consequence of such a move.

viii    And even though I know it's not true, I can live with the premise that most people are honest and law-abiding, and the information they obtain in conformity with legal and judicial limits will ultimately be used for my benefit.

ix      Not to mention Google and other search engines.

x      In fact they're tickled by the thought that their views are considered representative of a portion of the population, and that they can express their opinions and prejudices (my term, certainly not theirs) openly, and have it taken seriously.

F U Cn Rd Ths …

 

"I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter."

Thus wrote Blaise Pascal some time in the seventeenth century. But what's the point of a short letter? What's the fun of writing it? Isn't it more enjoyable to dawdle over your words for days; to spend free hours molding meaningful and memorable phrases, sentences, and paragraphs? Isn't the insouciant experience of composing in a relaxed manner worth far more than the time devoted to it?

And more important, where is the pleasure of waiting for such a treasure and reading it? It's so much better to receive a thick envelope and have a handful of papers to fondle, to read and re-read, to crumple and to flatten out again. Better to let your mind wander as you imagine the writer thinking about you and setting down his thoughts in a way designed to bring you pleasure.

But Blaise Pascal was a busy man. He lacked free time to sit back. He had a lot on his mind and little time to consider it all. Certainly there was no opportunity to say all that was on his mind concisely, to condense and clarify his thoughts.ⁱ So the letter was long. And what's wrong with that? Of course the letter may have been long but written hurriedly so that it lacked the poise and tranquility of a nonchalant dispatch. But long is better than short.

When I was in college and a major activity was taking notes, I used my own kind of shorthand code that allowed me to take down most of what I needed to remember while still listening to the lecturer – sort of. I guess all college students used to do that. Those who knew Speedwriting^® or shorthand – more likely Pitman or Greggⁱⁱ than older formsⁱⁱⁱ – would use that ability to record the material raised. The purpose of shorthand was to get down material quickly with the intent of writing it out more fully when time permitted. There were even machines available with which a transcriber could take down enough of a speaker's words to be able to reproduce a verbatim record – like the machines used to record legal testimony.

From there we moved to audio recordings which could be transcribed into more usable notes at a later time. More recently, with the advent of voice recognition technology, we have reached a point where a machine can listen to the lecture for us and produce written notes.^iv With all the technology available nowadays you don't even have to pay attention.^v

But the shorthand persisted. However it stopped being a communication that one addressed to himself – one which would be expanded at a later time. With recent movie titles,^vi texting and Tweeting, and with personal and want ads, private verbal shortcuts have been converted into external “communication.” “LOL” and “OMG,” among other such monstrosities, have found their way into the OED.^vii Orthography and grammar have no place in the twenty-first century. We live in the age of Facebook^®. Wisdom and style have fallen victim to inanity and speed. And everything has become fair game for Big Brother who can monitor most of our communications without our knowledge or concern. We don't even have to know much about spelling as long as we can get the first and last letters of words right, since it appears that people don't pay much attention to full words.^viii Speedy writing and reading are more important than intelligence and comprehension. More and more children have less and less understanding of the past and of the ideas once taught. When, for example, all they've ever encountered are digital clocks, it's easy to understand why the concepts of “clockwise” and “counter-clockwise” are not always fathomed.

Interestingly, however, although communications have become shorter and less informative, they have also become far more numerous. The streets^ix are filled with people either texting or chattering on their telephones. For many it's an addiction. Some people can't tolerate time when they're not in communication^x with someone else.^xi And the communications may be visual – photographs and videos. You Tube and television programs which invite videos cater to this form of narcissism and “documentation,” while the ease of photography with telephones and digital cameras, as well as the availability of computer memory into which the pictures can be put, never to be seen again. The action is more important than the content. And the speed more important than either.

We live in an age dedicated to instant gratification. We're always looking for shortcuts and for easier ways of doing things with no loss of rewards. That may mean plagiarism or the use of ready-made term papers, graphic novels, grade inflation, and “dumbing down” in general. In a way it's reminiscent of the “relevance” movement^xii that swept through educational facilities in the 1960's, and all the educational “improvements” foisted on us both in the past^xiii and at present. Whatever looks like it may make life easier and shorten the time necessary to complete a task must be good. If it doesn't work we'll find another untested method. And when that doesn't work we'll try another.^xiv

As for speed, the laconic popular songs of the past have been replaced by rapid-fire rap, and the clear and carefully enunciated radio advertisements have yielded to fast one with the hurried and unintelligible speech of the disclaimers that appear in announcements now heard. It's much like the fine print in contracts – present but of little value since it can't be understood.

But enough of the negative. Daylight Savings Time, designed to make better use of time, has surely been a boon to our society. And there's a lot to be said for bar codes and EZ Pass. The greatest benefit, however, has been in the proliferation of radio frequencies and especially increased “band width.” The sale of these frequencies by the government brings in a lot of money for the treasury.^xv And the greater the band width the faster we can download rap and You Tube videos.

What's not 2 lyk?

Next episode: “The Universal Scapegoat” –When all else fails, blame someone else.

i     Among other things he was a philosopher, so there were times when his thoughts were quite complex.

ii    Both lived in the nineteenth century.

iii    Shorthand dates back at least to the ancient Greece. Perhaps it existed before that but there is no good written record – in short- or longhand.

iv    It is, however, hard to ignore the reality that such systems are far less than perfect and there are times when the written (typed) record is indecipherable. At other times it is funny.

v     Which will give you more time for telephone calls and texting. Or sleeping late, if you can get a friend to take your electronics to the lecture.

vi    I suspect that movie producers consider them clever and good for the box office. Rather they are a concession to the worst aspects of modern “culture.”

vii    OK. I'm a hypocrite. That abbreviation I accept.

viii    http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/cambridge.asp

ix    And the homes.

x     “Contact” is probably a better word. Regarding it as “communication” is giving real communication a bad name.

xi    Compare them to hermits, monks, and others who prefer silence to sound, and who have no use for either telephones of text messages. Those of them who have children can employ the latest fad and teach the babies sign language so they don't have to talk to them.

xii    Why waste time on such unimportant subjects as math, science, and the classics. You'll never use them. It's better to devote your time in school to rock music, sexuality, protest movements and other practical matters.

xiii    The “New Math” and chisanbop spring to mind immediately. Learning to add and subtract are old hat. The multiplication tables should be folded up and put in the closet.

xiv    “Don't just stand there. Do something.” Unfortunately it doesn't matter what you do. It's more important that there be change than that the change be beneficial. Even harmful change sometimes seems to be preferable to leaving things as they are. “If it isn't broken, don't fix it.”

xv    And the sale of various electronic devices and the service contracts needed to run them make a fortune for service providers. I guess that's good for the economy.