I, for One, Welcome Our Dystopian Yet Amazingly Convenient Future

Schneier’s “Privacy in the Age of Persistance” is a good summation of all the privacy-wrecking developments that have resulted from omnipresent CCTV cameras, limitless computing power, cheap storage, and loose data privacy regulation. This is hardly surprising to anyone with even a passing interest in privacy and security technologies.

Now, I’m not one to applaud privacy-invading technologies. I dislike the trend towards border laptop searches, and recent developments requiring defendants to disclose encryption passwords scare the hell out of me (what happens if you forgot your password?). But it’s not all bad news – having “big brother” track my every move could actually lead to some interesting benefits.

For one thing, maybe marketers could start to figure out that I’m in not now, nor likely ever to be in the future, interested in their products. Think of how much simpler life could be – no more commercials on TV for stuff you don’t want, no more magazine ads for products that you not only wouldn’t buy, but strongly believe may be one of the seven signs of the apocalypse. Less paper, less interruption, less “static”.

Maybe street lights would actually display some evidence of sentience, and change to let me pass when there’s no traffic in the other direction – instead of making me sit for five minutes, uselessly whittling away what little fossil fuel remains on the planet.

Perhaps my shopping experience would even get easier. I’ve long hoped that Safeway would finally do something useful with the bajillions of transactions I’ve performed using my rewards card. They know what I buy, they know how often I buy, and they know where I buy. Is it too much to expect to find a fully-stocked cart with my groceries ready to go when I show up to my usual Safeway on my regular bi-weekly trip?

One can only hope it gets this easy. But I’m willing to bet that it’s a long time before we get to that point. Most software companies I’ve worked for have had little capability to dissect their customer base. That’s right – the companies who make technology for a living are usually clueless about who buys their products. It’s not that they don’t have the data – it’s just that the data is complete crap. Sales guys don’t enter all the details, and the systems are incapable of drawing the most basic useful conclusions. Hence, a lot of effort goes into gathering data that is noisy, incomplete, or just plain wrong.

Of course, that last point is what really scares Schneier. What’s worse than all-seeing, all-knowing surveillance, than technology that people believe to be all-seeing, and all-knowing if you can’t trust its output? And until we have that capability, I’ll just have to be content to shop at the Safeway the old-fashioned way.

A Tale of Two Emergencies

An interesting tidbit I picked up at a review session at a UBC’s UILO (University Industrial Liaison Office) a couple weeks ago: apparently the FAA prevented use of unmanned drones during the post-Hurricane Katrina to perform early reconnaissance of the damage. But the story doesn’t stop there…

Apparently the FAA’s been a bit sticky about use of unmanned drones in civilian airspace, citing safety concerns. When military commanders wanted to use drones to survey the damage, the FAA stopped them on the basis that the drones weren’t certified for civilian airspace. The military responded by proposing to bolt the unmanned drone’s sensor package to a helicopter. Again, the FAA denied the request, noting that bolting the package to the helicopter resulted in a new configuration that would require re-certification of the helicopter.

Sigh.

In the end, the military overcame the objections of the FAA by duct taping the sensor package to the helicopter. Apparently, this configuration would not require re-certification, as the alteration did not result in a permanent change to the aircraft.

Keep in mind that, at this point, New Orleans was a disaster zone – even if the unmanned drone fell out of the sky, it’s doubtful that it would have any worse effect on the population than what had already occurred. A perfect example of bureaucracy run amok and working against those it was designed to help and protect.

Contrast that incident with this video of the response executed by New York’s ferry operators when US 1549 dropped into the Hudson. In less than five minutes, there were not one but three New York Water Taxi ferries picking up passengers from the disabled plane’s wings. One can’t help but marvel at their responsive to the emergency (see the 5:45pm entry):

“Someone came into my office and said a plane crashed,” said Tom Fox, general manager of New York Water Taxi, “and we ran out the door.”

Fox rode out to within several hundred yards of the plane on one of three Waterways boats that responded, but authorities indicated that additional help was not needed, apparently because most of the people had already been rescued.

It was probably not the smartest thing to do. That response probably violated a lot of the company’s rules. And yet, it was the right response.

Now, it’s probably not fair to compare the two incidents. Katrina was a slow evolving disaster with many facets hidden from plain view, whereas the US Airways crash was a clear and easily understood event. The water taxi manager’s response to the aircraft crash was likely further provoked by more recent experience with disasterous events (I’m thinking 9/11 specifically).

Yet, as I look at the multitude of global challenges we currently face, I hope that we will respond more like the guys driving the water taxis and less like the FAA.