I was recently reading a couple of my techie news websites when I happened upon Microsoft’s view of the future. This little video depicted glasses that translated languages for you, seemingly transparent phones the size of business cards that kept track of your whole life, a child doing her homework ON the table, picking out recipes with family in different cities, touching the fridge to show the contents and touching the virtual rendition of the contents for recipe ideas, overall just any flat surface becoming a smart surface.
The only things it seemed to be missing were paper, real human interaction, and an explanation how to make everything secure. The people in the video seemed to keep all of their data with them at all times, which to me is incredibly dangerous. More than that, they could transfer data simply by sweeping there hand toward the location they wanted to move it. What is to stop someone from swiping private data right into a database that could be used against you? I confidently believe that laws and protections evolve as we do, but it seems we are always chasing the latest fraud. Before we fully digitize ourselves, maybe we should begin working on protections…especially considering how long the legislative process takes. By the time it takes to agree on a national budget, your computer or phone is already exceedingly outdated.
Let’s move before the train smashes us, eh?
I understand what you are trying to say with the law always being behind the newest fraud. The problem with this is how do you right a law that applies to something that doesn't exist yet? Their is a lot of things that can take advantage of you and still your identity and this will probably get worse as technology gets better. But in most cases there is always a way to fix it and get your life back. I think its sad people have to worry about this but I do not see anyway to have the law lead technology.
ReplyDeleteYou produce a valid argument Jacob, but let me have you consider the spirit of the law argument. We can produce legislation that will be able to be used for years to come despite the change in technology. Let us take the Constitution for example. The Constitution is a document that presents clearly basic rights that should be retained by the people. The courts are required to uphold these documents even though has been hundreds of years since they were initially written. So in response to your comment, I would have to agree that law can't lead technology, but it can be made in such a way that it can flexibly protect the people in the technological evolution we are experiencing
ReplyDeleteI'm kind of falling behind both of your arguments and neither at the same time. I believe as Jacob said above, that true laws that fit the situation correctly cannot exist until the situation itself exists. That is very true with technology. But currently in the age of social media, laws haven't fully caught up to the realities so when a legal situation arises (see the "sexting" as child pornography cases) prosecutors and judges are at a loss for how to rule, so they take an old law and contort it so it sort of fits around the new situation. This leads to bad judicial precedents. The laws need to be made so they fit the situation, but making them in such a way as they can "flexibly protect the people" as Marianne Rose said above is not a viable option. Flexible laws cannot give the proper protection.
ReplyDeleteWhat would you suggest Bergeson?
ReplyDelete