In order to retain one’s autonomy under these changing conditions, and in order for one to have access to accurate and unlimited information, we will all have to drastically change the way we think about our connectivity, what we use it for, and how it now has the power to use us. We are going to have to find news ways of thinking and communicating.
This is extremely serious.
First, let’s take a look at Google’s privacy policy, how they’re marketing it and why. Apparently, there’s just too much information in the world. We use so many digital applications and websites, that it’s just getting to be, well... inefficient. That’s the premise. Instead of having to sort through unfathomable piles of data to find what we’re looking for, Google’s decided that in order to create a more efficient user experience, it will filter all our search results based on what it knows about us. What does it know about us? Well, any search engine that’s powered by Google is included, so any activity there will be used to generate your user profile. And your Google mail account, that information there will be used to generate your unique profile. Things you search and watch on Youtube, that will be added to your user data... You can see how much information they’ll have, and they already have - enough to get a pretty accurate picture of who you are and how you think. On March 1, when you go on the Internet to do a search, the results of that search will be based on what you’ve already searched and indicated an interest in. Less useless information for you to sort through. That’s how it’s being sold.
I am sure by now the wheels are turning in a lot of heads about the potential this sort of change has for direct marketing. Imagine all the ads, all the information that was made available to you, imagine it was gathered and prepared just for you. It’s supposed to sound like a dream. It’s actually quite the nightmare.
It’s rather obvious how this new policy is meant to benefit primarily the interests of corporations, but there is a far darker and more sinister effect to this policy. It actually serves to institute a very subtle but powerful control on every individual’s access to information, and therefore their thoughts. No lie. Let me give you an example from today:
I’ve been researching the use of bentonite clay as a natural pond liner for one of my friends... by researching I mean reading books, my books. I know there’s lots of condensed information on the internet that I want to share with her about this, and I know I’d like her to see the particular properties of the clay in a video, in action, that would be great! So I go to Youtube and I punch in the word “bentonite”. I get two pages of search results, that’s it. There is one link to a video about that particular clay and it’s application and pottery, but the rest of the video links provided to me are in relation to bentonite clay and it’s applications in African American hair care and other beauty uses. That’s it. Nothing more. Two pages of results. YouTube already knows I’m black... go figure. But there was nothing made available to me that would even remotely suggest that bentonite has many uses. This is based on my previous knowledge, as I have been working with clay all my life. I know that it’s used as a high temperature lubricant on oil rigs, I know it is used as a natural alternative to rubber pond liners, I know that it is used to create interesting effects in pottery, so why aren’t there any videos on those applications? Good thing I know this stuff already, or else I wouldn’t be able to know it... DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM?? I had to change the query to include what I already knew, mainly that you can use bentonite to seal a pond. Once I specified that, then more appropriate videos came up in the search results.
This is not going to be limited to merely your YouTube search results, this new and systemic limitation will affect ALL of your searches. The question then becomes, if one is on a quest for new information, how are we going to access that information if it requires that we already know something about it? Google and all it’s affiliates are turning into one of those dangerous ”friends”, who only tell you what you need to know in order to get you to do or think what they want you to do, or think. Further, this enables them to find out what you do know (based on your used profile generated from multiple sources) and based on that, stop you from obtaining specific additional information, especially on sensitive subjects, illegal subjects, controversial subjects.
And what about this scenario? What if a young man or woman is interested in buying and consuming raw milk, or starting up a little bee colony in their back yard - both of which are considered illegal in Canada, the latter only being permitted with appropriate licensing . This individual performs a Google search. What if the mandate behind the information returned to this individual, in this particular case, is to deter the individual from “breaking the law” so when this young hippie does a search it’s entirely possible that Google has decided it’s most appropriate to return search results that deter such “illegal behavior”. The search results might return a few pages on sicknesses related to raw milk, or a news article on a farmer that was imprisoned for breaking the laws on food consumption here in Canada. And if corporations will use data profiles to target users, why wouldn’t the government? Who decides what information is best suited for what type of user profile? Is it the one with the most dollars on the table? The one with the biggest nuclear weapons? Who decides? This is not a benign process. These are VERY important questions.
The facts are the facts. This is the closest thing to “thought police” to ever emerge in our society. Myself, I’ve concluded that in the future, in order to avoid a tailor made picture of the world and my desires, custom made for me by Google, I’ll hit up my local library AND my not so local library. The world is changing. Again.
Now add to Google’s new privacy policy the inception of the Investigative Powers for the 21st Century (IP21C) Act, being pushed into law by our government as we speak. In a nutshell, this piece of legislation would allow “back door” access to all digital forms of information exchange, and it would give this access to police and other government agencies. Currently, a warrant is required to have access to an individuals phone records, texts, emails, web browsing history, etc. This new legislation wants to change all that. Child pornography and terrorism are the poster children for the cause. Those who oppose the idea of Internet surveillance are “with the terrorist and pornographers”. It’s a brutal way to sell it, and a brilliant way to stifle curiosity about the scary and intrusive ramifications such a sweeping and powerful piece of legislation would cause.
So in the name of preventing terrorism and child pornography, the government would like to essentially “monitor” all digital information exchange that occurs within the country. All text messages, all emails, all web browsing history... The intention is to put all of that data through a government controlled data scanning device which will detect certain “potential problems” and then the appropriate responding agency can follow the digital trail back to it’s source. I mean, I guess that’s great if you can stop the child pornographers, but the data can easily be used to identify all sorts of statistical outliers, as far as data patterns about users are concerned. Whoever has access to that information can really figure out anything about anyone they want, and this can be done using data programs that use statistical analysis of data to identify certain types of users... I’ve already talked about it above in regards to Google.
So if you’re feeling rebellious, and want to plan an event to protest something politically, the government and it’s associated institutions have the capacity to know every detail of the event, as it unfolds among the populous interested in protesting. If there were a collective of individuals interested in distributing raw milk, natural meat, or any other “illegal” food item, the government would have the capacity to know about it before it actually occurred, if it was communicated digitally that is.
Imagine how that might work if Canadians become subject to Investigative Powers for the 21st Century (IP21C) Act. Imagine how that might work in conjunction with the changes to Google’s privacy policy. The government would have the ability to feed you information, only the information they wanted you to see. And they might think you need to change your thinking, especially if you’re into alternative medicines or public food gardens. Anything that is seen as a threat to the current world order, the perpetuation of capitalism, and the current world domination by corporations will be annihilated in one of three ways:
by concealing specific information from those that would use it
by feeding custom created information streams to targeted individuals, to either make them do something, buy something, or make them not want to do something (thought control) or think certain things.
if the above two options fail to bring about social compliance among the population, the government can easily hone in on rabble rousers and nay sayers with their “back door” access.
Think about what information is out there about you digitally right now. Do you use your bank card to buy things? This would indicate where you were and when, how often you go certain places. It would reveal your habits in a three dimensional fashion: what you spend, where you spend it, and when. That digital information is readily available. What about your cell phone? Do you carry one around? One with a map function? Do you use Facebook? How often do you update it? What sorts of things do you put on there? Do you “sign in” to “Places”?
Is there anything that’s private anymore? Now is more important than ever to understand the permanence of your digital footprint in all areas of life, especially if you’re a “rabble rouser” or a “trouble maker”... I know you know who you are. If you think things ought to be different than how they are, if you think you are the 99%, if you think there has to be a better way, it would do you and everyone like you a world of good, to keep their thoughts to themselves, at least in a digital sense. The world is changing. Again.
Me? I’m going back to books and coffee shops, newspapers and handouts, brochures and community gatherings. Thanks to to recent changes in Internet policy, if change is to be had, we are going to have to find new ways of talking about it and executing it.
Please share this information with everyone you know that it will matter to.
