102:
Jones, but rather simply tapping the joy of sharing (factual) information -- ostensibly the hallmark of good journalism. So, what if everyone could be a source of news based on their reporting history with the explicit assumption that erroneous reports could be quickly weeded out because they'd not be verifiable? Harnessing such self-interest (along with certain human information processing capabilities far greater than any modern computer) could be a societal godsend.
106:
addressed. For instance, can you be legally prohibited from recording your surroundings if I've invited you into my home? -- and if so, could I also force you to shut your eyes and stopper your ears? However, the real societal benefits something like a LifeLog could produce might far outweigh liabilities, all of which can probably be made manageable through a combination of existing or easily invented technical and social means.
98:
recordings could be made by everyone about anything, and rapidly shared if desired, but kept private if not? My guess is the result would be much more like Rodney King than Big
Brother, so long as you could always watch the watcher watching -- perhaps down to having many of the same personal details about a watcher as the watcher has about you.
85:
I read your June 5th, 2003 NY Times Op-Ed piece with great interest. I'm a professor of
Electrial and Computer Engineering with a specialty in communications, and I've mulled the ideas over for quite a while. I even submitted a (failed, alas) white paper to the National Science Foundation on aspects
77:
program was roundly denounced. As construed by the DoD and others, I'm also a denunciator, but as a communications theorist (and someone living in the modern world) I see elements of LifeLog emerging all around us, but not in the centralized way the government might have planned. In fact, I could
97:
However, a fundamental assumption by both sides of the issue (intelligence community and civil liberties activists) is that there's an asymmetry in how information is collected and used, usually in favor of "the government." Well, starting with civil liberties fears, what if accurate and verifiable
93:
So the issue is not one of "volks spying" or "volks intelligence" but the assumptions that it's not symmetric, and that information is not controllable by the owner. That is, most everyone has eyes and ears, so it's acceptable for a bystander to look/listen in a public space. Everyone's "playback"
89:
Our social structures are very much based on records of events both written and otherwise. Just think of the legal system. So, recording one's environment, as an intellectual abstraction, is simply not the issue -- any place you are (assuming you're awake :) ) is subject to your "recording" in
101:
As for the intelligence community, the basic issue which seems to be missed is that in some respects people have a greater desire and capacity to collectively protect themselves than a police force or government agency. That does not mean (necessarily) reporting on the late night activities of Mr.
109:
Or perhaps we should simply be practical. No matter what we might think, the
Internet, cell phones which do everything including take pictures, the portable massive personal storage and processing capabilities we now take for granted coupled to the natural human tendency to share information will
105:
So all told, perhaps both public fears based on (a healthy) distrust of government and a natural governmental inclination towards strictly vertical and secret intelligence hierarchies are both misguided when it comes to LifeLog. Certainly there are deep legal and social issues that must be
86:
of the topic a few years ago. Not surprisingly, one of the reviewers had many of the same
Orwellian feelings that this issue seems to evoke almost universally. However, many vocal proponents AND opponents of things like LifeLog are perhaps missing the point.
94:
is subject to similar fuzziness and (un)believability problems, and at least at present, it is difficult to extract reliable memories through force or subterfuge.
120:
PS: Sorry this turned into an op-ed piece/tirade. You can visit the web page in the banner below to establish than I'm not (or am :) ) a crank.
110:
produce some version of LifeLog whether we like it or not. So, maybe we better quickly figure out how to sculpt LifeLog for the societal good.
32:
48:
44:
36:
74:
70:
52:
138:
26:
134:
40:
146:
60:
56:
17:
69:Below is a letter I wrote to William Safire of the
78:imagine it being like wikipedia in some ways.
8:
147:Please click here to leave me a new message.
18:Please click here to leave me a new message.
7:
139:http://www.winlab.rutgers.edu/~crose
90:some fashion for later "playback."
31:"Notable" article: cover story in
126:Associate Director, Rutgers WINLAB
14:
135:mailto:crose@winlab.rutgers.edu
1:
39:provides a novel take on the
73:a ways back when the DoD's
45:ET Might Write, Not Radiate
166:
132:(732) 445-5250 (fax: 3693)
47:. Press coverage appears
63:radio interviews, etc.).
55:article and editorial,
124:Prof. Christopher Rose
130:Piscataway, NJ 08854
82:Dear Mr. Safire,
157:
27:Christopher Rose
165:
164:
160:
159:
158:
156:
155:
154:
152:
150:
143:
141:
137:
133:
131:
129:
127:
125:
123:
119:
80:
66:
37:Nature Magazine
23:
21:
12:
11:
5:
163:
161:
144:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
162:
153:
149:
148:
142:
140:
136:
128:73 Brett Road
121:
117:
114:
111:
107:
103:
99:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
76:
72:
67:
64:
62:
58:
54:
50:
46:
42:
38:
34:
29:
28:
24:
20:
19:
151:
145:
122:
118:
115:
112:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
88:
84:
81:
68:
65:
33:9/2/04 issue
30:
25:
22:
16:
116:Chris Rose
43:problem --
113:Cheers,
71:NY Times
53:NY Times
75:LifeLog
59:and
49:here
41:SETI
61:NPR
57:BBC
35:of
51:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.