

The vegetables of truth - joosters
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/THE-VEGETABLES-OF-TRUTH

======
nl
Earlier today there was a HN discussion[1] about a rather average Techcrunch
article about the internet of thing.

To me, one thread stood out. There was a suggestion[2] about the amazing and
undeniable benefits an intelligent toilet would have (stool samples can be
analysed for bowel cancer, and early detection dramatically changes the
projected outcome for bowel cancer).

The sad, tragic response to a truly life saving technology was this: _How
about not just "no", but "hell no"? This is the surveillance era - do you
really want the NSA logging a continuous stream of your health data?_[3]

I don't want to get into an NSA discussion here, but instead relate it to the
linked article. Increasingly I see a rejection of real technological
improvements because of fear. I think this is similar to the rejection of
science: some industrial applications of advanced science created risks and
when those risks were realised people reacted by rejecting science.

Now we see technology being used to surveil us and there is a rejection of
technology itself, rather than looking for ways to address the genuine risks
that it can bring.

It makes me sad. I believe science and technology can bring a better life to
everyone, and rejecting it rather than solving the problems associated with it
leaves us no better off than we were yesterday.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8442266](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8442266)

[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8443063](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8443063)

[3]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8442266](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8442266)

~~~
mindslight
I'm firmly in the "hell no" camp. I realize how these devices can benefit me.
As an embedded designer, I eagerly thought about these types of devices 15
years ago.

The problem is that we, the technical community, got hoodwinked away from open
protocols into thinking that closed systems based on dumping data to someone
else's server is an acceptable basis for much of anything. Manufacturers are
quite happy to foist these proprietary solutions on us because it lets them
create lock in, differentiate on superficial features, keep hiding sloppy
development, and derive licensing fees for any third parties that think they
can help analyze your data (with your consent, or not). The "average" user
sees no difference because it's all magic boxen to them, and we've done them a
great disservice by shirking our _professional duty_ and being "yes men" for
this backwards environment.

My rejection doesn't come from "fear" of "risks" \- it comes from the rational
assessment that once this data is out there, especially in such collated form,
you've lost control of how it is used against your interests. The only way to
brush that off as "fear" is to say the future where cloud-big-brother knows
more about me than I do is inevitable. So rather than being scared, I should
learn to love the rats on my face. I am _hoping_ this is wrong.

Furthermore, reliance upon any technology makes it de facto mandatory which
becomes much harder to extricate yourself from to switch to something with a
less hostile architecture. Especially as more open architectures will be less
polished due to less funding as creating freedom isn't lucrative.

And it's _not just the NSA_ \- there's the much larger and better poised
threat from the commercial side as well, via insurance / background check
companies. How long until "I have to do 500 more steps today so I don't have
to pay $50 extra on my health insurance" ?

(PS Never mind getting on the upgrade treadmill for fixtures who's lifetime
has traditionally been decades, just for software bugfixes and upgrades. And
the input response time on many of these products - looking at you Nest - show
that it's amateur hour)

~~~
darkmighty
Health insurance is going to advance it's ways of knowing about your risks
wether you like it or not. And denying them ways of estimating your risk will
likely just boost your cost beacuse of high-risk outliers. If you don't think
it's fair that some people will have a much higher health charge you should
not argue against companies gathering insurance data but the fundamental
problem -- probably by introducing universal health care legislation.

It's also a fallacy to suppose that companies have to know your data at all
(assuming they would even have such a huge interest in selling your stool
sample data to risk their reputation). Encryption was created to solve exactly
this privacy problem, and homomorphic encryption goes even further (although
it's still early in development). Worst case, you just run the analysis on
your own desktop.

As technolgy progresses it's only natural our inference and survaillance
prowess will increase and the battle can't be won by restricting technology
itself. The only way out is for society to put proper value on privacy as a
_right_ and put proper regulations and legislation to defend it. (although the
NSA scandals have shown most of the US doesn't care)

~~~
mindslight
Your second paragraph is exactly what I'm getting at - companies do not need
to know your data, and analysis should be run locally with software under your
control. You would then be free to choose from various non-exclusive analysis
options via informed consent. However, I think it's deluding oneself to sign
up for today's proprietary share-everything services, and expect them to
magically transform into privacy respecting ones as time goes on. For these
type of applications, mentioning homomorphic encryption comes from that same
wishful thinking that a third party will work to preserve your privacy more
than you will.

------
JonnieCache
The leek film at the end of the article is an absolute joy.

------
leoc
This article on lead
[http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29568505](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29568505)
just showed up on the BBC. While I absolutely dislike the post-'60s attitude
of kneejerk hostility to technology and industry, the article's a sensible
corrective to the opposing attitude that things were great in the good old
days when everyone trusted in technology and didn't worry about risks.

------
nycticorax
One idea from the world of science that might benefit articles like this is
that of the abstract. It's a one-paragraph summary that helps the reader
decide whether they should bother reading the whole article.

------
Houshalter
This went from the dangers of technology, to criticism of scientific studies,
to baseless accusations that the scientists' were politically biased about
_vegetables_.

------
gadders
I don't know why people always post this stream of conciousness and non-
sequiters from Adam Curtis.

You can pretty summarise all of them as "Rah rah socialism!".

