The Shockwave Rider

In light of what is currently happening in the world of cyber security, I wonder how many of you have ever read John Brunner's "The Shockwave Rider"?Also, do any of you remember the state of information technology back in 1975?

I have not read this book and don't mean to divert the topic.I happened across an article the other week about the continued exponential fall in the cost of digital memory. As I recall, it has gone from $85k/GB in 1985 to about $2.50/GB today. We have developed the technology to basically record everything that happens without too much effort or cost. Everywhere you go, everything you say, everything you buy....everything.Of course, no one pays any attention to what most of us are doing but should you do something that is perceived as a threat then the information will become a virtual time machine for those who have it.The ever increasing CCTV cameras, now with audio, in every public space. Face and voice recognition software. You may think that you are in the privacy of your bedroom but the microphone in the cell phone on your nightstand can be turned on. The transmitter on your water meter can disclose when you start your shower or flush your toilet. Same with the new power and gas meters. Privacy has become an illusion.It is interesting that most of literature's dystopian futures are brought about by excessive attempts at control.There is some alarming information here.

No, I have not read that book, though I was intrigued just by reading a review on it.Wikipedia had this review, which grabbed my dysfunctional attention span for but a moment.So this is what my info-chewing gum brain got as to what the book essentially was: It was interesting that the author helped coin the term "worm"...
and a question for you, jar...what is currently happening in the world of Cyber-Security??

Sure, it might in principle, but what's the plausible reason that someone would bother to access my water usage logs?It's true that just by living and spending money, I'm generating quite a bit of data, but that's akin to how when I'm out in public everybody can see where I am. But we know that crowds aren't usually a thousand witnesses to your movements but a place where you can go to hide.Isn't there a form of privacy in generating so much data that no human being could realistically ever be expected to see it? If I'm just one of a million mooks taking a shower between the hours of 7 and 9, could any amount of data on my shower activities actually violate my privacy? I don't see how it could. Whatever personal data can be collected is like undressing in front of my cat if it only ever disappears into some massive, forgotten database.

I had a similar conversation with a work colleague the other day.
He asked if I was happy with all the CCTV cameras and I said "No. There should be more of them."Sure, I don't want them pointing inside our houses.
But on the streets I want an excess of them.I know some people say "But the CCTV cameras film protesters, etc.!" - but police bring their own cameras to protests.
And unless you want to make 'filming in public' illegal, they will always bring cameras to protests - regardless of CCTV.So, I agree, a solution would be for there to be soooo much footage, that people only ever look at it for a very specific reason - i.e. "A crime was reported at 17:00 on South St."I also do not know what people think is the consequence of having public streets being filmed.
All I got from my work colleague is "I don't like it." :S

I assure you that the database will never be forgotten. It is more like undressing in front of a cat that works for the NSA. They may not be looking at it today but wait until the dark future of public health care and some agency wants to investigate your history of personal hygiene.I guess it comes down to the nature and importance of personal privacy. Why is it important at all? Why should you be allowed to shower in private? Privacy is the ability to keep secrets even if the secrets that you are keeping aren't really secrets. I say that it is our tiny islands of privacy that allow us to function in a sea of population. A sort of essential grease. All of these minor intrusions will eventually add up to the complete destruction of privacy.And why is it all in one direction? Why is it ok for the govt to know which books I am reading but I can't know which books they are reading? If all of the information recorded by our cctvs is public information then why can't I look at? Why are the google earth pictures many months old and deliberately fuzzy? Why are the governments secrets more protected than mine? Don't they work for me?

To be fair, I don't think it's all in one direction. Many countries now have Freedom of Information legislation that allows the public to demand information from the government that would once have been totally inaccessible for decades. I don't know about elsewhere, but, in the UK at least, , you have every right to get copies of CCTV footage of yourself.Information about the actions of public officals and elected representatives is available with an ease that has never before existed. Certainly, a lot still goes on in secret, and it often seems somewhat arbitrary which information governments feel they have the right to redact, but describing the availability of information as all 'one way' is certainly inaccurate.

Why would an agency want to "investigate my history of personal hygiene"? Aren't you being just a little bit paranoid? Sure, but privacy needs to be balanced against the fact that secrecy is of greater benefit to criminals than to regular people. After all, your showertime activities are quite conventional and boring; I think it's probably a stretch to suggest that there's a large constituency lining up to see you naked and soapy. What, honestly, is being protected?On the other hand, if you're raping children behind closed doors, you benefit greatly from a presumption of privacy that prevents the government from walking into your home just to see what's going on. As a society we've determined that the benefit of privacy outweighs the cost of the criminality that it protects. How is Facebook any different? That's also society deciding that the ability to see cat pictures and bikini shots of your ex-girlfriends outweighs the risk to your privacy of Mark Zuckerberg selling all your personal info to Zynga.

That is right of course. I guess I mean that personal privacy seems to always reduce while state secrecy seems to always increase.

Probably, but that doesn't mean that they are not out to get me. The water meter is just another example of an innocuous bit of personal information. By itself, nothing to worry about but in conjunction with the multitude of other little bits it amounts to the complete erosion of your privacy. I should point out that I don't really see it in terms of us and them but rather in terms of our system. This is always the excuse. Give up a little privacy and get a little more security. The problem is that the privacy is definitely lost while the security is mostly imagined. This is the heart of it. It used to be that way but it is quickly changing. Every liberty is viewed as an opportunity to misbehave. The use of a thing is judged by it's potential abuse. It is becoming ever more a culture of fear and suspicion where security (real or imagined) is valued above privacy. Dystopian future here we come.

Which brings us directly back to the book.Right now we are seeing underground non-governmental groups actively trying to change state secrecy into state transparency.You might enjoy the book.It's been thirty years or so since I read it myself but maybe it is time I pulled it out again too.