Re: Little known facts about the infohigh....

[Julietta <albright@scf.usc.edu>]

Tim May wrote:

> 
> Rest assured, that's just another wildly implausible paranoid rant.
> The red LED on a VCR or cable box is no more capable of acting as any
> kind of t.v. camera than doorknobs can act as palmprint scanners. (I

> 
> It perhaps has been given superficial credence because some of the
> television ratings companings (Arbitron, Nielson (sp?). etc.) are
> toying with the idea of installing "body sensors" in their ratings
> boxes that would tell them how many people were actually in fron to
> the t.v. As these ratings families voluntarily agree to be part of the
> sample, any such system would be voluntary. (And I intend no irony here.)
> 
> Monitoring people inside their homes is something not even Denning and
> Sternlight are arguing for.
>  

	I guess I have been too immersed in surveillance theory lately
- I'm begining to get a bit paranoid! However, I do sometimes wonder if
some of the new technologies (such as "interactive TV") which will be be
brought into the homes of the populus could in fact be used for more
insidious purposes than was the original intent (I am generously assuming
the original intent was as it was presented to the consumer).
I mean- what's to stop the government- or perhaps the big capitalists-
from utilizing the technologies, such as that suggested by the Neilson
people, to monitor citizens *not* part of some voluntary rating program. 
Are you suggesting that since Denning et al aren't "argueing for it"
that it is inconceivable? Hmm....

Julia

_________________________________________________________________________
Julie M. Albright
Ph.D Student 
Department of Sociology
University of Southern California
albright@usc.edu