Prompted by “A fun app to test your own impairment”: http://www.drugwarrant.com/2015/07/a-fun-app-to-test-your-own-impairment/
There’s a new app available for iOS and Android called Canary that lets you test whether or not you are in shape to drive.
It’s being connected with testing whether you’re too stoned to drive, but in reality it’s a basic test of impairment, whether from marijuana, alcohol, being too tired, or anything else.
On the one hand, I like this tool — though I haven’t used it, because I drive only when necessary anyways. The question of my driving competence upon optionally driving somewhere never comes up, and probably like you, my success record while driving has been stellar these days in terms of avoiding harm.
On the other hand that’s perhaps putting the tinfoil hat on my head, I remain reasonably concerned about privacy abuses (and logically so should you).
This other hand continues with the reasonable notion that connecting this app to your computer networked car could lead to this app eventually disabling your car (perhaps even by law) for as long as it believes you’re not safe to drive.
That sounds sensible (likely sold “to protect the children”), but should external forces really decide whether or not you’re truly safe to drive, when considering possible/probable/unavoidable abuses (including deadly severe ones)?
What if you challenge the oligarchy (i.e. blend of private and public sectors) enough to annoy them, and there’s an override (driving blacklist) database hidden in the app that can be triggered to always prevent you from driving — if not also using other necessary devices, such as cooking with your stove or even leaving your home by locking your door for everyone’s protection — all to help you decide to fall back in line with corrupt power with a push of the “I’ll Behave” button?
I’m not remotely suggesting this app offers that potentially terrifying feature (or there are even plans for it). Senior citizens would likely crush (by their highly respectable political force) any law insisting upon using the device.
However, thought provocation (necessary like looking down the road to see what’s coming while driving) is about leading the target of possibility reasonable enough to provide valuable informational input for our species — as opposed to deceiving people by resonating a possibility to seem like a probability, if not fact (all to sell books, or such).
With recent news of some cars being possibly dangerously disabled by remote hackers, the message is clear.
The more you blindly trust the software you bring into your private life (such blindness in the form of blindly accepting license agreements and granting software access to privacy-accessing capabilities — nonetheless always increasing risk of similar software exploits like those conducted by aforementioned hackers), the more at risk you (and possibly yours) become of being victimized by privacy abuses. For example, smart televisions with cameras granted authority during your license agreement (or such) to record your living room experiences ‘to provide you better service’ — including recording and transmitting that wildly crazy (and publicly embarrassing) sex act that might not be well-perceived by your employers (or such), so then available to extort you (and possibly yours).
Just sayin’, but what do you think?
Leave a Reply