Choking Privacy

Prompted by “Ad Networks Using Inaudible Sound To Link Phones, Tablets and Other Devices”:

The ultrasonic pitches are embedded into TV commercials or are played when a user encounters an ad displayed in a computer browser. While the sound can’t be heard by the human ear, nearby tablets and smartphones can detect it. When they do, browser cookies can now pair a single user to multiple devices and keep track of what TV commercials the person sees, how long the person watches the ads, and whether the person acts on the ads by doing a Web search or buying a product.

Not that enough people sanely care about privacy (based upon actuality), but I feel compelled to best ensure that you know this is happening.

How much should society risk for the sake of advertisers?

It’s like a technological noose tightening to choke off privacy.

Until this whole conflict of interest pitting advertisers’ clients against consumers is resolved simply by upholding privacy in the name of convenient consumer control over the reception of ads (as civility and wisdom clearly demands), the mass stupidity continues unabated and obviously without responsible mass-informing by the mainstream media — whom obviously give the advertising industry a free pass due to another conflict of interest (the one generating revenue for such media outlets), despite the obvious psychological concern from everyone being constantly bombarded by ads.

How is it even possible for that inaudible technology to work, when someone is watching television, while someone else is logged into the portable device(s)? My mom could be watching television, so the ad detects our tablet, but that tablet is always being used by yours truly. Am I now going to see ads for items targeting her?

I’m also unconvinced by the idea that higher frequencies have no negative impact upon health. Basic common sense concludes that technological manipulation by overly simplistic human beings (relatively speaking as compared to the overwhelming complexity of reality) is risky by default. Anyone should honorably voluntarily sacrifice themselves for the care necessary to secure the common good (as maximally objectively defined for fairness, so justice), but yet another conflict of interest between selfishness and otherwise too often prevails.

I would at least like to see some tightly controlled research showing the health impact of someone living without those signals for some sufficient period of time as compared to some-similar-one living with them. Perhaps those studies have been conducted outside of my knowledge, so feel free to enlighten me in this regard.

It’s one thing to condone wireless network signals, which we often use and provides solid value to enhance survival by healthier information availability.

However, the flood of advertising provides little (if any) benefit for most people, but does provide steady noise pollution against that survival. It’s like someone wanting a glass of water (i.e. to know about a new product/service that’s beneficial for that someone), but receiving an ocean of water to “satisfy” that desire.

We have the perceived ability to make choices as a species, so it makes sense to rely upon our best objective understanding to form those choices.

Peace always demands the absence of pollution.

Peace always demands the absence of conflict (of interest).

Peace always demands respect for privacy that negates rights-infringement.

Peace always demands civility.

Peace always demands healthy stress.

Peace is excruciatingly limited in terms of availability, so healthy stress (i.e. positive health) is similarly limited.

The antithesis of that peace (and demonstrated result) is mass deterioration via unhealthy stress (igniting all of the violence and other abuses to perpetuate the destructive loop — another metaphorical noose), albeit while overpopulation still somehow manages to threaten everyone — lots of sex against peace.

Of course, maybe I’m just advertising my view here with obvious bias?

We live in a perpetually equal pros and cons reality (i.e. there’s always an equal set of pros and cons to any outcome, as demonstrated by reality’s factually permanent stability), despite contrary shifts from that equality due to perception. Anyone meditating to best become one with that equality understands that peace.

Still, my perception prefers healthy and righteous peace and privacy for optimal liberty, because perception is incomplete against the totality of reality, but perception is a valid part of that totality, so is certainly worth considering.

I am an honest freak (or reasonably responsibly balanced "misfit", if you prefer) of an artist working and resting to best carefully contribute towards helping society. Too many people abuse reasoning (e.g. 'partial truth = whole truth' scam), while I exercise reason to explore and express whole truth without any conflict-of-interest -- all within a sometimes offbeat style of psychedelic artistry.

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Liberty Shield, TechYes

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

my pEarthly and earthly self blended together via the energy of the reality "There are some things so serious you have to laugh at them." – Niels Bohr

Feel free to join us in seamlessly riding our boundless community waves.

Fun through serious, my carefully formed results are honest and usually offer a freshly unique view.

Follow Spirit Wave Journal on
Thank You
Thank you for your undeniably necessary role for (and as part of) my beloved 3Fs (family, friends, and fans).
Help Needed

Helping raise awareness and any other constructive way to participate in our growing community is equally appreciated.

Legal Disclaimer

Spirit Wave (“entertainer” herein) disclaims that entertainer only publicly posts content (“entertainment” herein) for entertainment purposes only. You (the reader of this sentence) agree to the fullest extent permissible by law that entertainer is not liable for any damage. Moreover, entertainer never advocates breaking the law, so any expression involving drug use is addressed solely to anyone capable of lawfully engaging in that use.

%d bloggers like this: