Today's high octane speculation comes courtesy of an article from W.G., and a speculation in an email privately shared from B.H. (which is to say, a significant portion of today's high octane speculation isn't my own, but B.H.'s).
While I haven't until today blogged about the story of Amazon's collection of biometric data, such as people's palm prints from their smart phones, I'm certain most readers of this wensite are probably already aware of it, and hence I want to talk about today's article from W.G. because it raises a number of questions. Here's the story:
Note that the concern is over using biometric data as part of a payment system, think of it as "the beast system":
A bipartisan group of senators sent a letter to Amazon Friday raising questions about its collection of biometric data.
The lawmakers are particularly interested in the expansion of the company’s palm print scanners program, Amazon One.
The scanners are used at Amazon stores to let customers pay without having to take out cards or cash if they enroll in the program.
“Amazon’s expansion of biometric data collection through Amazon One raises serious questions about Amazon’s plans for this data and its respect for user privacy, including about how Amazon may use the data for advertising and tracking purposes,” they continued.
Gee, Senators, ya think? Well, guess what? I don't believe, for one moment, that any of these Senators are genuinely concerned for "user privacy"; this from a government hypocritically shredding the Bill of Rights with the unending planscamdemic narrative, mask mandates, pressures to force the injection, and so on? Not a chance.
The real problem here is the one that we're all familiar with: since when did any person's body, or activity, become "data" that becomes the property of a corporation to monetize without due financial compensation to those individuals? Amazon may be offering people a rebate or financial encouragement to participate in their program, but $10 seems like a pittance for selling oneself to financial slavery.
But I have a deeper concern, one made evident to me by B.H.'s private speculation.
I do not, as many people know, have a cell phone, nor do I want one. One reason for that is that I recently had some company. We had two days of face-to-face and deep conversation about fascinating things. A cell phone didn't appear once to distract any of us from the conversation. And all too often I've been in situations where conversation participants or movie-watchers were only half-involved, distracted by endless texting on their cellphones, and as one of this weekend conversation's participants observed, the cell phone (and other things) have utterly ruined the art and pleasure of face-to-face conversation in whole sentences and paragraphs that exceed sound bites. At one point, however, the phones emerged simply to take pictures of the participants.
And it's that little incident that brings me to the other part of this story, and to B.H.'s private speculation, which impacts not just cellphone users, but all of us who appear on podcasts and so on, on our computers. The essence of B.H.'s speculation is this: every time you take a selfie, someone somewhere has collected biometric data. Amazon may talk of deleting such data if a person requests it. But it's out there somewhere. And given the technology, B.H. even wonders if , for example, they could even gather retinal imprint data from an individual's eyes in such selfies. I don't know about that... I'm not a techie, and am increasingly inclined to view most of modern technological society not only as one big distraction, but one big increasingly inhuman mess.
And just to conclude my rant, I recently book a book of Artificial Intelligence generated "poetry" and "art". As I expected, the "art" was horrific - and incidentally, a modernist hodge-podge of styles, none of which could evoke the beauty, or skill and craft, of a Rembrandt, a Poussin, a Valsequez, or an Ingres, and so on. But the "poetry" was even worse, and of course, all of it modernist, "free verse", and a porridge of mismatched metaphors and total lack of rhythm and similes that would make even an E.E. Cummings or a T.S. Eliot or a Gertrude Stein wretch... and of course it was light years away from any real poetry like a Spencer, or Donne, or Elizabeth Barrett Browning, even G. Manley Hopkins or Auden, or the elegance of a Marlow. It was all, without exception, Dreck on Parade, the sort of "art" that a David Rockefailure would like, the sort of "poetry" one can imagine George Sauron Soros would read and enjoy.
We need a new mantra... perhaps, "Say no to technocracy."
See you on the flip side...