I'm not saying it won't change the way we 'see' and 'remember' past experiences, but just because it's different to the reality we have today doesn't mean it's automatically destructive. Yes, in a way many of the scenarios you mentioned may eventuate, but because technology may have some negative aspects or have the potential to be used in a negative way, does that make it "bad"?
Take your example of Facebook. Does it open the door to new forms of bullying and stalking? Yes. Can people become obsessed with it? Yes. Are people able to focus and relive a single conversation over and over for better or worse? Yes. Then the question becomes, if it has negative aspects, then why do people continue to use it? Is anyone forcing them to? The simple answer is that the positives far outweigh the negative. It's a simplified form of social interaction, that above all, connects people to each other. There are always going to be negative aspects to any progress and people who try to abuse them, but once those problems are identified, they become easier to control. Yes, peer pressure may play a part in encouraging some to adapt Facebook or other forms of technology, but at the end of the day its just another way of interacting with the world, and you are in charge of controlling your own experience. As with anything in life, you can focus on the negative events, you can focus on the positive events (conversations, posts, etc)- it's completely up to you. I don't agree with you that it would cause us any more angst or conflict than we experience in our daily lives right now.
The government would jump on a technology like this.
That would have been my first choice of exploration if this was a "smarter" show, since this would actually be a legitimate issue (instead of going the fabricated cursed relationship/melodrama route). The government may want your memories in connection to crime/ terrorism, but this is a very sketchy and hypothetical area. I'm not sure they could force you to reveal your memories even if you were accused and/or convicted of a major crime. On the flip side, if you were wrongfully convicted you could effectively "prove" you didn't do it, which would save a lot of innocent people from having their lives ruined. I would also assume most people would want to volunteer their footage if they saw or experienced a crime/ terrorist act, and worst case scenario if someone was killed their footage would still be accessible, giving families closure and bringing perpetrators to justice far more quickly and with far more certainty.
Why would it stop people being admitted on transport, buildings, jobs? I can't imagine you having to show your memories to every single security guard you meet- they would still be your property and your choice who to show. Being put on a "no entry" or blacklist because you committed a crime for example would have nothing to do with this type of technology.
A serial killer who uses the grain to torture and haunt people till they commit suicide.
I think this is far left field, completely far fetched horror movie type stuff. I'll admit that hacking could be a possibility, but given the sensitivity of such data for those companies that supply the service, I would say it would be in their best interested to invest in the best possible security available. As is the case today, it wouldn't be very difficult to identify what was accessed and trace the perp.
The government could possibly want to or gain access to the footage one way or another, but if it wasn't done legally it would be inadmissible in court and therefore useless.
reply
share
zieveraar2009
9 years ago
that's quite true.
Nuclear energy isn't bad, but it can be used as such.
I agree that just because technology has the potential to be used bad, that it doesn't make it bad.
I suppose we have a different view on how having a 'grain' would alter relationships and such. I guess my view on human nature is a bit more negative than yours. I can't help but think that a lot of people would use those recordings to relive negative events, and that it will diminish happy memories as everything comes into view, even things that weren't seen the first time, that were overlooked.
I doubt that in a current climate of fear mongering, the government would hesitate to alter the law. It would be so easy for them to enforce viewings of memories to gain access to certain locations and jobs. Security clearances can already be extensive, having a grain would make that job even easier.
The two examples I gave were hastily given. Although it would be fairly easy for someone working at the company in charge of security to fool around with the data, I guess. Anything can be abused.
After having seen the latest episode (Netflix finally caught up here), I do admit that the series has flaws. I see your point of cherrypicking stories, although for me it's often the ending that doesn't work. (like 'White Christmas', that ending was horrible)
Cherrypicking happens in all SF shows and movies. 2001 A Space Oddyssey does the same imo. Why does HAL have to go nuts? The AI that tries to harm the people he's supposed to help or protect is a classic tale, also focussing on the negative of technology.
I guess it makes for a more interesting story, more potential for conflict.
L'Amour est mort, vive la Haïne
reply
share
spuzer55
9 years ago
I agree with you that paranoia and fear mongering are often used by those trying to irrationally sway our opinion through emotional appeals, much like Charlie Brooker is doing here by ignoring perspectives, facts, common sense, and crucial potential features of many of these concepts' application that would render most of the series pointless.
The question you have to ask yourself is: How useful would it be for anyone to constantly be viewing your recordings for security reasons- like we see at the beginning of the episode at the airport? (let’s ignore the ridiculous fast-forwarding technique used in the episode as well).
Think about how pointless and ineffective that would be. It doesn’t really matter if you’re scanning through a day or a week of someone’s dull routines and schedules for anything suspicious; if they wanted to hide something from you they could. For example, if it was standard procedure for security personnel at the airport to view a week of your footage, all one would have to do is to plan ahead and perform all their suspicious activity just over a week beforehand. Do you think it would be effective for some poor sap at the government to sit there and watch every detail of your tedious life unless you were suspected of terrorism? Everything else would be pointless for the reason stated above.
I don’t believe that just because we're talking about ‘the future’, people’s rights, laws and common sense would simply walk out the window. Your employer has no right to view your private life or hire you based on your lifestyle. I can’t see any situation or transition where such laws would drastically change from the reality we experience today where they would allow employers to forcibly gain access to or discriminate against you based on anything other than your job competence. If you were in a career that demanded you stay sober for example, then I don’t see why a simple drug test wouldn’t suffice much like today?
I guess viewing of footage could be possible for the few people seeking to gain high security clearances in government intelligence positions for example, but again, how would you enforce that? If you can think of a practical way of effectively policing someone by viewing their memories to make sure they don’t do anything wrong, I’d be willing to consider it; No potential software could analyse such abundance of data because it doesn’t know what it’s looking for. Facial recognition software could be bypassed by wearing a disguise, voice recognition could be manipulated, small details could be overlooked because they may seem irrelevant- I just don’t see how it could be effective.
Adding to my previous post, I can see a court ordering the release of a specific date and time of footage if you were the main suspect of a major crime, but that’s still very far from your assumption that privacy would be dead. (I would also imagine that many of the criminal element wouldn’t be willing to have this feature installed for this very reason, but I’m guessing the victims footage and those from willing volunteers would still be accessible to compensate).
Humans are adaptable creatures. As I said before, given the option and ability to view your memories at your fingertips, I don’t think you could rationally or effectively argue that it would automatically guide people to adapt a negative view of their lives, an obsession, or an inability to live in the present. I’m glad you can admit that it’s just a negative view. Everything you said can be flipped and viewed in a positive way- it’s just your perspective. It will be different to the way we interpret memories now, but again, that doesn’t necessarily make it destructive. I imagine there will be a basic delineation or reinterpretation of past experiences upon viewing, so yes, some happy memories could possibly be seen in a less positive light depending on the situation, but the reverse is also true- negative events may be viewed again to increase desensitization to negative feelings and emotions, learn from your mistakes, etc. Most people I imagine would be content in reliving great moments they’ve shared with their friends, or long forgotten experiences/ memories of loved ones, recalling information and facts, etc.
I’ve addressed the consequences of tampering in my previous post. Yes, stories are created fundamentally to entertain, but some have more merit than others. When these stories are framed in a pseudo-intellectual bubble like Black Mirror is, people assume the show knows what it’s talking about.
Artificial Intelligence on the other hand is actually a very real and relevant direction of technological advancement that has the potential to learn at an exponential rate and overtake us in the evolutionary chain if we’re not careful (think Ex Machina, I Robot, Transcendence). No one really knows how it could react if given the chance to evolve unhindered, and the possibilities of it turning on us in these circumstances are far more realistic than anything Black Mirror has had to offer as of yet.
reply
share
zieveraar2009
9 years ago
I must admit. Humans are flexible and will indeed adapt.
In recent times, I do feel more anxious about governments. If I hear the remarks local politicians make in recent months, I just can't help myself.
If memories are uploaded and become a virtual database, I can see technology to sift through those memories being developed. Targeting key phrases and visual elements.
Ofcourse there will be ways to avoid this, to fool the system. But I do believe that governments will try to use such a system as a way to control people, or at the very least observe them.
It would never be perfect, no system is. Human error is unavoidable (as seems to be the case with most terrorist attacks apparently, usually the people involved will have been monitored or other countries will have issued warnings about them).
I still like Black Mirror. But their stories tend to be the same, usually portraying technology in a bad way, or a sensationalist way. And although I like stories like that and try to write those myself (it's the easy way, more fun to write about how things can go wrong), I can't see the series continuing that much longer along the same lines.
The subject of AI is extremely interesting, the potential is staggering. Create a super AI and perhaps all our troubles are over. Or that's one theory anyway. It's impossible to really think about it, no one knows just what that kind of intelligence will be. Just how it will react or think. It could become our saviour, our destroyer, or completely uninterested in the human race. It's impossible to predict.
L'Amour est mort, vive la Haïne
reply
share