Post by jjnickell on Apr 17, 2016 22:00:17 GMT
I really appreciated these short essays/epistles, but also found them quite troubling (as did the authors themselves, obviously). What are your all's thoughts on the collection of biometric information as a step toward the authoritarian state?
I was particularly struck by these readings, I think, because as each of these authors points out - increasingly, these methods of data gathering are being directed toward U.S. residents as well. It is easy for us to feel detached from the processes Agamben mentions, and to find them problematic but not personal as we don't worry about the implications of us entering America. But it seems that we can't be concerned about the collection of information as a phenomenon faced by others; we have to recognize it as something that is actively happening to us as well. While it is obviously different than the collection of biometric data, I can think of an example based upon a paper presented by one of my fellow panelists this past weekend at the Central States conference. In his paper, he argued that the state, prominently President Obama, has been urging for greater digital transparency in order to ensure national security. Normally, we think of transparency as an obligation of large institutions like the state; however, Obama's rhetoric refers to digital transparency as an obligation of the citizens. Indeed, we are supposed to offer up our metadata to the government and sacrifice our privacy for the sake of the privacy and security of the state. That citizens be asked to sacrifice privacy so that threats to national security be discerned is not a new phenomenon in the United States (coughcoughPatriotActcoughcough), that we be told that we must be transparent for the government seems to be a clear illustration of this problem.
Another example is that, because I recently turned 26, I am no longer covered under my mother's health insurance and, as a result, had to adopt a new insurance plan. That's fine. However, I do take a daily medication, and the other day, for the first time since my prior insurance coverage elapsed, I needed to refill my prescription. Again, fine. However, upon attempting to call in and refill my script, the pharmacy actively refused to do so until I presented them with a new insurance card. It is not that I would have to pay more for my medication without insurance, it is not that I would have to present opt-out information -- they would not give me my medication unless I gave them my insurance card. So, I walked there asked why about all the hub-bub. They told me that they can't issue medication until they register my prescription and reason for taking it as part of my profile in "a database." I admit that I am new and ignorant to the ways of adulting, but I'm like...what the hell? This was before they even had my insurance information, so they didn't even know if all of this was a requirement of my particular coverage - it was just standard procedure for them to collect my medical information, the treatment for my "abnormalities," and register it. Talk about biometric collection!
Anyway, sorry. Rant over. Again, my question is this: what are your thoughts on all of this? What are some other examples of this occurring in our day-to-day lives? And finally, assuming you find this as troubling as our authors, what do we as rhetoricians actually do about this? This last question is the biggest sticking point for me.
I was particularly struck by these readings, I think, because as each of these authors points out - increasingly, these methods of data gathering are being directed toward U.S. residents as well. It is easy for us to feel detached from the processes Agamben mentions, and to find them problematic but not personal as we don't worry about the implications of us entering America. But it seems that we can't be concerned about the collection of information as a phenomenon faced by others; we have to recognize it as something that is actively happening to us as well. While it is obviously different than the collection of biometric data, I can think of an example based upon a paper presented by one of my fellow panelists this past weekend at the Central States conference. In his paper, he argued that the state, prominently President Obama, has been urging for greater digital transparency in order to ensure national security. Normally, we think of transparency as an obligation of large institutions like the state; however, Obama's rhetoric refers to digital transparency as an obligation of the citizens. Indeed, we are supposed to offer up our metadata to the government and sacrifice our privacy for the sake of the privacy and security of the state. That citizens be asked to sacrifice privacy so that threats to national security be discerned is not a new phenomenon in the United States (coughcoughPatriotActcoughcough), that we be told that we must be transparent for the government seems to be a clear illustration of this problem.
Another example is that, because I recently turned 26, I am no longer covered under my mother's health insurance and, as a result, had to adopt a new insurance plan. That's fine. However, I do take a daily medication, and the other day, for the first time since my prior insurance coverage elapsed, I needed to refill my prescription. Again, fine. However, upon attempting to call in and refill my script, the pharmacy actively refused to do so until I presented them with a new insurance card. It is not that I would have to pay more for my medication without insurance, it is not that I would have to present opt-out information -- they would not give me my medication unless I gave them my insurance card. So, I walked there asked why about all the hub-bub. They told me that they can't issue medication until they register my prescription and reason for taking it as part of my profile in "a database." I admit that I am new and ignorant to the ways of adulting, but I'm like...what the hell? This was before they even had my insurance information, so they didn't even know if all of this was a requirement of my particular coverage - it was just standard procedure for them to collect my medical information, the treatment for my "abnormalities," and register it. Talk about biometric collection!
Anyway, sorry. Rant over. Again, my question is this: what are your thoughts on all of this? What are some other examples of this occurring in our day-to-day lives? And finally, assuming you find this as troubling as our authors, what do we as rhetoricians actually do about this? This last question is the biggest sticking point for me.
