TED: Privacy, Online & Off

Juan Enriquez paints a haunting but reality-adjusting picture of tattoos and online media. We know tattoos are permanent, they're loud, and they quite literally paint a picture that we don't have or get the chance to explain. Many people frown upon them, many people judge them, and many people get them to signify part of who they are.

Enriquez, then, compares tattoos to online media, asking viewers to imagine if their online media: LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Google, Cell Phones, or even your GPS is a tattoo. Where you go, what you do, what you say, what you like, what you don't like, who you see, who you talk to, who you follow; Just about every move of your life, tattooed for the world to see. 

I am 21 years old, and I have 3 tattoos, planning to get more as I get older. I got my first tattoo the day I turned 18 years old, and it was legal for me to. I remember my mom telling me before I left for my appointment, "Are you sure you wanna do this? It's permanent", and I shrugged it off and said, "Yes, I really want this". Can I say the same for the electronic tattoos, knowing what I know now? Knowing that every single thing I do, say, like, dislike, is permanent? I don't think my answer would be the same.

These concerns of privacy are extremely unsettling, especially knowing, possibly cowardly, I can't hide from them. The facial recognition that gets me into my cell phone and laptop every single morning does just that: recognizes me. 

As I said, I'm 21 years old. I've made plenty of mistakes growing up, and being realistic, have plenty more to go. Knowing that everything I've done or said, controversial or just subject to other's opinions, is permanently out in the public eye and in my "file", if you will, is unjust. 

I am harassed by advertisements and commercials online, trying to sell me a product I just browsed at 5 minutes before. I am subject to people's opinions on how I look. I am almost asking for a fight, political or unpolitical, when I say how I feel about something because anyone is allowed to tell me I'm wrong or they don't agree. 

Besides personal scrutiny, there is the obvious risk of safety. Anyone who has access to the internet, a cell phone, even a laptop, which is just about everyone, could look up and gain information about just about anyone: Predators, criminals, exes, or past friends. 

The conversation of what can the government do become telling, as the government has encrypted "default" surveillance into tech products, thus, making encryption democratized. If the argument is that we live in a dangerous time, with dangerous people, then why not make more safety laws? Why not enforce the law harder on those who are guilty of putting another citizen at risk, rather than giving someone with a marijuana charge a lifetime sentence, while you're going to give a murderer 20? 

Absolutely NO communication is government property, not my communication. Not my friend's or family's communication.