Could you sum up the issue you’re providing a solution for in your project?

The problem at hand is two-fold.

Advertising needs to become more efficient and can do so afforded by technology.
Huge consumer backlash over fear of invasion of privacy afforded by technology, which has now reached 3,500 revs and the turbo & NITROX has kicked in…

It has reached the ears of politicians internationally – who see this as a huge social epidemic, and yet are having wet dreams over the potential power they can wield.

Neither consumers or politicians seem to be consistent in their thinking over privacy as on one hand there are huge benefits through open networking, social media, ease of use, related content to my interests, but on the other side their is the danger of creating an inhumane prison state, tracking the majority for fearing the insolent minority.

We have already seen rise of EPG in TV or use of mobile SMS, etc – even digitalisation of media, showing a huge adoption by consumers at large. We are seeing openly giving away privacy from loyalty programmes or social media. This continues despite threats of ‘identity fraud’. And would be reason enough to march forth unchecked.

However, there are real concerns over what is ‘private’; and in a world where the ‘consumer is in control’ sneaky, underhand techniques are not acceptable from a human standpoint, despite technological advances. There needs to be a more humanistic aspect to technology, lest we are reduced to inhuman ‘atoms’ proposed by technophiles.

The system I am proposing counters the reactions of ‘bin it’ in a neo-Luddite fashion seen in all aspects of socio-political organisations, and strikes a balance of loyalty programme meets technology in order to move forwards into an increasingly digital world within an ethical framework and not dictatorial fashion.

Combined with new educational programmes form stand-alone industry bodies, like the newly promoted “IAB’s Privacy Matters” we strike to seek a balance with progress and acceptance that satisfies the relationship between advertiser and consumer by merely ‘asking’ what they would like next by knocking on their front door, as opposed to second guessing then by rifling through their bins round the back.

Ok, but there’s a clash here between the global and the local: privacy means different things locally, but you seem to be talking about a global solution?

Not even just local, but even socio-culturally – a young person quite happily walks to shops naively ignorant of the dangers of the world around – similarly a digital native thinks nothing of privacy online and needs to be educated.

Even within cultures there are things I would tell some people, some I would tell others, some things I would never tell my mother – yet there map be an overlap- just differing in degrees. In some locations it is ok to go topless, in other places to show arms would be offensive.

Advertising and communication is global. Technology advancement is global. The degree of adoption is partly sociological in what is right within a particular culture against the infrastructure in place from a political standpoint – either through investment or democracy or to some degree tradition. Yet all these things continue to be challenged and change. We can argue for indigenous Amazonian tribesmen, yet rain forests are being felled in line with agricultural development for profitable produce to export. Do all national airlines offer an ‘air miles’ reward programme. No, but they could – and in global travel they see an increasing need to standardise. Exceptions do not make the rule.

So if we can accept there are global issues and global advancements, it is merely the execution that needs to be localised or indeed personalised. I need mine in English afforded to a male in his late thirties who is not interested in football. To assume all English men are interested in football would not work with me. However in a world cup situation which is more of a social event periodically I swap my opinion and take more of an interest. In the case of privacy, the execution of it may vary among cultures, but privacy is still a basic ‘human’ right, i.e. for ALL men – whether that is going to the toilet, making love or otherwise. Again, exceptions do not make the rule, but trends and norms can assist.

This continual change at an an individual or societal level is whereby the discussion around rolling out a flexible global situation can take its derivative from. If all content relies on advertising in part, if all brands wish to communicate their messages to existing or new audiences, if all people are at some time in another interested in some things – then we have the possibility of developing a flexible global solution that is consumer-centric that works as a gateway, a digital dating agency, between brands and their consumers.

The end of the day I don’t have to go on the date if I don’t wish, but I can still take a look around to see if I am interested. With 1 in 6 people in the US now getting married as a result of online dating systems, some of these through meeting partners internationally from a variety of cultures, then obviously global technology has become a lot more acceptable now then the ‘fears’ of when it first began several years ago – and means meaningful relationships can be struck at the hands of technology… Yet to do this needs a willingness on the part of an individual to play with the system – to give up ‘private’ thoughts or information on what they are looking for – in order for that Chinese village girl to meet that citified Western man – both need to play the system equally. The same is true of that local girl deciding to drink the American Coca-Cola, or the all-Amercian man driving round in a Toyota… both brand and consumer needs to give up control, ownership of things historically were thought of as ‘private’.

Why did you decide to take a “philosophical” and ethical approach?

The reason for a philosophical and ethical approach is that there are lot of ’emotions’ clouding judgement when we consider progress.

Nobody really knows where this will all end up, and we can only look back through history to try and ascertain some kind of learnings, mostly which we choose to ignore somehow believing in the overall good of humanity. Sadly life is far from perfect and the repercussions could be devastating as we already witness through the greed and self-serving wishes of the few.

Trying to find a point of reference in which to unlock this as a mathematical formula X+Y=Z is not clear cut in this debate as there are many confusing and conflicting points of view and we need to look deeper and wider as to where people are coming from and their motivational factors in order to determine the why, before we can even possibly discuss the how.

The how says it can be done. Science and technological progress is deeming it so. But just because something can be done, does that mean it should? Should one atom bomb in a moment over rule many years of fighting? Should one expensive machine in a hospital that saves a single life be given precedence over the widespread inoculations that could save millions costing the same value? These are ethical considerations.

The facts of the matter are that ‘my’ family member needing help justifies the expensive machine over the millions that are dying from something I take for granted, like clean water – because they are removed from my micro world. Therefore it becomes personal, emotive, subjective and these over rule the ‘greater good’ arguments – thereby this point of reference becomes a philosophical discussion at a macro level.

Clearly we are seeing technology dehumanising our choices, confusing and conflicting us at our core and challenges the notion of ‘progress’ if we end up killing ourselves, or certainly oppressing ourselves, in our striving for a better future. The level of stresses we all face show the facts the technology has not made our lives easier. We are not all working remote from a beach somewhere. We are locked on a grid that is slowly ensnaring us and affecting our overall health.

Yet within this, there are those who see outside of the box – at a macro level – and trying to ask difficult questions to find a positive situation to progress. Yet even these people are facing their own reactions from both sides of the fence from the blind who accuse others of being short-sighted.

Therefore we can not simply choose some kind of X+Y=Z logical reasoning and testing kind of approach to solving this socio-political issue as we need to embrace multiple cultures, traditions, beliefs, religions – in order to strike a balance without creating fear – and simply trusting in the state is not the acceptable answer. As we are continually hitting a moving target, it shows solutions themselves need to continually be adapted learning from history, keeping one eye on the future, but feet ground in understanding all that it means to be human now, not just selfish ambition and greed for tomorrow, whether that be driven by personal, commercial or political means.

The Shawshank Redemption is a film of humanity triumphing against the corruptions of the state. Susan Boyle is a testimony of humanity today embracing technology to move at lightning speeds to buck assumed trends and prejudices to afford hope on a global scale. The underdog bucking the system by playing it at its own game. These strike at the very core of what human-ness – and progress – is all about.

Neither politics, economics, science or technology can solve this in isolation – there needs to be a moral checkpoint that serves as a guiding light for which those former things must be called into question and counter-balance each other in order for us to move forward towards the ultimate goal. Therefore an ethical and philosophical discussion can afford the flexibility to find a path for progress.

So if ‘human nature’ is about “bucking the underdog” then how does that fit with global advertising? Would you cast what you’re doing as a strategy of resistance?

Susan Boyle wants to become an international superstar. Blendtec Blenders, a little previously unheard of Utah company created ‘Will it blend?’ and became a global brand as a result of half a dozen videos on YouTube costing $50 which has new equated to $1M worth of sales. Whats the difference? Local reaching global audiences through technology. Mass media in a media channel that was not previously considered ‘mass’ but ‘niche’. Now TV companies and commercial organisations are re-thinking what, how and why. Perspectives are being forced to be changed.

Is my local antique restorer going to turn down an order from a wealthy Arabian wishing to utilise his services? Heck, for the right deal I would expect him to book the next flight with Emirates… This is why we call it a global village. Its the very thing technology has given us. From the straight roads 2,000 years ago to protect travellers ensuring ‘all roads lead to Rome’ and helping prevent attack from people hiding around bends and to the single communication language of the Internet linking all computers, whether personal, commercial or political together and now being employed to locate terrorist hiding in online groups. Technology is linking local to global and back again, from the little local consumer to the huge global brand back to the local shop.

Intel having ‘chat in banners’ so a consumer in Malaysia can talk to the developers in Chicago about why they should need to pay more for an Intel chip PC then an AMD one – and trusting what the developers, over what the marketer say. Now that person may go into his local store on his nearby street in his small town – but will say ‘Intel-enabled please’. One campaign, that can run concurrently across several markets and afford the same impact on each – breaking the notion that Intel is expensive and out of touch. Same questions are being asked around the world.

There are many examples of technologically fuelled advertising is assisting consumers in decision making process which has both local and global impacts.

Strategy of resistance against what – the human right to privacy or the fact that all advertising is evil? Both are true in particular circumstances. The opposite is true in other circumstances.

What if we were to build an open and flexible system where consumers could tell advertisers what they wanted as opposed to being told you need this? Yes this is radically changing the notion of underhand marketing methods employed to date. It is playing them at their own game saying ‘fine I will tell you this, but I expect this in return – and if you don’t like i will simply blacklist you from advertising to me’. Its an incredible power shift. Advertisers similarly would get unparalleled access to consumer level data that they had only dreamed of to develop better and more relevant products or advertising strategies, all willingly given up by consumers. It is what loyalty cards have proven for years.

Then along comes some governmental department, concerned of a pedophile ring, and demands ALL data of every consumer and advertiser on the planet. Now where is the power? Now where is the privacy? Now who is in control? Whatever noble their pursuit, whatever spin being spun, the fact remains they too get unprecedented information beyond their wildest dreams that they can use for anything they deem possible. Taxation would be the least of our worries.

This is the dilemma that technology is giving us.

Why is “addressable advertising” a “utopia”?

The concept of a utopia when discussing advertising seems in itself a juxtaposition. This is to do with the fact that we feel we are being sold something, demanded of, against our will and we find ourselves drawn into something we do not wish to have any part of. It is the feeling of coming back from the shops and think ‘why did i buy this, why was i not strong enough to resist?’ It gives rise to the notion that advertising is pure coercion and ‘evil’ and the feeling that I should be stronger – and self-sufficient. That we are ‘buying’ the lie that our lives are incomplete without this purchase.

These are true and powerful arguments. The fact is that we are content or complete through many factors outside of material possessions; from family, friends, job satisfaction, seeing a smile on someone else’s face or otherwise.

However to say that you do not need clothes, food – even a way to find a partner – a way to reduce money through a cheaper or better quality product or service, or even by way of reward for the efforts of our endeavours or a giving a gift to a loved one to facilitate that smile on their face. In all these interactions, information can be passed from one individual to the next to help them make a more informed choice or calculated risk. A sign above a shop distinguishing newsagent from pharmacy is a means of communication targeting a building so time is not wasted traipsing around the real estate of something that is not relevant to your quest.

In this manner, advertising is assisting and aiding, not merely distracting and coercing. All advertising can be distracting in some way, but can be seen in as much as a friend in a pub starts telling you about his new golf clubs piquing your interest in a subject you may previously have had no interest in. It can be a shop assistant saying ‘hello can I help you?’ Whatever the means or position, having gotten someones attention, passing them information of how to go to the next stage is a discussion of ‘should you be interested, this is how, why or where’.

Technology affords us the ability to understand some of those trigger points – from initial awareness shown by someone moving a mouse over an ad to watch a video – or glancing at a billboard or reading a poster, through to searching for information on their laptop or mobile phone, to visiting comparison sites or obtaining quotations… all manners of activities where ‘footprints’ can be measured in order to show the next ‘sign’ in as much as a GPS system in a car says ‘at end of road turn left’ and once you have done it says ‘in 500 yards turn right’. It is technology assisting us on our journeys.

The concept of GPS is still requiring a human interaction to allow the system to better obtain insights into thought processes, as opposed to merely predicting what and where a user wants to do or go. It is the shop assistant ‘asking’ us the question, or series of questions in order to guide our choices. Could advertising be seen to do this equally? I believe so. Partly through understanding automatically through various sensory perceptions, such as loyalty cards in shops to refrigerators that automatically updates your shopping list so you do not need to keep thinking ‘what is it I need again?’ when you next visit the store – and partly through the customisation of people saying I now want to go on holiday, buy a present for my girlfriends birthday, etc. There is also a lot of advertising that is highly irrelevant to me, either now or in the future, such as discussing diapers right now or feminine hygiene products ever.

Both advertisers and consumers wish for a better way of reducing wastage through relevancy as well as facilitating rewarding experiences for both parties. If this were not the case, shop assistants would be out of work as there would be no need for discussion on choices. Technology can afford us this insight once understood correctly and not feared because it is new and strange – or merely ‘evil’ in and of itself.

If my life can be enhanced and made easier through technology, if advertising plays a part in that process of becoming better informed and rewarded through cost-efficencies, then we find a natural symbiance in courtship from the advertiser with the consumer through open discussion. It is striving to find a way that is positive and not negative from the consumers viewpoint, especially if they have control to say ‘not today thanks’, or actually ‘never, as I really am just not interested’.

The balance will be struck in the fact consumers will realise a world without advertising would be as difficult to navigate as a street full of shops without signs denoting what they are above them, or spending hours wandering aimlessly in stores wishing for information on what denotes one product better than another.

Is computing “ubiquitous”?

Computing may not be omnipresent, omniscient but it is certainly widespread and pervasive.

The expectation of being able to travel anywhere and pay for things by credit card or at least find an ATM. The expectation of electricity and telecommunications – whether fixed line, widespread mobile signals or at very least a cyber centre. The assumption that power is anywhere, despite the fact I may need an adaptor for my socket. Can I therefore say that this aspect of technology is ubiquitous and widespread? The expectation would deem it so and force the others to follow suit. Online and in business the English language language is already seen as ubiquitous, i.e. pervasive though not exclusive. The global village means its no longer sufficient to learn the language of my neighboring country France, but rather dominant force such as Chinese (alongside Spanish).

We are aware that in certain parts of Africa some people have no access to food or even clean water. There are always exceptions to the rule. There are also remote parts of africa where business on a mobile phone, checking stock supplies and arrivals of fruit and grain or relying on a call to be able to taxi someone arriving at an airport and thereby make a living. This is more akin to a pure reliance on technology for commercial business usage then merely sending an email via a blackberry in the west. Despite cultural differences, computing technology is a unifying force across the planet and removing vast walls.

With sensors in cars to monitor road conditions and adjust speed or fuel mix to sensors in air, electricity and water flows at utility plants monitoring your domestic consumption. B Certain BMW cars can now be reset through a telephone operator who can ‘log in’ to your car on the side of a highway. Your refrigerator talks to the utility plant to where out where to send more electricity, and in fact switches itself off when norms are reached. Intelligent CCTV cameras spotting when items are left unattended or things looking out of place and automatically zooming in on items and triggering alert calls. We are finding computing blending into the background of everyday lives in new, exciting and sometimes startling ways.

In terms of logical computer processing we are seeing a power-shift in moving the thinking, the intelligence to the system – uploading the processing to ‘the cloud’. This seems to be psychosomatic of modern culture too. It is no longer sufficient for us to individually remember and process ‘1066’ and what happened on that date as Google means we can answer that question from a mobile in any corner of the globe. Education and understanding should come from the application of that number and trying to discover the significance of what that date means as opposed to rote facts of what happened on that date. It is in reading between the lines people are educated as opposed to merely informed. In the same way times-tables and log books gave way to a calculator, now we are eclipsing not just maths but all aspects of learning. It is happening on a global scale.

Just as on the cloud computing power moves from local machines into data centre’s and needs little processing or storage locally on ‘dumb terminals’, so too we are shifting the thinking away from individuals into a collective consciousness with potentially equally devastating effects as we develop this ambient intelligence. Allowing the system to monitor, store and analyze what is happening, and predict what should happen next for the ‘greater good’.

Theologians and philosophers have warned us about over the centuries; basically do not trust in man or our own achievements – kingdoms rise and fall at an alarming rate. Instead of learning from our past and making the same logical conclusions for warnings for the future, we instead blindly trust that science and technology will have the answers tomorrow, if not today. This is a blind faith in untested science, equal to the criticisms of those who have religious convictions. It is sheep going astray – the blind leading the blind – and a flat-out refusal to listen or learn from those who have gone before, especially those who have suffered and died under or standing against oppressive global empires.

From wild animals being RFID tagged to monitor stock movements through streams and seas, to domestic pets able to access their own homes and prevent unwanted pets from walking in – or helping relocate a lost animal to its rightful home. The same technological thinking now ushering in a system from tagging prisoners to employees, from hotel guests to commuters – the mass roll out of identification for access and monitoring purposes – we call it ‘learning’ in order to foster a better future. The reality sees a tattooing and tagging akin to a global ‘prison earth’ where each is locked into the grid for their own good and lets them believe they have ‘nothing to hide’. It is based in fear of the minority can hurt the masses, that ultimately seen in a few entrapping the masses. What we are witnessing here is a ubiquitous ‘computing’ shift not just into little tiny microprocessors hidden in sensors in our streets, homes, businesses or cars but a societal shift into the great ‘wiki’ of life. We convince ourselves that all are learning how to improve, that we are working to same ends, an overarching belief in positiveness: peace on earth. Our own human ‘computing’ powers are becoming ‘ubiquitous’ – constantly encountered and connected – and becoming secondary to that of the ‘system’ we are rushing to create.

Ubiquitous computing is as philosophical as it is technological. It comes down to thinking, not just processing. We are even trying to solve artificial intelligence and give rights to robots. Distorted thinking of task-driven drone bees, not in terms of human reasoning that equally embraces the ‘spiritual’ and questions the soul beyond mere neuroscience. We believe ‘computing’ is and should be ubiquitous – but it should be seen in inter-relationship of diverse parts. Equality embraces key differences, not seeks to remove the diversity in favour of uniformity under the guise of ubiquitousness.

As governments unite around the world for ‘security’ reasons – whether that is environmental, political or religious stability, technology affords the very widespread belief that we can recreate omnipresent (all seeing), omniscient (all knowing) into the the omnipotent (all powerful) collective conscious system that will herald this time of peace on earth. A foolish lie from the pseudo-scientists of dictators. A lie from the pit of hell. Building up the walls around our gardens to keep the eyes of the prying neighbours at bay, only to realise in doing so we have prevented any sunshine from ever reaching our own little garden we wish to enjoy, tend and nurture. We have removed what is the essence of life and living. Something that is, and must remain, removed from distorted human logic.

I guess thats why a virgin birth was chosen to herald peace on earth. It defies and continues to challenge our human sense of logic.

OK, so you’re making a distinction between ubiquitous and reliance then?

As something becomes widespread and pervasive, it becomes the norm. In that case it could be argued it becomes ubiquitously relied upon.

Safety belts in cars, heated rear windows, leading to ABS. Refrigerators, microwave ovens & DVD players in homes, leading to cable/satellite television. Can you survive without these- of course – do we wish to survive without them, i.e are they ‘essential’ to a car or home? Life is not just survival, or existing, it is enjoying the comforts afforded by modern technology. In this regard the reliance is that which becomes the norm. It would be inconceivable to buy a car today without a safety belt (through law) or heated rear window (through convenience).

Society changes to become more middle-class in the west as the ‘basics’ now are what our rad parents would consider luxurious. The same is being seen in more remote aspects of the world. In this case, widespread and reliance almost become synonymous.

is a “digital society” desirable?

What do we mean by a digital society? Where humans have mated with technology and become ‘cyborgs’ as we adopt brain-chips and sensors under our skin to monitor and control the health of the globe. These are things that are under consideration and already under trial and roll-out in some cases. Is that what the future holds – arguing that implanted brain chips turning on and off senses, bringing virtual augmented sight are just the next iteration for wearing glasses that became contact lenses which became lasered eyes that will become…?

There surely has to be a point where we just say ‘stop’. We are gambling with humanity convinced that the next role of the dice will get the pay off we all so desire – ridding of every ill and fear on the planet. We will save ourselves! Its a gambling addiction to technology that is surely heading for a fall. There is more to the quality of life then scientific progress. Just because we can keep someone alive longer (quantity) does that mean their ‘quality’ of life is equal? So now we have more people working till later in life, more people in care homes, more people on machines… ok so we are around longer, but what exactly have we solved?

I understand the need for titanium hips and cataract operations and the wonders of science in bringing a quality of life to someone, but there are ethical debates over harvesting or cloning humans to save another. Any progress needs a moral check point, and if we are unable to do that ourselves – then we have we have been given a moral consciences from something outside of ourselves that teaches us to ‘honour’ – whether friends, family or neighbours – even our enemies – expecting the same for them as we would ourselves. Even in war there is a code of conduct. It is what keeps us human and not feral.

If by digital society we mean a society that use technology for its better progress, even within such guidleines, we also need to accept that those bent on evil – from thieves and perverts to dictators -will also find uses for the system that can be hacked. Have we prevented theft of cash by moving to credit cards? Well we could argue that fewer people hold up banks these days as the amount of cash is less, and technology like CCTV and automated shutters have reduced crime. However, we are seeing credit card skimming and identity theft costing far more and affecting greater numbers then then few post-office hold ups we saw of the past. What have we solved? We are creating bigger systems that have bigger repercussions.

The problem is we can not ‘undo’ or simply all ‘opt-out- and go live happily ever after on a beach somewhere and all become hippies, as tempting as it is. There are societies, such as Hamish, that have sought to do just this. Even Islam with its single language and systems do just this. They pick a moment in time when ‘this was acceptable’ and stay with it. This has both amazing benefits and major drawbacks. Hamish can say ‘ahhh technology’ but still have horse and carriages, and use ploughs – these are all aspects of technological advancement – just because they do not have a microchip inside them. The same as many world religions, we say ah this is the language you must learn if you wish to communicate with God and you must do it without question. Yet this is a language that had a point in history of communication development, it was not the first language on earth. History and cultural continues to progress and move on alongside science and technology, despite attempts over the years to define and control it.

Yet in all these things we can not argue one to take precedence over the other – either to roll on naievely thinking it will be all right jack, when the facts show clearly that it is not. When families are breaking down, when selfish ambition and greed thinks I can stay at home and and have kids who must have a DVD player or mobile at cost to the state – meanwhile others working are taxed to the hilt to afford the luxuries of the lazy. When the elderly are abandoned in care homes but survive on advancements in medicines. Again how can conversation on digital society be entertained outside of any socio-political or other cultural conversations.

Ethical considerations equally must come from a world view not just of ‘greater good’ for the masses, else ultimately someone somewhere suffers – the poor, the homeless, the elderly, the starving nations in Africa, the Amazonian tribesmen… therefore ethics needs to take a higher moral stance for the good of all, not just the majority. You can not penalize those who share a differing world-view whether that be religious or technological. We have to find a way to embrace all this through ‘opt-in’ and ‘out’ as necessary.

The end of the day all cultures have an economic trading platform. Technology can assist in communication. Whether that be between individuals or between groups and other groups who wish to engage – or not even yet realise why they should engage – with one another.

A digital society is only desirable in that fact that it enhances humanity and establishes itself with the norms and confinements of society itself – embracing the diversity of cultures – and not reduces society to mere robotic drones enslaved to one single system with no purpose for living life abundantly, in all the individual diversity which that means.

In your assignment, you use lots of examples of RFID, so, isn’t it inevitable?

RFID is inevitable. There are many privacy groups – CASPIAN – who have termed theses things SpyChips and are campaigning to stop the tagging of items. My understanding through the research realised these were far more then ‘tags’ these are near invisible micro computers capable of two-way conversations and processing of information. This takes the fear factor very much up a notch.

The problem is these chips are coming in without any clear explanation as to what these things are or why. Even OysterCard in London says ‘touch in, touch out’ assuming that these chips can only be read from inches as opposed to feet. The fact of public duping is naturally creating a huge reaction and hence the campaign for this to stop.

There has to be a middle course. Is this technology wanted and needed? Yes. Is it inevitable? Yes. I am no longer convinced we will halt this technology. Is it potentially dangerous? Yes. We have to realise there are huge societal detriments as well as advancements at stake here. However we are witnessing a roll out that will see absolutely everything tagged within our lifetimes.

Are we happy with speed cameras? Can you imagine a world where the ‘speed cameras are invisible, able to pick you up from a half/mile away and you can never avoid them as they are permanently tracking the car via satellite? 3 am down country lane – you go over the speed limit. Game over. There will be a ticket in the post. The marketing spin will be that car insurance is cheaper as we know where your car is incase its stolen. The facts are we know where you car is and will penalise you the movement you go over the speed camera anywhere, anytime.

Inevitability and desirability are two very different things. The problem is there are equally powerful arguments for both sides – from convenience to safety.

Even if such pervasiveness is inevitable it does not mean it should be installed snidely without open discussion, fudging the facts, spinning the truth. Neither should it come in unchecked and ‘hidden’ for fear of reaction. Those at the top whether technological or governmental MUST be held to account. We have a system of democracy where as there can be a concession to pull the mavericks back into line, as opposed to dictatorship. This technology even if inevitable should not be dictated or unchecked. There needs to be a voice exploring the dangers and concerns and pulling this back into line. This will prevent cancerous side effects, push for better security, push for developments. It will help remove the fear of the public as well as allow the fear of the public to hone the development of the technology to further its progress.