“Luxury Surveillance” - hard pass.

Sheeeeeshhhhh. Oh man, so many of these gidgets and gadgets were built for functionality, and security is secondary if it’s on the mind at all.

I do what I can to opt-out of any location tracking on my phone and other apps. Europe has far better privacy standards than the US b/c corporations here have been able to make compelling business reasons to READ ALL OF YOUR SHIT! And without a federal privacy law, it’s up to states to decide LOL.

I do make sure to say “Hello!” to my personal FBI/CIA agent who is watching all my shit.

I have been on Facenuts less and less - just some birthday and anniversary posts.

Being a recluse in the woods of Colorado is not an option, but I do what I can to maintain a semblance of privacy. I wanted a FitBit or an Apple watch, but neither of those devices are all that accurate for steps or blood pressure and I’m not living my life by certain numbers any more. And I’d rather have a wristwatch for jewelry/adornment purposes - not to track what’s left of my soul.

Luxury Surveillance: People pay a premium for tracking technologies that get imposed unwillingly on others, by Chris Gilliard and David Golumbia via Real Life Mag.

Both the Apple Watch and the FitBit can be understood as examples of luxury surveillance: surveillance that people pay for and whose tracking, monitoring, and quantification features are understood by the user as benefits they are likely to celebrate. Google, which has recently acquired FitBit, is seemingly leaning into the category, launching a more expensive version of the device named the “Luxe.” Only certain people can afford luxury surveillance, but that is not necessarily a matter of money: In general terms, consumers of luxury surveillance see themselves as powerful and sovereign, and perhaps even immune from unwelcome monitoring and control. They see self-quantification and tracking not as disciplinary or coercive, but as a kind of care or empowerment. They understand it as something extra, something “smart.”