If at first it seems creepy, go with that gut instinct. You’re probably right. Microsoft’s patent application for “digital manners policy” (DMP) technology is part iRobot, part destined-to-be-used-for-nefarious-purposes.
Here’s how it is supposed to work: You walk into a movie theater, the movie theater sets your mobile phone to vibrate for you. You stroll into a museum, the museum disables the flash on your camera or disables your camera altogether. You get too close to the cockpit, any wireless device at risk of interfering is shut off.
The idea is to enforce a set of manners in public places because yes, that dude’s phone going Disco Inferno while George Clooney is trying to say something charming is highly annoying, and because yes, nobody should be able to take embarrassing pictures of you in the locker room just to upload them to the Internet.
That’s wrong, wrong, wrong.
TechDirt’s Mike Masnick, who tips us off to the patent application, is critical of the idea, describing it as the next generation of digital rights management (DRM), which is “restricting what people can do with the technology they own.”
Ars Technica’s Joel Hruska thinks that position is alarmist and will be glad of the enforced etiquette if it prevents problems as described. But Hruska is missing a couple of important points.
- In polite society, manners are generally optional. It’s illegal to streak down the street or peep on someone, but there’s no law that says you can’t blow your nose on your shirt tail or that you have to cover your mouth when you cough. Technology like this would, in effect, force your hand to your mouth, which would be a kind of assault. “Manners” aren’t mandated, they’re voluntary actions of mutual respect, and sometimes they are arbitrary social status displays. It is precisely because one doesn’t have to show manners that makes manners great and appreciated when they appear.
- If comparing it to DRM is “alarmist,” wait until the conspiracy theorists get a hold of it. Couldn’t get photographic evidence of that government injustice that happened in broad daylight on a public street? Obviously, G-Men were jamming cameras—and any other type of recording/detecting device—within a certain radius. Pictures or didn’t happen, so they say in comment sections all around the blogosphere.
It seems unnecessary and unsettling that a third party could, on whatever terms or definitions of “manners” they apply, interfere with otherwise law-abiding citizens’ use of their own property. It’s a dangerous power game to play, where people are no longer asked to do something but are commanded by some vague authority with some vague or arbitrary definition of proper behavior. This technology enforces manners by encouraging abuse.
Personally, I’d rather shush somebody at the theater (or more likely just roll my eyes) than relinquish an ounce of personal sovereignty. I wouldn’t let you reach in my pocket and turn off my mobile. Why would I let a machine do it?
