PC Magazine has a wonderful article on MIT Media Lab’s RadioActive phones. These phones allow their owners to do podcasts directly through the phone which is then uploaded into a pretty slick site that adds metadata to it, associating the podcast to all potentially interesting connections.

By and large, more people are turning to their mobile devices for entertainment, says Donath, but rather than call, and potentially annoy, a friend, it would be ideal to “conveniently drop into an [ongoing] discussion and drop out when you’re done.”

…The RadioActive project, which Donath (MIT) created with student Aaron Zinman, defines a large-scale asynchronous audio messaging system, or mobile audio forum. In this system, voice messages, which are short audio sound bytes, are exchanged between groups of users via mobile devices, like cell phones or PDAs, as a method of “discussion-on-demand.”

…Just like an email application or an RSS reader, RadioActive supplies its users with an inbox, which displays the first message of discussion threads that have been subscribed to or are contextually relevant. For instance, location may be one factor the system takes into account when determining contextual relevance. In this scenario, threads relating to New York City restaurants may appear in the inbox as the user walks around Manhattan.

While this functionality in itself is pretty interesting, the thought that occurs to me is that this is just another step in a societal change where we know where everyone is at all times and where all communications are potentially monitored. Paranoid parents already have the ability to keep tabs on their children 24/7; now a jilted lover has to worry about the possibility of his or her significant other secretly “podcasting” their breakup discussion because this would be so dramatic that it would be a surefire hits generator on whatever the hot social networking site was at the moment.

The trend is clear: reality shows and social software technologies are transforming you an I into the stars of the modern media age. Our movie stars are quickly losing their sacred pedestal as the voice and face of society. The societal actors are becoming the nameless many, who now can make a name for themselves by podcasting the latest bizarre incident in their lives for all to see. Yes, as the article suggests, we can use the podcasts to immediately broadcast to Manhattan that our crab cakes at Crabs-R-Us contained too much filler, but over time, the game show host mentality will take over. Then the question facing society will not be too dissimilar from the question explored in Final Cut: how will people act when they know that potentally all their interactions are being recorded for others’ consumption?

Andy Warhol’s 15 minutes of fame is based on the presupposition that there was an agreed-upon, discrete stage. In the cyberpunked present, our 15 minutes of fame has been converted into a potential 24 hour-a-day fame on one of a bazillion media outlets. Every interactive website is now in direct competition with cable & network TV. We all compete for your attention. To the extent you participate, you become part of the new internet reality shows. So “podcast away” ladies and gents!

Ted Koppel wrote an OP-ED for the New York Times earlier this week entitled “These Guns for Hire.” I would link to the New York Times, but they’ve gone to a pay-per-view model. Luckily, many political bloggers reprint the information - here’s a link to it. In this article, Mr. Koppel discusses a recent trend with respect to privatizing the military:

There is something terribly seductive about the notion of a mercenary army. Perhaps it is the inevitable response of a market economy to a host of seemingly intractable public policy and security problems.

Consider only a partial list of factors that would make a force of latter-day Hessians seem attractive. Among them are these:

*Growing public disenchantment with the war in Iraq;

*The prospect of an endless campaign against global terrorism;

*An over-extended military backed by an exhausted, even depleted force of reservists and National Guardsmen;

*The unwillingness or inability of the United Nations or other multinational organizations to dispatch adequate forces to deal quickly with hideous, large-scale atrocities (see Darfur and Congo);

*The expansion of American corporations into more remote, fractious and potentially hostile settings.

Just as the all-volunteer military relieved the government of much of the political pressure that had accompanied the draft, so a rent-a-force, harnessing the privilege of every putative warrior to hire himself out for more than he could ever make in the direct service of Uncle Sam, might relieve us of an array of current political pressures.

In the Op-Ed Koppel does a nice job of exposing the issues with having privatized firms maintain their own mercenary force. There is clearly a conflict of interest between a country’s interest (The US in this case) and a corporation’s concerns.

So, if there are personnel shortages in the military (and with units in their second and third rotations into Iraq and Afghanistan, there are), then what’s wrong with having civilian contractors? Expense is a possible issue; but a resumption of the draft would be significantly more controversial.

Moreover, contractors provide the bodyguards (most of them veterans of the American, British, Australian, Nepalese or South African military) and, in some cases, the armored vehicles and even helicopters that have become so necessary for the conduct of business by foreign civilians in Iraq. Such protective services are employed by practically every American news agency and, indeed, are responsible for the security of the American ambassador himself.

So, what about the inevitable next step — a defensive military force paid for directly by the corporations that would most benefit from its protection? If, for example, an insurrection in Nigeria threatens that nation’s ability to export oil (and it does), why not have Chevron or Exxon Mobil underwrite the dispatch of a battalion or two of mercenaries?

This linkage with oil companies is terrific in that watching the CEOs being interviewed about the insanely high oil prices, they flat out say their job is to make money for the shareholders, NOT to keep prices low. In discussing the possibility with a mercenary-for-hire company, the following exchanges took place:

Chris Taylor, the vice president for strategic initiatives and corporate strategy for Blackwater USA, wanted to be sure I understood that such a thing could only happen with the approval of the Nigerian government and at least the tacit understanding of Washington. But could Blackwater provide a couple of battalions under those circumstances? “600 people in a battalion,” he answered. “I could source 1,200 people, yes. There are people all over the world who have honorably served in their military or police organizations. I can go find honorable, vetted people, recruit them, train them to the standard we require.”

What then if the commercial interests of a company or foreign government hiring one of these security contractors comes into conflict with the interests of the United States government? Mr. Taylor of Blackwater doesn’t even concede the possibility. “At the end of the day,” he said, “we consider ourselves responsible to be strategic partners of the U.S. government.” To which he then added, perhaps a little more convincingly: “If we went against U.S. government interests we would never get another contract.”

This last line is the real issue. As long as this is profitable for a corporation, they will support their affiliated government. While I certainly don’t believe that lifetime soldiers of a country would ever go against it in any real numbers, this is a global economy - mercenaries can be outsourced. Corporations are multi-national. If there EVER was a REALY BAD idea that has been floated around recently, this is it. Talk about the start to a cyberpunked future! If the trend moves towards corporate control of our protection, we truly will be on a dystopic path.