created 2025-03-11, & modified, =this.modified
NOTE
What if, the voice becomes so much a vulnerable surface, to the extent that we decide, collectively to lose it. Identity is no longer tied to our voices for sound.
We might have speech synthesis (vocal deep fakes) that destroy our voice identity. Human conversation becomes mediated by an apparatus we all have, basically a jammer of sound, or perhaps a synthesizer that is homogenous in sound across all speakers.
Still then, does the word use become a vulnerable surface for identity? The cadence of speech? (necessitating precise duty cycles of exchange). The return of ritualization.
Any identity, or deviation is vulnerable.
Every surface is vulnerable for attack (and often left unguarded, or allowed due to tradition and need to maintain ease of flow of work), and this is increasingly made aware. Most people rely on trust that they aren’t going to get uncharacteristically swindled constantly, with zero actual safeguards.
For example the voice, was never secure and is no longer secure (increasingly so, in that it can be easily replicated.) A ruse always existed (you can even argue that deception, or lies, is an altered voice), but as a technological focus, the voice was ok for communication between trusted parties. It doesn’t seem to be the case as much.
So we, on the outskirts of the modern, are left gradually plugging holes for security once they made popular. Like a dictum from higher-ups stating, “you cannot buy laptop here because of the risk that the device has been tampered with” and thus infected, so it is discouraged.
You will always lose though here, as the end state is just limited and crippled access and the bumping against of shadow IT.
I’m reminded of the Gevulot in the Quantum Thief series.
Gevulot (Hebrew for “borders”) is a privacy protocol used in the Oubliette. It is a system that allows people in the Oubliette, both citizens and visitors alike, to set the desired level of privacy in every social encounter, to share memories and to access the exomemory. People can obscure themselves from being seen by others if they are hidden behind a gevulot “fog”. However, this effect is only apparent, as analog recording devices, like cameras, can still capture images of people behind gevulot. Gevulot is physically implemented using a wearable shell, which visitors to the Oubliette are given upon entry.
It was many years since I’ve read this book, but what I recall (or perhaps my altered take away) was that any kind of human interaction, in the future, can indicate or point to being read (by means of things humanly subconsciously perceived or ignored.) My future computer apparatus encounters you in the wild, and processes you before me, indicating the microturbulence of your heart beat through your clothes, or speech analysis and thus I can peel the layers to some kind of core truth of our interaction.
So actually engaging in a “naked” conversation poses an extremely vulnerable risk. They restrict themselves by default.
For me, in this future world, I would love the vulnerable surface.