I found an interesting article online titled “Burn Your Phone,” which is a translation from the website https://quematumovil.pimienta.org/. Apparently, a PDF and print version are set to be released soon by Pocket Edition.

Although the title of this text suggests that we should burn our phones, that’s not an option for me, since I got rid of mine many years ago. I’d like to refer here to a chapter in my book “Tato kniha není (z)boží” (This Book Is Not a Commodity), where I explain my reasons for not owning a phone and why I recommend that others get rid of theirs as well.

°°°

“Power today is capable of moving at the speed of an electronic signal—so the time required to transfer its essential components has been reduced to an instant. Power has, in all practical respects, become truly extraterritorial (independent of place) and is no longer closely tied to a specific location nor slowed down by its resistance. The advent of mobile phones can serve as the final “blow” dealt to power’s dependence on space: to issue a command and oversee its outcome, access to a telephone jack is no longer even necessary. It no longer matters where the person issuing the command is located—the distinction between “near” and “far,” or between wilderness and ordinary civilized space, has been completely abolished. This provides those in power with a truly unprecedented opportunity.”

– Zygmund Bauman

There is no doubt that many would describe my approach to modern forms of communication via phone and the internet as highly unconventional. I won’t try to convince anyone otherwise, because it’s true. However, when we consider conventions and how they arise, it’s clear that they don’t always align with what is beneficial and safe for us. Unconventional, therefore, does not always mean reprehensible. Cyber and telecommunications technologies have become the norm for most of the population. At least in the place where I mostly live. But this normality gives rise to conventions which, although widespread, have significant negative impacts: loss of privacy, misuse for commercial purposes, the strengthening of social control and institutional power, alienation, addiction, psychological personality disorders, and more.

It is important to note that these impacts are not an inevitable phenomenon of our times. They are the result of certain behaviors becoming accepted and desired, regardless of their side effects. The negative impacts of this type of behavior can be prevented very easily—by rejecting what causes them. In my view, this does not mean rejecting all modern technologies, but rejecting the culture that makes them the primary means of communication and interaction between people. Simply put, I try to use only those technologies and in such a way that I do not share sensitive information with those for whom I am merely a tool for generating profit or a citizen who is to be kept in obedience. Sometimes this means not using certain tools at all, sometimes only parts of them, or only under specific circumstances. I prioritize security (my own and others’), privacy, and dignity over other aspects. For example, if something like a cell phone enables fast communication but also allows the police and businesses to conveniently collect sensitive data about my relationships, movements, and habits, that is reason enough for me not to own a phone and to use someone else’s only in exceptional situations.

“Mobile connectivity is key. By analyzing call histories, investigators are able to unravel the web of social connections. That’s how they knew who to arrest first. Thanks to cell phones, they can track not only the network but also the location. A single phone call or text message can cost you dearly.”

– Igor Oliněvič – On the Way to Magadan: A Prisoner’s Diary

Download in English

A COP IN MY POCKET

My relationship with my cell phone hasn’t always been so straightforward. I used to own and use one. Even though I used it less frequently and more cautiously than most users, it still helped the police obtain a lot of sensitive information about me, my friends, and my parents—information I would never have voluntarily provided to them. As I write this, I am not speculating, but reflecting on what emerged from the criminal proceedings in which the police implicated me along with many others. The police repeatedly attempted to question me on suspicion of involvement in criminal offenses. They proved nothing of the sort, but they did reveal just how much personal data they had gathered from my cell phone. They mapped my movements over several months by tracking the phone’s location in my pocket. From my calls and text messages, they created a social map of me—information about who I communicate with, how often, and on what occasions. They knew what I wrote and who I spoke to on the phone. They could literally determine my daily and nightly routines. They recorded everything in the criminal case file, and as a defendant, I had the opportunity to review it.

Imagine sitting in an interrogation room where police investigators start bombarding you with details about who you went on dates with and where, who you sent poems to, or who you confided your problems to. That’s exactly what happened to me. And I have no doubt it could happen to anyone. You don’t have to be a criminal suspect for this to happen to you. My father wasn’t one either, yet the police searched through his communications to get information about me. You never know if the police are interested in someone you’re talking to on the phone. If they are, they’ll dig through the sensitive details of your private life, and there’s nothing you can do about it. The only defense is simply not to have a phone and not to use one. Does that seem undignified and impractical to you? My parents’ generation lived without cell phones for two-thirds of their lives. Do you think their lives were worse because of that? I don’t think so. They communicated more slowly, but all the more personally. They didn’t suffer; on the contrary, they lived less alienated lives.

I often hear people say that if you’re not doing anything ilegal, you have nothing to fear. Is that supposed to justify the use of cell phones? Not only is this an extremely naive stance, but in practice it also allows for the invasion of many people’s privacy.

First of all, everyone has something to hide, and it doesn’t always have to be something bad. There isn’t a single person in the world who doesn’t have secrets.

Second, what is bad for the existing order and its institutions is not necessarily bad for our lives. So perhaps you, too, are hiding something you consider legitimate, but the police or authorities would punish you if they knew about it.

Third, even those who aren’t doing anything illegal like to protect their privacy. If that weren’t the case, people wouldn’t have curtains or blinds on their apartment windows. They wouldn’t care if a neighbor watched their butt while they were having sex. Most people naturally find such things offensive and would strongly protest if someone told them that since they aren’t doing anything wrong, there’s no reason to hide it. But when it comes to the use of cell phones, something very similar is happening—and people accept it. They prioritize user convenience over privacy.

If, on a Saturday night, a voyeur were to peer through their bedroom window and watch them express their romantic love and sexual pleasure, it would be scandalous, and they would protest against it. Yet when the police and telecommunications companies collect all their romantic calls and text messages expressing sexual fantasies, hardly anyone questions it. Yes, the police don’t necessarily have to use this data just because it’s stored somewhere. After all, a neighbor also doesn’t have to peek into your love life every time just because your window is open. The point is that the ability to do so is practically unlimited. In the case of cell phones, this is well known, and yet many people act as if it were perfectly fine. Only a naive person believes that privacy laws have any significant impact. A police officer will always find a way to access the data. If the law complicates matters for him, he will justify it by claiming that he is pursuing some higher interest that takes precedence over the law.

Coming soon:

Burn Your Phone – Part Two

Burn Your Phone – Part Three