Ole Jacob running up StoltzekleivenYikes. Our local newspaper has video taped everyone who participated in Stoltzekleiven opp, a race where crazy Bergeners run up a local mountain. You can type in someone’s name, and if they participated, you see their start number and their finishing time – and you can click to see that person in the video. I typed in a few names of people I thought might have participated, and sure enough, found Ole Jacob there. Go Ole Jacob!

But it’s kind of bizarre, right? Do they do this with marathons and such? Do competitors like being metatagged with this kind of detail?


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

6 thoughts on “big brother sees you – running up Stoltzekleiven

  1. Anne Helmond

    It sounds creepy indeed but runners have been tagged for a while with the Champion Chips that are used for most marathons and running competitions. If you own a personal Champion Chip you are automatically added to their worldwide database. Of course you can also use Single Use Champion Chips (more info: http://www.championchip.com/chips/). It reminds me of the Dutch new public transportation rfid chipcard where you can also buy (anonymous) single rides or a (database central) personal card.

  2. bjorge

    Hi Jill, I too find it strange that they do this. Taking pictures of any of the participants for a coverage story in any media is probably legal, but this is borderline to a full database. In my opinion this is illegal, but then again, I’m not a lawyer. Maybe we should ask datatilsynet?

  3. Jill Walker Rettberg

    Good point, Bjørge – I have no idea, but unless the competitors signed something when they entered the race agreeing to this it’d probably illegal.

  4. Matt Whyndham

    Speaking as an occasional runner, yes we love that sort of thing.

  5. […] Jeg skulle som i fjor gjøre et tappert forsøk på å bestige Sandviksfjellet opp Stoltzekleiven, men ble skadet i siste øyeblikk og måtte stå over. Det skal nok Varegg være like glad over for jeg hadde ikke likt å finne et bilde av meg selv på nettet i etterkant. Jill W.R. stusset også litt på dette og jeg tok faktisk kontakt med Datatilsynet for å høre om regelverket rundt dette. […]

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.