Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Steve Smith wrote at 01/18/2013 08:27 PM: My presence at the bar was public data and I didn't do anything in particular to keep it private. Fortunately neither of my parents were drinkers (except at home in small quantities) and only a couple of times did it seem like I was close to getting busted. It was a large enough town or small enough city that such a thing could happen... and a good lesson in the issues of public/private. I've always found it a fun and interesting challenge when someone I know expresses too much knowledge about me. In most polite contexts, this doesn't seem to happen. Everyone is polite enough to let old people tell the same story over and over again, or avoid correcting a friend who remembers things wrong or embellishes for the purpose of the story. I can remember vividly when I first grokked that quote by Emerson: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. I was sitting at a crawfish boil at my uncle's house listening to two men (it's always men who do this, I think) discuss in very great detail what roads would take another guy to the beer store. This is in rural Texas and it's debatable whether there were multiple (practical) paths. They went on and on about the distance you had to go on any given road and what landmarks you had to watch for. For me, somewhere at age 12-14 at the time, it was like listening to them talk about baseball or football, which were the other useless subjects they talked for hours about. Amazingly, the guy tasked to make the beer run tolerated all this and showed no apprehension or anxiety whatsoever... perhaps because it's a family full of cajuns? Had it been me, I would have abandoned them and engaged in the search on my own within the first minute ... no wonder they never liked me. 8^) Anyway, my apathy toward that sort of thing changes if someone expresses detailed, true[*], _personal_ knowledge about me, even if it's just one on one conversation. In a friendly setting, it triggers a fugue-ish introspection. In a hostile setting, it triggers a kind of super-search to flesh out the knowledge graph around the factoid the bogey presented, still introspective, but not reflective. [*] Obviously, by true, I mean their account matches my own memory. If they're wrong, it triggers an entirely different set of behaviors. -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/17/13 11:19 AM, glen wrote: The problem with this part of the discussion is that because of the Information Age, etc. (aka population density ;-), the composition of polite behavior changes rapidly within an individual's lifetime. Add to that the mobility of individuals, and there are multiple, perhaps competing understandings of what polite behavior is. Politics tends to make cliques fragile because individual powerful people defect and one slightly weaker clique can quickly become a powerful clique. The rules they make to lend legitimacy to their endless conflicts can help the little guy! The more competing understandings there are, the less important it is for to conform to any one of them. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 01/18/2013 08:47 AM: Politics tends to make cliques fragile because individual powerful people defect and one slightly weaker clique can quickly become a powerful clique. The rules they make to lend legitimacy to their endless conflicts can help the little guy! The more competing understandings there are, the less important it is for to conform to any one of them. Right. And that decrease in importance of conforming to any single concept of polite behavior, erodes the concept of polite behavior altogether. And that means polite behavior _must_ change because of the Information Age, etc. -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/18/13 10:14 AM, glen wrote: And that means polite behavior _must_ change because of the Information Age, etc. Yes, I see I overstated that for no good reason. Thanks. Still, I think it is important to try to push any enduring group toward polite behavior, however short-lived. Tyranny of the majority and all that. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 01/18/2013 09:19 AM: Still, I think it is important to try to push any enduring group toward polite behavior, however short-lived. OK. But the deeper problem is the definition of politeness, especially as a vanishing point ideal. To stress the point, I could argue that, if the clique endures, then whatever behavior they engage in already defines politeness, regardless of how impolite their behavior may seem to an outsider. A personal example is all the touching, hugging, and pressing the flesh people seem to love. I had a boss for awhile that seemed to think it positive to pat his male employees on the back on a regular (like ... high frequency regular) basis. He's a good guy and I kinda like him otherwise. But that incessant touching was seriously irritating. Ugh. -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/18/13 10:32 AM, glen wrote: To stress the point, I could argue that, if the clique endures, then whatever behavior they engage in already defines politeness, regardless of how impolite their behavior may seem to an outsider. I think there is a distinction. Organizations that seek to endure need to prevent bully cliques if for no other reason than so that their officials maintain their authority, e.g. The President needs to tell the Generals what to do, not the reverse. I think it's a scale-free thing. That means holding individual and emergent group behavior to some standard. People at all levels in the organization need to be able to agree that so-and-so went wacko and behaved inappropriately, that they don't need to tolerate it. Individuals can help this to happen just by acting consistently with the implicit standard, especially when it is in their interest to do so. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 01/18/2013 10:12 AM: I think there is a distinction. Organizations that seek to endure need to prevent bully cliques if for no other reason than so that their officials maintain their authority, e.g. The President needs to tell the Generals what to do, not the reverse. I think it's a scale-free thing. That means holding individual and emergent group behavior to some standard. People at all levels in the organization need to be able to agree that so-and-so went wacko and behaved inappropriately, that they don't need to tolerate it. Individuals can help this to happen just by acting consistently with the implicit standard, especially when it is in their interest to do so. Hm. So can we use practical jokes as an example? That domain should bring us back to Nick's original issue. Practical jokers are on the cusp between [im]polite behavior. If you're established as part of the clique (say in a cubicle dominated office), then it's considered polite to, say, smear another clique member's phone with vaseline. But it's considered impolite to do that to someone who's not in the clique, even _if_ that outsider might want to be in the clique. The practical joker clique can easily turn into a bully clique by recognizing the wants of the outsider and as they test her to see if she fits the predicate, if they determine she does not, they may play exceptionally cruel jokes on her in order to clarify her out-group status. But they will maintain that, had someone played those jokes on them, they would have taken it in stride because that's what they do to each other all the time. In an office setting, the boss has an obligation to set the standards for the practical joke boundaries. But by their very nature, the in-group practical jokers purposefully push those boundaries because that's what the clique is defined as ... that _is_ the predicate. The boss also has a competing constraint to encourage camaraderie. How do the in-group practical jokers define [im]polite? I submit that they must have at least 2 definitions of [im]polite, one for members and one for non-members. And they'll likely have a 3rd for the boss. -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/18/13 11:33 AM, glen wrote: I submit that they must have at least 2 definitions of [im]polite, one for members and one for non-members. And they'll likely have a 3rd for the boss No argument really. Just that the definitions probably at least have some constraints -- and that if they aren't somehow reconcilable with the definitions of those in the out-group and the boss, then there may be trouble that damages the organization's productivity. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 01/18/2013 10:47 AM: No argument really. Just that the definitions probably at least have some constraints -- and that if they aren't somehow reconcilable with the definitions of those in the out-group and the boss, then there may be trouble that damages the organization's productivity. Interesting. So, going back to embarrassing or implicating a victim by aggregating public data, the guide for when it's [not] OK to do that, might be related to this external set of constraints. By external, I mean external to members (open data advocates) and non-members (privacy advocates) of the clique, as well as an authority figure (prosecutors). While we often assume the prosecutors, or more generally the whole justice dept, are slaves of the law, they're actually not. LEOs bias the law by paying closer attention to various attributes. Hence, the law could be the external constraints you're proposing, right? But we'd need non-LEOs ... perhaps watchdogs ... to bridge the gap between the LEO bias and the constraints. If we went in this direction, it would provide an argument for placing legal restrictions on the aggregation of public data. I.e. it's not the vague notion of politeness that does it. It's the implicit status as watchdog, enforcer of the unenforced-due-to-bias parts of the standard, that does what we need. -- -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
OK... so as an example of insider/outsider behaviour, my cartoons starring Doug are a form of ribbing that has the same quality as practical jokes. I feel I know Doug well enough on and off list to know what he would find rude or hurtful and what he would not, so I am comfortable poking a little fun at him. For example, I know that Doug's self identity includes that of being a Skeptic (Zhiangzi reference) and of being tenacious (as stated). I also know Stephen well enough to do this, but he wisely (or out of boredom with us!) stays out of the fray here, so he is relatively safe. I'm getting to know others well enough that I think I could parody some of you with impunity and possibly with appreciation by the recipients as well as the audience. Glen and I have not finished our back-n-forth about technology, but deep in that conversation is another subconversation about insider/outsider and language... - Steve Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 01/18/2013 10:12 AM: I think there is a distinction. Organizations that seek to endure need to prevent bully cliques if for no other reason than so that their officials maintain their authority, e.g. The President needs to tell the Generals what to do, not the reverse. I think it's a scale-free thing. That means holding individual and emergent group behavior to some standard. People at all levels in the organization need to be able to agree that so-and-so went wacko and behaved inappropriately, that they don't need to tolerate it. Individuals can help this to happen just by acting consistently with the implicit standard, especially when it is in their interest to do so. Hm. So can we use practical jokes as an example? That domain should bring us back to Nick's original issue. Practical jokers are on the cusp between [im]polite behavior. If you're established as part of the clique (say in a cubicle dominated office), then it's considered polite to, say, smear another clique member's phone with vaseline. But it's considered impolite to do that to someone who's not in the clique, even _if_ that outsider might want to be in the clique. The practical joker clique can easily turn into a bully clique by recognizing the wants of the outsider and as they test her to see if she fits the predicate, if they determine she does not, they may play exceptionally cruel jokes on her in order to clarify her out-group status. But they will maintain that, had someone played those jokes on them, they would have taken it in stride because that's what they do to each other all the time. In an office setting, the boss has an obligation to set the standards for the practical joke boundaries. But by their very nature, the in-group practical jokers purposefully push those boundaries because that's what the clique is defined as ... that _is_ the predicate. The boss also has a competing constraint to encourage camaraderie. How do the in-group practical jokers define [im]polite? I submit that they must have at least 2 definitions of [im]polite, one for members and one for non-members. And they'll likely have a 3rd for the boss. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
The interesting thing about making fun of people is the amount of peripheral or contextual information that's necessary. I'm not really a fan of Louis C.K. But if you watch his stand-up, you can see him say the nastiest things without it seeming so nasty. He says these things while smiling or laughing. Of course, he's not a wild-type subject because you know he's a comedian tuned to his audience. But I can also confess that my dad was a master at deadpan cruelty. Not only were we (his family, but mostly my mom) his victims, but I would watch him, in bars [*] and at the Wurstfest, shred someone completely without them having any clue what was happening. The smarter ones would notice that, while he was ribbing them, he would watch them extra closely. So, they learned to recognize when they were the butt of the joke by watching him as he told his story. At his funeral, they would wax poetic about the twinkle in his eye when he was telling a joke. Of course, this behavior tended to slough off the people who were just smart enough, yet just insecure enough to recognize when they were the butt of a joke, but not able to recognize it as a joke. That said, my dad was a bully of the first order. If you were too insecure to _take_ the joke, then you were a wimp and a coward. He used his abilities to engineer swaths of people so that they behaved as he wanted them to behave. And the ones that didn't play along were ridiculed and pushed out of the clique. Luckily, he couldn't do that to me. ;-) [*] I was practically reared in a bar called Lloyd's. Lloyd was a one-armed bartender who taught me how to open a beer with one hand at the age of about 8. Oh, and Lloyd had also had a laryngectomy and while not opening beers with his one arm, had to hold a wand to his throat in order to speak. Steve Smith wrote at 01/18/2013 11:43 AM: OK... so as an example of insider/outsider behaviour, my cartoons starring Doug are a form of ribbing that has the same quality as practical jokes. I feel I know Doug well enough on and off list to know what he would find rude or hurtful and what he would not, so I am comfortable poking a little fun at him. For example, I know that Doug's self identity includes that of being a Skeptic (Zhiangzi reference) and of being tenacious (as stated). I also know Stephen well enough to do this, but he wisely (or out of boredom with us!) stays out of the fray here, so he is relatively safe. I'm getting to know others well enough that I think I could parody some of you with impunity and possibly with appreciation by the recipients as well as the audience. Glen and I have not finished our back-n-forth about technology, but deep in that conversation is another subconversation about insider/outsider and language... -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Well, (he said with a twinkle in his, yet hoping for a friendly riposte in return), that explains a lot. :) --Doug On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: The interesting thing about making fun of people is the amount of peripheral or contextual information that's necessary. I'm not really a fan of Louis C.K. But if you watch his stand-up, you can see him say the nastiest things without it seeming so nasty. He says these things while smiling or laughing. Of course, he's not a wild-type subject because you know he's a comedian tuned to his audience. But I can also confess that my dad was a master at deadpan cruelty. Not only were we (his family, but mostly my mom) his victims, but I would watch him, in bars [*] and at the Wurstfest, shred someone completely without them having any clue what was happening. The smarter ones would notice that, while he was ribbing them, he would watch them extra closely. So, they learned to recognize when they were the butt of the joke by watching him as he told his story. At his funeral, they would wax poetic about the twinkle in his eye when he was telling a joke. Of course, this behavior tended to slough off the people who were just smart enough, yet just insecure enough to recognize when they were the butt of a joke, but not able to recognize it as a joke. That said, my dad was a bully of the first order. If you were too insecure to _take_ the joke, then you were a wimp and a coward. He used his abilities to engineer swaths of people so that they behaved as he wanted them to behave. And the ones that didn't play along were ridiculed and pushed out of the clique. Luckily, he couldn't do that to me. ;-) [*] I was practically reared in a bar called Lloyd's. Lloyd was a one-armed bartender who taught me how to open a beer with one hand at the age of about 8. Oh, and Lloyd had also had a laryngectomy and while not opening beers with his one arm, had to hold a wand to his throat in order to speak. Steve Smith wrote at 01/18/2013 11:43 AM: OK... so as an example of insider/outsider behaviour, my cartoons starring Doug are a form of ribbing that has the same quality as practical jokes. I feel I know Doug well enough on and off list to know what he would find rude or hurtful and what he would not, so I am comfortable poking a little fun at him. For example, I know that Doug's self identity includes that of being a Skeptic (Zhiangzi reference) and of being tenacious (as stated). I also know Stephen well enough to do this, but he wisely (or out of boredom with us!) stays out of the fray here, so he is relatively safe. I'm getting to know others well enough that I think I could parody some of you with impunity and possibly with appreciation by the recipients as well as the audience. Glen and I have not finished our back-n-forth about technology, but deep in that conversation is another subconversation about insider/outsider and language... -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- *Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
EYE! TWINKEL IN HIS FUCKING EYE! On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.netwrote: Well, (he said with a twinkle in his, yet hoping for a friendly riposte in return), that explains a lot. :) --Doug On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: The interesting thing about making fun of people is the amount of peripheral or contextual information that's necessary. I'm not really a fan of Louis C.K. But if you watch his stand-up, you can see him say the nastiest things without it seeming so nasty. He says these things while smiling or laughing. Of course, he's not a wild-type subject because you know he's a comedian tuned to his audience. But I can also confess that my dad was a master at deadpan cruelty. Not only were we (his family, but mostly my mom) his victims, but I would watch him, in bars [*] and at the Wurstfest, shred someone completely without them having any clue what was happening. The smarter ones would notice that, while he was ribbing them, he would watch them extra closely. So, they learned to recognize when they were the butt of the joke by watching him as he told his story. At his funeral, they would wax poetic about the twinkle in his eye when he was telling a joke. Of course, this behavior tended to slough off the people who were just smart enough, yet just insecure enough to recognize when they were the butt of a joke, but not able to recognize it as a joke. That said, my dad was a bully of the first order. If you were too insecure to _take_ the joke, then you were a wimp and a coward. He used his abilities to engineer swaths of people so that they behaved as he wanted them to behave. And the ones that didn't play along were ridiculed and pushed out of the clique. Luckily, he couldn't do that to me. ;-) [*] I was practically reared in a bar called Lloyd's. Lloyd was a one-armed bartender who taught me how to open a beer with one hand at the age of about 8. Oh, and Lloyd had also had a laryngectomy and while not opening beers with his one arm, had to hold a wand to his throat in order to speak. Steve Smith wrote at 01/18/2013 11:43 AM: OK... so as an example of insider/outsider behaviour, my cartoons starring Doug are a form of ribbing that has the same quality as practical jokes. I feel I know Doug well enough on and off list to know what he would find rude or hurtful and what he would not, so I am comfortable poking a little fun at him. For example, I know that Doug's self identity includes that of being a Skeptic (Zhiangzi reference) and of being tenacious (as stated). I also know Stephen well enough to do this, but he wisely (or out of boredom with us!) stays out of the fray here, so he is relatively safe. I'm getting to know others well enough that I think I could parody some of you with impunity and possibly with appreciation by the recipients as well as the audience. Glen and I have not finished our back-n-forth about technology, but deep in that conversation is another subconversation about insider/outsider and language... -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- *Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* -- *Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
i'VE BEEN CODING ALL DAY. cAN'T SEE STRAIGHT. nOR FIND THE caps KEY. On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.netwrote: EYE! TWINKEL IN HIS FUCKING EYE! On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.netwrote: Well, (he said with a twinkle in his, yet hoping for a friendly riposte in return), that explains a lot. :) --Doug On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: The interesting thing about making fun of people is the amount of peripheral or contextual information that's necessary. I'm not really a fan of Louis C.K. But if you watch his stand-up, you can see him say the nastiest things without it seeming so nasty. He says these things while smiling or laughing. Of course, he's not a wild-type subject because you know he's a comedian tuned to his audience. But I can also confess that my dad was a master at deadpan cruelty. Not only were we (his family, but mostly my mom) his victims, but I would watch him, in bars [*] and at the Wurstfest, shred someone completely without them having any clue what was happening. The smarter ones would notice that, while he was ribbing them, he would watch them extra closely. So, they learned to recognize when they were the butt of the joke by watching him as he told his story. At his funeral, they would wax poetic about the twinkle in his eye when he was telling a joke. Of course, this behavior tended to slough off the people who were just smart enough, yet just insecure enough to recognize when they were the butt of a joke, but not able to recognize it as a joke. That said, my dad was a bully of the first order. If you were too insecure to _take_ the joke, then you were a wimp and a coward. He used his abilities to engineer swaths of people so that they behaved as he wanted them to behave. And the ones that didn't play along were ridiculed and pushed out of the clique. Luckily, he couldn't do that to me. ;-) [*] I was practically reared in a bar called Lloyd's. Lloyd was a one-armed bartender who taught me how to open a beer with one hand at the age of about 8. Oh, and Lloyd had also had a laryngectomy and while not opening beers with his one arm, had to hold a wand to his throat in order to speak. Steve Smith wrote at 01/18/2013 11:43 AM: OK... so as an example of insider/outsider behaviour, my cartoons starring Doug are a form of ribbing that has the same quality as practical jokes. I feel I know Doug well enough on and off list to know what he would find rude or hurtful and what he would not, so I am comfortable poking a little fun at him. For example, I know that Doug's self identity includes that of being a Skeptic (Zhiangzi reference) and of being tenacious (as stated). I also know Stephen well enough to do this, but he wisely (or out of boredom with us!) stays out of the fray here, so he is relatively safe. I'm getting to know others well enough that I think I could parody some of you with impunity and possibly with appreciation by the recipients as well as the audience. Glen and I have not finished our back-n-forth about technology, but deep in that conversation is another subconversation about insider/outsider and language... -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- *Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* -- *Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* -- *Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Douglas Roberts wrote at 01/18/2013 02:34 PM: Well, (he said with a twinkle in his, yet hoping for a friendly riposte in return), that explains a lot. Ha! Were we in close proximity, I'd stick you in the chest with my rapier and call it a day. Alas, all I have are my ham-handed, context-free words. -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Glen - Thanks for sharing the personal anecdote. It provides context and fodder for later ribbing if it comes to that. [*] I was practically reared in a bar called Lloyd's. Lloyd was a one-armed bartender who taught me how to open a beer with one hand at the age of about 8. Oh, and Lloyd had also had a laryngectomy and while not opening beers with his one arm, had to hold a wand to his throat in order to speak. I just finished reading J.R. Moehringer's autobiography The Tender Bar describing his own raising/coming-of-age in a local tavern where all of his male relatives drank, excepting his father who had left the family and was a radio personality in the big city so that the son could *hear* his father but never really got to know him. Raised firstly by his mother, he was raised also by the male relatives and other denezins of the tavern. There was a lot of insider/outsider understanding in that story as well. I myself learned to drink and shark pool (well, I wasn't good enough to shark but I made a good prop for my boss at the time who was excellent at it) in a country tavern (a block from where my friend killed his parents!) just at the edge of town. I towered over most grown men and had a reasonable beard at 16, and accompanied by either my 40 year old boss or my 23 year old sometimes (when it was convenient for her) girlfriend, Nobody questioned me ... It also helped that drinking age was 19 at that time. My presence at the bar was public data and I didn't do anything in particular to keep it private. Fortunately neither of my parents were drinkers (except at home in small quantities) and only a couple of times did it seem like I was close to getting busted. It was a large enough town or small enough city that such a thing could happen... and a good lesson in the issues of public/private. - Steve FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Nick speaks for himself: We are, by immigration, probably a nation of former thieves, cutpurses, embezzlers, for whom the choice was the docks or the stocks. You, sir, I believe, are from a sub-nation of former religious fanatics. I am partly that, but mostly from the (large!) sub-nation of former German-dialect-speaking peasants for whom the choice was starvation, with an admixture of the sub-nation of former draft-dodgers for whom the choice was death in some interminable intra-tribal war promoted by German-dialect- speaking aristocrats and largely suffered and fought by German-dialect-speaking peasants. And so forth and so on. Are you sure you haven't confused the U-S-of-God-fearin'-A with Australia? FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 01/16/2013 07:17 PM: It should be public. But it is rude to press a person for personal facts they don't volunteer. If someone uses a source, whether it is convenient or inconvenient, public or something else, they they then have no business making you feel uncomfortable about information they acquired out-of-band. It's polite behavior. Nothing must change because of the Information Age, etc. The problem with this part of the discussion is that because of the Information Age, etc. (aka population density ;-), the composition of polite behavior changes rapidly within an individual's lifetime. Add to that the mobility of individuals, and there are multiple, perhaps competing understandings of what polite behavior is. -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Parks, Raymond wrote at 01/17/2013 10:34 AM: Yes, we lie frequently. Yes, it is lying - we are either stating a falsehood or omitting the truth (the atheist example upthread). Human beings are social animals - we constantly try to manipulate our social situation for our personal optimum - it's built into us. Some of us are better at it than others. Some (Aspergers?) are downright incapable. OK. Well, if we're all always lying, then it seems like lying is a useless term. In order to make progress in the discussion, we'll have to come up with a taxonomy of qualifiers. We've covered white. It's ubiquitous, and hence also useless. What other types of lying are there? Specifically, which lies are indicators of legally relevant internal states like shame versus which lies are merely facilitators of the type of information control advocated by Eric and my lurker's use case? -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Even I can detect a willful argumentative bent here. Ray said, and I quote: Yes, we lie frequently. You said, OK. Well, if we're all always lying, [...] Now now, you know better... --Doug On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:42 AM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: Parks, Raymond wrote at 01/17/2013 10:34 AM: Yes, we lie frequently. Yes, it is lying - we are either stating a falsehood or omitting the truth (the atheist example upthread). Human beings are social animals - we constantly try to manipulate our social situation for our personal optimum - it's built into us. Some of us are better at it than others. Some (Aspergers?) are downright incapable. OK. Well, if we're all always lying, then it seems like lying is a useless term. In order to make progress in the discussion, we'll have to come up with a taxonomy of qualifiers. We've covered white. It's ubiquitous, and hence also useless. What other types of lying are there? Specifically, which lies are indicators of legally relevant internal states like shame versus which lies are merely facilitators of the type of information control advocated by Eric and my lurker's use case? -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- *Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
No, I asserted that if we follow Ray's claim to its logical conclusion, it means we are always lying. He responded Yes, but then went on to ignore the flaw in his argument. So, I'm reinforcing my point that his argument is flawed and he hasn't refuted it. That's not argumentative. It's good argumentation. ;-) Douglas Roberts wrote at 01/17/2013 10:46 AM: Even I can detect a willful argumentative bent here. Ray said, and I quote: Yes, we lie frequently. You said, OK. Well, if we're all always lying, [...] Now now, you know better... -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Clever. Objection overruled. (We watched the Lincoln Lawyer last night). On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:59 AM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: No, I asserted that if we follow Ray's claim to its logical conclusion, it means we are always lying. He responded Yes, but then went on to ignore the flaw in his argument. So, I'm reinforcing my point that his argument is flawed and he hasn't refuted it. That's not argumentative. It's good argumentation. ;-) Douglas Roberts wrote at 01/17/2013 10:46 AM: Even I can detect a willful argumentative bent here. Ray said, and I quote: Yes, we lie frequently. You said, OK. Well, if we're all always lying, [...] Now now, you know better... -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- *Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/15/13 10:54 PM, Steve Smith wrote: Who do we become when we do not respect the boundaries of others? Who are we as a society when we allow or encourage others to transgress? I understand the arguments for Law Enforcement and Intelligence and Security *wanting* to spy on people freely... to restrict the use of cryptography, etc. but they don't outweigh the risk of who we become when we do these things. When a person visits the doctor, information shared is privileged. If the doctor does not treat it as such, the doctor's career is put at risk. It's a good incentive to keep quiet. So imagine a world in which brain scans become much more sophisticated, and that certain dangerous mental health problems could be diagnosed with high accuracy, and also treated. Because of fear of mass shootings, etc., Americans make it law that scans be done on all, and that appropriate treatments be employed. For the sake of argument, suppose it's all handled methodically and in a secure fashion. Should we expect that the therapists and psychiatrists involved in this hypothetical process would suffer themselves for not respecting boundaries of individuals' psychological spaces? In current practice they would be invited inside the boundary by the patient and so presumably that's different. I think it is an adjustment health providers would make without much trouble. It would be a professional analytical activity. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Marcus, This is the perfect example of where privacy and self-determination collide. To avoid arguing about the brain in particular, lets assume it was a whole body scan, and that somehow it could pick up on whatever variables someone cares to bring into the discussion. Still, it would not be able to tell you with perfect accuracy who was going to be violent. At best it would be able to tell you This person will be violent if they find themselves in the following quite specific conditions. The problem is that this still doesn't tell us what to do. Do we treat the person or treat the condition? What if the person is already successfully treating the conditions? For example, how long did Bruce Banner go without incident before S.H.I.E.L.D. sent Black Widow to pull him back in? Who's the monster now? Well, Nick (Fury), who's the monster now? That is somewhat serious. If we find out that someone will become violent in a very particular situation, and the person is aware of their problem and has successfully avoided those situations for quite a while... on what basis could we claim the right to force them into some sort of treatment... no matter how successful it is. There are quite a wide varieties of lives that people can live, this includes lives spent as a hermit, lives spent smoking pot, etc. There will never be a way to use a body scan to determine with certainty that there will be future violence in a particular person's particular life.* I f a person has not publicly displayed a violent tendency, it seems to me that they have a right to keep the so-called tendency private, and that this has potentially quite important consequences for their ability to pursue a chosen path as they see fit. Eric *Unless of course we can scan them in the middle of a violent act, while we have some knowledge of how their environment will continue in the immediate future. But that is a special and not particularly interesting case. Eric Charles Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State, Altoona - Original Message - From: Marcus G. Daniels mar...@snoutfarm.com To: friam@redfish.com Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 3:36:08 AM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data On 1/15/13 10:54 PM, Steve Smith wrote: Who do we become when we do not respect the boundaries of others? Who are we as a society when we allow or encourage others to transgress? I understand the arguments for Law Enforcement and Intelligence and Security *wanting* to spy on people freely... to restrict the use of cryptography, etc. but they don't outweigh the risk of who we become when we do these things. When a person visits the doctor, information shared is privileged. If the doctor does not treat it as such, the doctor's career is put at risk. It's a good incentive to keep quiet. So imagine a world in which brain scans become much more sophisticated, and that certain dangerous mental health problems could be diagnosed with high accuracy, and also treated. Because of fear of mass shootings, etc., Americans make it law that scans be done on all, and that appropriate treatments be employed. For the sake of argument, suppose it's all handled methodically and in a secure fashion. Should we expect that the therapists and psychiatrists involved in this hypothetical process would suffer themselves for not respecting boundaries of individuals' psychological spaces? In current practice they would be invited inside the boundary by the patient and so presumably that's different. I think it is an adjustment health providers would make without much trouble. It would be a professional analytical activity. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Is the graph search limited to facebook data? Or does it include the rest of other search engine data? If just FB then it may have the problem the author discusses .. needing a constant stream of new activity from which to infer the graph. At a guess, I'd say twitter is a better source and much more graph-able .. almost a tripple-store with hashtags and @ identifiers. I've noticed that people tend to migrate toward/between one of G+, Facebook, and Twitter rather than use all of them so FB may be right to try to get folks back into the herd. -- Owen On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Tom Johnson t...@jtjohnson.com wrote: Per Nick's fine invitation, see: http://battellemedia.com/archives/2013/01/facebook-is-no-longer-flat.php -tom johnson On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Dear all, ** ** We had a discussion last Friday at Friam that I would like to see continued here. Many of us had seen a recent talk in which somebody was using satellite imagery to track an individual through his day. The resolution of such imagery is now down to 20 cm, and that is before processing. We stipulated (not sure it's true in NM) that if I were to follow one of you around for week, never intruding into your private space, but tagging along after you everywhere you went and patiently recording your every public act, that I could eventually be thrown in jail for stalking. We tried to decide what the law should say about assembling public data to create a record of the moment by moment activities of an individual. We suspected that nothing in law would forbid that kind of surveillance, but it made some of us uneasy. So much of what we take to be our private lives, is, after all, just a way of organizing public data. * *** ** ** We then wondered what justified any kind of privacy law. If everybody were honest, the cameras would reveal nothing that everybody would not be happy to have known? Were not privacy concerns proof of guilt? No, we concluded: they might be proof of SHAME, but shame and guilt are not the same, and the law, *per se*, is not in the business of punishing SHAME.** ** ** ** I thought our discussion was interesting for its combination of technological sophistication and legal naiveté. (In short, we needed a lawyer) In the end I concluded that, as more and more public data is put on line and more and more sophisticated data mining techniques are deployed, there will come a time when a category of cyber-stalking might have to be identified which involves using *public* data to track and aggregate in detail the movements of a particular individual. Do we have an opinion on this? ** ** We will now be at St. Johns for the foreseeable future. ** ** ** ** Nick ** ** Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://www.cusf.org ** ** ** ** FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- == J. T. Johnson Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USAhttp://www.analyticjournalism.com/ 505.577.6482(c)505.473.9646(h) Twitter: jtjohnson http://www.jtjohnson.com t...@jtjohnson.com == FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Eric: one of the difficulties of the free society approach, to which I agree btw, is that we migrate between countries so easily nowadays, so that privacy is global, not national. Certainly laws cannot be easily crafted to handle national differences. On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Eric Charles e...@psu.edu wrote: Nick, I have struggled with parts of this quite a bit. As you know, I am a somewhat-crazy Libertarian, and so get stuck in conversations like this on a fairly regular basis. In particular, I reject the idea that privacy is primarily about protecting people from shame or guilt. I believe that privacy (of a certain sort) is a basic right that is essential to a free society. Alas, it is difficult to explain why, as whenever I assert the right to not have certain information public, whomever is on the other side of the argument immediately tries to back me into a corner of being ashamed of whatever it is I want to keep private. There are a few things in my life I am indeed ashamed of, but very few, and I would probably tell most of them to anyone who asked. On the other hand, there are many things that I would like to keep private, and would probably not tell anyone who asked. How to explain the difference? The best I can say, I think, is that I see the right to (mostly) privacy as inextricably linked to the right to (mostly) self-determination. Whether people should have the latter right is certainly up for debate, but I think it has been a cornerstone of US culture through most of US history. At the least, it has been a cornerstone of our social myth structure (for sure if you were a white male, off and on for other groups). The idea that one could get a fresh start in America motivated many an immigrant... and *part *of getting a fresh start was people not knowing everything about you that those you were leaving knew. The mythic Old West was also largely based on such a principle. The ability to control (to some extent) what people know about you is often key to achieving goals (or at least it seems that way). Imagine for example, the otherwise charismatic man with a face made for radio. He might or might not be ashamed of his looks, but either way he has an interest in keeping his face (mostly) private until his career is sufficiently established. To put it in a more Victorian tone: There are certain things, we need not say which, that I am not ashamed of, and yet it would be inconvenient if they came out. Of those things we shan't speak, and it should be my prerogative to protect them as I see fit against the inquiries of others. -- To complicate your inquiry, one of the big legal issues in the fight you see brewing is this: Most of the new slush of public information you are concerned with is put out their *voluntarily*. The GPS in your phone turns on and off (and if not, you could get a different phone). Your posts, emails, blog entries, online photos, etc. are all being made public intentionally. Those software and website user agreements few ever reads often include consents to use your data in various ways, including making parts public. The old ideas of stalking, I think, mostly involved the accumulation of data against the will of the victim, and could potentially include the gathering of both private and technically public information (i.e., court records). I don't know how you could make a legal case against someone who only knew things about you that you intentionally threw out into the world for the purpose of people knowing it. If you wander around town everyday without clothes on, it would be hard to accuse someone of being a peeping Tom just because they saw you naked. Eric Eric Charles Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State, Altoona -- *From: *Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net *To: *The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group friam@redfish.com *Sent: *Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:45:52 PM *Subject: *[FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data Dear all, We had a discussion last Friday at Friam that I would like to see continued here. Many of us had seen a recent talk in which somebody was using satellite imagery to track an individual through his day. The resolution of such imagery is now down to 20 cm, and that is before processing. We stipulated (not sure it's true in NM) that if I were to follow one of you around for week, never intruding into your private space, but tagging along after you everywhere you went and patiently recording your every public act, that I could eventually be thrown in jail for stalking. We tried to decide what the law should say about assembling public data to create a record of the moment by moment activities of an individual. We suspected that nothing in law would forbid that kind of surveillance, but it made some of us uneasy. So much of what we take to be our private lives, is, after all,
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Re: satellites: they have very high resolution but I'm not sure they have a high frame rate .. ie could track an individual. -- Owen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/16/13 9:19 AM, Owen Densmore wrote: Re: satellites: they have very high resolution but I'm not sure they have a high frame rate .. ie could track an individual. Main limitation is the sun-synchronous orbit -- limited time to see a target as it comes in and out of view. http://launch.geoeye.com/LaunchSite/about/ GeoEye-2's optical telescope, detectors, focal plane assemblies and high-speed digital processing electronics are capable of processing 1,300 million pixels per second at a 24,000 line per second rate. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Dear Eric, I am deeply suspicious of “rights-talk”. “Rights” talk is “obligations-talk” or it is nothing. So whenever somebody claims a right for themselves, they have to state it in terms of obligations on me and on us. What does your right to do obligate ME to not do. If I am to be obligated to NOT do something I might like to do (wire your phone to hear you talking to your stockbroker, or pimp, say) I have to have some benefit. And if society is to go to the extra trouble to enforce your right against my temptation, society as a whole (WETF that is) has to have an incentive. Like most libertarian responses, yours largely leaves those two sides of the discussion. You are believers in Natural Right, which I think makes you believers in God, or incoherent. Lockeans you are not. On the other hand, I admired your whole thing about the Frontier and Second Chances. We are, by immigration, probably a nation of former thieves, cutpurses, embezzlers, for whom the choice was the docks or the stocks. But isn’t that shame? The crime was picking the pocket; the SHAME is having been conficted of having picked a pocket. Why not tell Mrs. Jones as you come in to fix her pipes, “Yes I did 10 years for aggravated burglary and I am proud of it?” There is a very nervous making article in the current new Yorker about a guy who has, in fact, never committed a crime, but who has been in jail for 20 years or so because he seems like the sort of guy who might commit a crime. And what, on the other hand, about all the “second chances” those Priests got. And yes I think we have to consider a new crime. The crime of stalking by using aggregated public data. Nick From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Eric Charles Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 9:40 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data Nick, I have struggled with parts of this quite a bit. As you know, I am a somewhat-crazy Libertarian, and so get stuck in conversations like this on a fairly regular basis. In particular, I reject the idea that privacy is primarily about protecting people from shame or guilt. I believe that privacy (of a certain sort) is a basic right that is essential to a free society. Alas, it is difficult to explain why, as whenever I assert the right to not have certain information public, whomever is on the other side of the argument immediately tries to back me into a corner of being ashamed of whatever it is I want to keep private. There are a few things in my life I am indeed ashamed of, but very few, and I would probably tell most of them to anyone who asked. On the other hand, there are many things that I would like to keep private, and would probably not tell anyone who asked. How to explain the difference? The best I can say, I think, is that I see the right to (mostly) privacy as inextricably linked to the right to (mostly) self-determination. Whether people should have the latter right is certainly up for debate, but I think it has been a cornerstone of US culture through most of US history. At the least, it has been a cornerstone of our social myth structure (for sure if you were a white male, off and on for other groups). The idea that one could get a fresh start in America motivated many an immigrant... and part of getting a fresh start was people not knowing everything about you that those you were leaving knew. The mythic Old West was also largely based on such a principle. The ability to control (to some extent) what people know about you is often key to achieving goals (or at least it seems that way). Imagine for example, the otherwise charismatic man with a face made for radio. He might or might not be ashamed of his looks, but either way he has an interest in keeping his face (mostly) private until his career is sufficiently established. To put it in a more Victorian tone: There are certain things, we need not say which, that I am not ashamed of, and yet it would be inconvenient if they came out. Of those things we shan't speak, and it should be my prerogative to protect them as I see fit against the inquiries of others. -- To complicate your inquiry, one of the big legal issues in the fight you see brewing is this: Most of the new slush of public information you are concerned with is put out their voluntarily. The GPS in your phone turns on and off (and if not, you could get a different phone). Your posts, emails, blog entries, online photos, etc. are all being made public intentionally. Those software and website user agreements few ever reads often include consents to use your data in various ways, including making parts public. The old ideas of stalking, I think, mostly involved the accumulation of data against the will of the victim, and could potentially include the gathering of both private and technically public
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Marcus, Have a look in the new New Yorker about the article on the new civil commitment laws re sexual deviants. I can both not want these folks living down the block AND be horrified by what We The People are doing to them. It is the luxury of liberalism to be ambivalent. It's all very VERY hard. Nick From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 1:36 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data On 1/15/13 10:54 PM, Steve Smith wrote: Who do we become when we do not respect the boundaries of others? Who are we as a society when we allow or encourage others to transgress? I understand the arguments for Law Enforcement and Intelligence and Security *wanting* to spy on people freely... to restrict the use of cryptography, etc. but they don't outweigh the risk of who we become when we do these things. When a person visits the doctor, information shared is privileged. If the doctor does not treat it as such, the doctor's career is put at risk. It's a good incentive to keep quiet. So imagine a world in which brain scans become much more sophisticated, and that certain dangerous mental health problems could be diagnosed with high accuracy, and also treated. Because of fear of mass shootings, etc., Americans make it law that scans be done on all, and that appropriate treatments be employed. For the sake of argument, suppose it's all handled methodically and in a secure fashion. Should we expect that the therapists and psychiatrists involved in this hypothetical process would suffer themselves for not respecting boundaries of individuals' psychological spaces? In current practice they would be invited inside the boundary by the patient and so presumably that's different. I think it is an adjustment health providers would make without much trouble. It would be a professional analytical activity. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
I recently accidentally discovered that a musician friend of mine was a registered sex offender of little girls. I discovered this while using Google to find his phone number to arrange a gig. Talk about feeling conflicted. --Doug On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Marcus, ** ** Have a look in the new New Yorker about the article on the new civil commitment laws re sexual deviants. ** ** I can both not want these folks living down the block AND be horrified by what We The People are doing to them. It is the luxury of liberalism to be ambivalent. ** ** It’s all very VERY hard. ** ** Nick ** ** *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Marcus G. Daniels *Sent:* Wednesday, January 16, 2013 1:36 AM *To:* friam@redfish.com *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data ** ** On 1/15/13 10:54 PM, Steve Smith wrote: Who do we become when we do not respect the boundaries of others? Who are we as a society when we allow or encourage others to transgress? I understand the arguments for Law Enforcement and Intelligence and Security *wanting* to spy on people freely... to restrict the use of cryptography, etc. but they don't outweigh the risk of who we become when we do these things. When a person visits the doctor, information shared is privileged. If the doctor does not treat it as such, the doctor's career is put at risk. It's a good incentive to keep quiet. So imagine a world in which brain scans become much more sophisticated, and that certain dangerous mental health problems could be diagnosed with high accuracy, and also treated. Because of fear of mass shootings, etc., Americans make it law that scans be done on all, and that appropriate treatments be employed. For the sake of argument, suppose it's all handled methodically and in a secure fashion. Should we expect that the therapists and psychiatrists involved in this hypothetical process would suffer themselves for not respecting boundaries of individuals' psychological spaces? In current practice they would be invited inside the boundary by the patient and so presumably that's different. I think it is an adjustment health providers would make without much trouble. It would be a professional analytical activity. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- *Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Doug, This is exactly the problem. Am I to become an agency of punishment? Am I to become a vector of Evil? Choose One. Quickly, please. Has anybody read the Scarlet Letter recently? N From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:37 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data I recently accidentally discovered that a musician friend of mine was a registered sex offender of little girls. I discovered this while using Google to find his phone number to arrange a gig. Talk about feeling conflicted. --Doug On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Marcus, Have a look in the new New Yorker about the article on the new civil commitment laws re sexual deviants. I can both not want these folks living down the block AND be horrified by what We The People are doing to them. It is the luxury of liberalism to be ambivalent. It's all very VERY hard. Nick From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 1:36 AM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data On 1/15/13 10:54 PM, Steve Smith wrote: Who do we become when we do not respect the boundaries of others? Who are we as a society when we allow or encourage others to transgress? I understand the arguments for Law Enforcement and Intelligence and Security *wanting* to spy on people freely... to restrict the use of cryptography, etc. but they don't outweigh the risk of who we become when we do these things. When a person visits the doctor, information shared is privileged. If the doctor does not treat it as such, the doctor's career is put at risk. It's a good incentive to keep quiet. So imagine a world in which brain scans become much more sophisticated, and that certain dangerous mental health problems could be diagnosed with high accuracy, and also treated. Because of fear of mass shootings, etc., Americans make it law that scans be done on all, and that appropriate treatments be employed. For the sake of argument, suppose it's all handled methodically and in a secure fashion. Should we expect that the therapists and psychiatrists involved in this hypothetical process would suffer themselves for not respecting boundaries of individuals' psychological spaces? In current practice they would be invited inside the boundary by the patient and so presumably that's different. I think it is an adjustment health providers would make without much trouble. It would be a professional analytical activity. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Doug wrote: I recently accidentally discovered that a musician friend of mine was a registered sex offender of little girls. On 1/16/13 10:58 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: This is exactly the problem. Am I to become an agency of punishment? Am I to become a vector of Evil? Choose One. Quickly, please. You guys sound like Jeffrey Beaumont in the film Blue Velvet.. :-) Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Marcus, I had to look up the Blue Velvet reference, and I still only get the gist. However, I've grown to love practically anything that David Lynch had a hand it, so I've now added Blue Velvet to my reading list. --Doug On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Marcus G. Daniels mar...@snoutfarm.comwrote: Doug wrote: I recently accidentally discovered that a musician friend of mine was a registered sex offender of little girls. On 1/16/13 10:58 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: This is exactly the problem. Am I to become an agency of punishment? Am I to become a vector of Evil? Choose One. Quickly, please. You guys sound like Jeffrey Beaumont in the film Blue Velvet.. :-) Marcus ==**== FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/**listinfo/friam_redfish.comhttp://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- *Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
H! This is turning into one of those FRIAM conversations that misses the point. Thompson raises an ethical issue; Roberts provides a very precise and personal example of the quandary. The basic conditions for a really great discussion have been realized. But then a third party makes fun of the conversation. And everybody else gets off scott free. Makes me grumpy. Marcus. Let it be the case that you have friends who have young daughters. Let it be the case that a new-comer to town whom you have started to befriend turns out to be a registered offender. (I.E., you have public knowledge of this person which, however, most people don't know.) What is your obligation in regard to this information? What about the blossoming friendship? Nick From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 3:05 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data Marcus, I had to look up the Blue Velvet reference, and I still only get the gist. However, I've grown to love practically anything that David Lynch had a hand it, so I've now added Blue Velvet to my reading list. --Doug On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Marcus G. Daniels mar...@snoutfarm.com wrote: Doug wrote: I recently accidentally discovered that a musician friend of mine was a registered sex offender of little girls. On 1/16/13 10:58 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: This is exactly the problem. Am I to become an agency of punishment? Am I to become a vector of Evil? Choose One. Quickly, please. You guys sound like Jeffrey Beaumont in the film Blue Velvet.. :-) Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/16/13 3:56 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Makes me grumpy. Poor you. It is not surprising that criminals, deviants, and unstable humiliated people populate every community. There is inequity in the world.If people can't find a purpose or acceptable identity in their lives, then drug sex addiction, magical thinking, and exploitation of others provide some pleasure and sense of control.Meanwhile, it also should not come as any surprise that individuals in a society can learn how to play along and give the appearance of `normal'. The popular use of the Internet simply brings a little more in to the light what was always there: Lots and lots of troubled and mentally-ill people. It's important to make people look at it. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Ah, a breath of fresh air. I'm afraid we're going to ask you to leave, Marcus. irritating smirky face --Doug On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Marcus G. Daniels mar...@snoutfarm.comwrote: On 1/16/13 3:56 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Makes me grumpy. Poor you. It is not surprising that criminals, deviants, and unstable humiliated people populate every community. There is inequity in the world.If people can't find a purpose or acceptable identity in their lives, then drug sex addiction, magical thinking, and exploitation of others provide some pleasure and sense of control.Meanwhile, it also should not come as any surprise that individuals in a society can learn how to play along and give the appearance of `normal'. The popular use of the Internet simply brings a little more in to the light what was always there: Lots and lots of troubled and mentally-ill people. It's important to make people look at it. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- *Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
So, you see no problem there? There are good people and bad people. You can tell from the B tattooed on their wrist? So, lets us good people screw the bad people and get on with it. What if one of the bad people is a heluva musician? Or a great mathematician? N From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:52 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data On 1/16/13 3:56 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Makes me grumpy. Poor you. It is not surprising that criminals, deviants, and unstable humiliated people populate every community. There is inequity in the world. If people can't find a purpose or acceptable identity in their lives, then drug sex addiction, magical thinking, and exploitation of others provide some pleasure and sense of control.Meanwhile, it also should not come as any surprise that individuals in a society can learn how to play along and give the appearance of `normal'. The popular use of the Internet simply brings a little more in to the light what was always there: Lots and lots of troubled and mentally-ill people. It's important to make people look at it. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Hey, no one ever claimed that life was fair. --Doug On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: So, you see no problem there? There are good people and bad people. You can tell from the B tattooed on their wrist? So, lets us good people screw the bad people and get on with it. What if one of the bad people is a heluva musician? Or a great mathematician? N ** ** *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Marcus G. Daniels *Sent:* Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:52 PM *To:* friam@redfish.com *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data ** ** On 1/16/13 3:56 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Makes me grumpy. Poor you. It is not surprising that criminals, deviants, and unstable humiliated people populate every community. There is inequity in the world.If people can't find a purpose or acceptable identity in their lives, then drug sex addiction, magical thinking, and exploitation of others provide some pleasure and sense of control.Meanwhile, it also should not come as any surprise that individuals in a society can learn how to play along and give the appearance of `normal'. The popular use of the Internet simply brings a little more in to the light what was always there: Lots and lots of troubled and mentally-ill people. It's important to make people look at it. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- *Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
No. No. it's the loss, to you that I am worried about, not just the loss to the deviant. Take it back 60 years. You are a nice, conventional british academic and you learn from the London Security Camera system that you pal, Alan Turing is a deviant. Put yourself in the mindset of that time. What do you do? N From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:49 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data Hey, no one ever claimed that life was fair. --Doug On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: So, you see no problem there? There are good people and bad people. You can tell from the B tattooed on their wrist? So, lets us good people screw the bad people and get on with it. What if one of the bad people is a heluva musician? Or a great mathematician? N From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:52 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data On 1/16/13 3:56 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Makes me grumpy. Poor you. It is not surprising that criminals, deviants, and unstable humiliated people populate every community. There is inequity in the world. If people can't find a purpose or acceptable identity in their lives, then drug sex addiction, magical thinking, and exploitation of others provide some pleasure and sense of control.Meanwhile, it also should not come as any surprise that individuals in a society can learn how to play along and give the appearance of `normal'. The popular use of the Internet simply brings a little more in to the light what was always there: Lots and lots of troubled and mentally-ill people. It's important to make people look at it. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
And what if the information is wrong? Which--as our FRIAMer Tom Johnson can tell you--it often is. On Jan 16, 2013, at 5:56 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: No. No. it’s the loss, to you that I am worried about, not just the loss to the “deviant”. Take it back 60 years. You are a nice, conventional british academic and you learn from the London Security Camera system that you pal, Alan Turing is a “deviant”. Put yourself in the mindset of that time. What do you do? N From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:49 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data Hey, no one ever claimed that life was fair. --Doug On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: So, you see no problem there? There are good people and bad people. You can tell from the B tattooed on their wrist? So, lets us good people screw the bad people and get on with it. What if one of the bad people is a heluva musician? Or a great mathematician? N From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:52 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data On 1/16/13 3:56 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Makes me grumpy. Poor you. It is not surprising that criminals, deviants, and unstable humiliated people populate every community. There is inequity in the world. If people can't find a purpose or acceptable identity in their lives, then drug sex addiction, magical thinking, and exploitation of others provide some pleasure and sense of control.Meanwhile, it also should not come as any surprise that individuals in a society can learn how to play along and give the appearance of `normal'. The popular use of the Internet simply brings a little more in to the light what was always there: Lots and lots of troubled and mentally-ill people. It's important to make people look at it. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com Bounded Rationality, by Pamela McCorduck, the second novel in the series, Santa Fe Stories, Sunstone Press, is now available both as ink-on-paper and as an e-book. “The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid.” ― Jane Austen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/16/13 5:47 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: So, you see no problem there? There are good people and bad people. You can tell from the B tattooed on their wrist? So, lets us good people screw the bad people and get on with it. What if one of the bad people is a heluva musician? Or a great mathematician? N I don't believe that use of public facts is bad, and I find your stalking idea bizarre. If some subset of a community feels to harass an individual that has engaged in the past in an illegal activity, even after that individual has been treated, then those people should also get treatment. If there are public welfare risks from the past offender that are high and unaddressed, and the treatment of the offender was inadequate, then fix that. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Breaking the reply into two parts... first, about the crime: The notion of public and private has certainly changed over the years. In this context, I think, public includes many things that people could find out, but that is not there for people to find out. For example, a public court record exists because someone wanted to takes someone else to court, and a record resulted, which happens to be public. I think however, this distinction probably originated around the ideas of public lands. Public lands were there for the purpose of being used by people in general, e.g., to graze their sheep and cattle. If people were not using the public land, we would think something wrong. Similarly, we now have public parks that (at least in theory) are there for anyone to enjoy, and we want people to enjoy them. When we see a public park that has not been used in some time, it strikes us that something is wrong. In contrast, we now often think it a Good Thing if people do not use our public information. This creates an awkward situation for a prosecutor. The public/private distinction was originally about what we wanted people in general to use vs. what we wanted to exclude them from using. And now you try to say it is a crime for someone to use public information? What is PUBLIC information for, if not for people in general to use it how they see fit... as it was with PUBLIC land. Unless you can show how I infringe upon another by my use of the public resource, I'm not sure how you will differentiate the criminal from the honest user. And if you can show that I infringe upon another, then prosecute the infringement itself. This is now complicated by the increasing availability of information about you that is not public in the legal sense of there is a law making this public, but in the broader sense of you did that in public and people now know. I think we are back to the point where I tell you that you can't really complain about people seeing you naked, if you walk around town without clothes all day. If someone is following you on twitter, and reading your Facebook posts, and your live journal entries, and tracking your cell phone using GPS (which you told your phone to let people do), etc., etc., etc., then they are just observing things you are doing in public. I am, again, quite unsure how the law would distinguish between someone doing that as a stalker and someone doing that as your friend. How do you differentiate criminal use from an honest user, unless you have some other crime they are perpetrating with the information? Eric Eric Charles Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State, Altoona - Original Message - From: Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group friam@redfish.com Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 12:27:13 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data Dear Eric, I am deeply suspicious of “rights-talk”. “Rights” talk is “obligations-talk” or it is nothing. So whenever somebody claims a right for themselves, they have to state it in terms of obligations on me and on us. What does your right to do obligate ME to not do. If I am to be obligated to NOT do something I might like to do (wire your phone to hear you talking to your stockbroker, or pimp, say) I have to have some benefit. And if society is to go to the extra trouble to enforce your right against my temptation, society as a whole (WETF that is) has to have an incentive. Like most libertarian responses, yours largely leaves those two sides of the discussion. You are believers in Natural Right, which I think makes you believers in God, or incoherent. Lockeans you are not. On the other hand, I admired your whole thing about the Frontier and Second Chances. We are, by immigration, probably a nation of former thieves, cutpurses, embezzlers, for whom the choice was the docks or the stocks. But isn’t that shame? The crime was picking the pocket; the SHAME is having been conficted of having picked a pocket. Why not tell Mrs. Jones as you come in to fix her pipes, “Yes I did 10 years for aggravated burglary and I am proud of it?” There is a very nervous making article in the current new Yorker about a guy who has, in fact, never committed a crime, but who has been in jail for 20 years or so because he seems like the sort of guy who might commit a crime. And what, on the other hand, about all the “second chances” those Priests got. And yes I think we have to consider a new crime. The crime of stalking by using aggregated public data. Nick From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Eric Charles Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 9:40 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data Nick, I have struggled with parts of this quite a bit. As you know, I am a somewhat-crazy Libertarian, and so get
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
The second part of your inquiry is about rights: I am certainly not a believer in God-given rights, as you point out. I'm pretty sure I couched my claims in all the needed ways, that there was an assumption, in our country, that certain types of things benefited society as a whole, etc. There most common argument for a right of this type, I believe, should be that the benefits are symmetrical between you and I. The benefit you get from respecting my privacy is that I in turn respect yours. To the extent that I can be the person I want, you get to be the person you want. This seems to me, as a John Dewey fan now, the inherent experiment of America. What happens when you let people live in a democratic country - not one in which majority rules, but one in which people are broadly allowed to do their own thing and get the result it produces? The right to privacy is a foundational support (I think) for the right to self-determination. If we have stopped valuing the latter, then we should have an honest conversation about that , instead of trying to kick out the foundation while no one is looking. Since we seem to need a better example... at this point I have no trouble discussing how awkward it was when my mother sent me a sweet 16 birthday card during my freshman year of college. I wasn't ashamed of being in college at that age, and I certainly wasn't guilty of anything as a result of my age. If anything I was oblivious of it most of the time, and proud of it when I cared to think about it. On the other hand, it made things very awkward when the other students became aware that I was 2-3 years younger than most of them. There was a similar extreme awkwardness to try to avoid when I arrived in graduate school... and at my post-doc... and at my current job. At this point, I am old enough that a few years doesn't make much difference, so I usually will answer when someone asks my age, but I spent many years trying to avoid telling people how old I was. For me, at least, the ability to keep my age private was important for regulating how others treated me. And I think I should have the right to that. (Of course, you will probably point out, my birth record is public... but now we are back to the two different meanings of public vs. private. I'm not sure that it should be public, and at any rate I wasn't worried that a fellow student would fly to San Diego and pull my birth record.) Similarly, my sociologist colleague and I have done some research on atheism in rural Pennsylvania, and I think it speaks to the same point. Most of the participants in our study claim not to be ashamed of their atheism, but they would still rather we don't tell everyone about it. The ways in which they think it would change their social dynamic leads them to keep their lack of faith hidden. For example, they want to avoid the awkward discussions they imagine would happen around the Thanksgiving table every year. The ability, for example, to have an anonymous account they could use in an online atheist chat room, and to know their identity was private, was very important to them. To some extent, I am sure, they would be embarrassed if their non-religious identities were revealed to their families, but that is not their primary motivation for keeping their beliefs private. Hmm... I might be starting to ramble... but I hope my position is at least a little more clear, Eric P.S. By the way, WASP, I can assure you that most of my relatives did not immigrate to this country because they were criminals. (Maybe you are thinking of the early waves of Australian immigrants?) My relatives might ultimately have been choosing to leave or be killed... but politics hadn't gotten quite that bad yet in eastern Europe and western Russia when they shipped themselves over. Eric Charles Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State, Altoona - Original Message - From: Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group friam@redfish.com Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 12:27:13 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data Dear Eric, I am deeply suspicious of “rights-talk”. “Rights” talk is “obligations-talk” or it is nothing. So whenever somebody claims a right for themselves, they have to state it in terms of obligations on me and on us. What does your right to do obligate ME to not do. If I am to be obligated to NOT do something I might like to do (wire your phone to hear you talking to your stockbroker, or pimp, say) I have to have some benefit. And if society is to go to the extra trouble to enforce your right against my temptation, society as a whole (WETF that is) has to have an incentive. Like most libertarian responses, yours largely leaves those two sides of the discussion. You are believers in Natural Right, which I think makes you believers in God, or incoherent. Lockeans you
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/16/13 7:18 PM, Eric Charles wrote: I am, again, quite unsure how the law would distinguish between someone doing that as a stalker and someone doing that as your friend. From Wikipedia: According to a 2002 report by the National Center for Victims of Crime, Virtually any unwanted contact between two people [that intends] to directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking[1] although in practice the legal standard is usually somewhat more strict. So long as your friend, or some other curious person, is not doing it in such a way to make you afraid, it's not stalking. The observation would need to be recognized as an event by the observed, or there would need to be a third party witness or some way to relate to the observed that an observation occurred in order for a threat to even be considered. For example, that the observer dumped all of the individual-focused, but public-sourced surveillance into a web page. But it is not the surveillance itself that is the stalking threat, it's making it known that the surveillance is underway that is the stalking threat. The type of source used is incidental. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/16/13 8:00 PM, Eric Charles wrote: For me, at least, the ability to keep my age private was important for regulating how others treated me. And I think I should have the right to that. (Of course, you will probably point out, my birth record is public... but now we are back to the two different meanings of public vs. private. I'm not sure that it /should /be public, and at any rate I wasn't worried that a fellow student would fly to San Diego and pull my birth record.) It should be public. But it is rude to press a person for personal facts they don't volunteer. If someone uses a source, whether it is convenient or inconvenient, public or something else, they they then have no business making you feel uncomfortable about information they acquired out-of-band. It's polite behavior. Nothing must change because of the Information Age, etc. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Wow! Your confidence in behavioral technology is way greater than mine; but perhaps that's because I am a psychologist. Do you find stalking laws, as presently constituted, bizarre? Nick From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:03 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data On 1/16/13 5:47 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: So, you see no problem there? There are good people and bad people. You can tell from the B tattooed on their wrist? So, lets us good people screw the bad people and get on with it. What if one of the bad people is a heluva musician? Or a great mathematician? N I don't believe that use of public facts is bad, and I find your stalking idea bizarre. If some subset of a community feels to harass an individual that has engaged in the past in an illegal activity, even after that individual has been treated, then those people should also get treatment. If there are public welfare risks from the past offender that are high and unaddressed, and the treatment of the offender was inadequate, then fix that. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Interesting. As I said originally, we stipulated in our original discussion here in Santa Fe that stalking was illegal. Actually, I don’t know that for a fact. I tried to ensnare a lawyer in our discussions, but he didn’t take the bait. Damn! But continuing to speculate, I assume, if there are such laws they criminalize behavior that is otherwise scrupulously legal. That is, if I follow you around in all you public comings and goings, lurk in the shadows across the street from your house at night, read your garbage, join clubs that you join so I can sit next to you on the next rowing machine, drink at the next table at the bar that you frequent, etc., etc., that eventually I will get a tap on the shoulder from a good constable. I take it that neither you nor Marcus would think that that tap on the shoulder was justified? If so, then we have no interesting agreement about cyberstalking, because we already disagree about stalking. It’s a metaphor. If we disagree about the source phenomenon, we are obviously going to disagree about the metaphoric one. Nick From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Eric Charles Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:18 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data Breaking the reply into two parts... first, about the crime: The notion of public and private has certainly changed over the years. In this context, I think, public includes many things that people could find out, but that is not there for people to find out. For example, a public court record exists because someone wanted to takes someone else to court, and a record resulted, which happens to be public. I think however, this distinction probably originated around the ideas of public lands. Public lands were there for the purpose of being used by people in general, e.g., to graze their sheep and cattle. If people were not using the public land, we would think something wrong. Similarly, we now have public parks that (at least in theory) are there for anyone to enjoy, and we want people to enjoy them. When we see a public park that has not been used in some time, it strikes us that something is wrong. In contrast, we now often think it a Good Thing if people do not use our public information. This creates an awkward situation for a prosecutor. The public/private distinction was originally about what we wanted people in general to use vs. what we wanted to exclude them from using. And now you try to say it is a crime for someone to use public information? What is PUBLIC information for, if not for people in general to use it how they see fit... as it was with PUBLIC land. Unless you can show how I infringe upon another by my use of the public resource, I'm not sure how you will differentiate the criminal from the honest user. And if you can show that I infringe upon another, then prosecute the infringement itself. This is now complicated by the increasing availability of information about you that is not public in the legal sense of there is a law making this public, but in the broader sense of you did that in public and people now know. I think we are back to the point where I tell you that you can't really complain about people seeing you naked, if you walk around town without clothes all day. If someone is following you on twitter, and reading your Facebook posts, and your live journal entries, and tracking your cell phone using GPS (which you told your phone to let people do), etc., etc., etc., then they are just observing things you are doing in public. I am, again, quite unsure how the law would distinguish between someone doing that as a stalker and someone doing that as your friend. How do you differentiate criminal use from an honest user, unless you have some other crime they are perpetrating with the information? Eric Eric Charles Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State, Altoona _ From: Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group friam@redfish.com Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 12:27:13 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data Dear Eric, I am deeply suspicious of “rights-talk”. “Rights” talk is “obligations-talk” or it is nothing. So whenever somebody claims a right for themselves, they have to state it in terms of obligations on me and on us. What does your right to do obligate ME to not do. If I am to be obligated to NOT do something I might like to do (wire your phone to hear you talking to your stockbroker, or pimp, say) I have to have some benefit. And if society is to go to the extra trouble to enforce your right against my temptation, society as a whole (WETF that is) has to have an incentive. Like most libertarian responses, yours largely leaves those two sides of the discussion. You are believers in Natural Right
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Thanks, Marcus for this clarification. I should have looked it up myself. So I guess I CAN shadow you, just so long as I do it with effusive reassurances of my good will. I imagine myself telling the police officer, I so admire Marcus. I want to know EVERYTHING about him. I want to BE him. (Sorry Doug, I have changed my allegiance. Fickle, I know) I want to join every club. Accompany him to every restaurant. Order what he orders. Glad to be clear on that. Now. Where is it you said you live? Nick From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 8:06 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data On 1/16/13 7:18 PM, Eric Charles wrote: I am, again, quite unsure how the law would distinguish between someone doing that as a stalker and someone doing that as your friend. From Wikipedia: According to a 2002 report by the National Center for Victims of Crime, Virtually any unwanted contact between two people [that intends] to directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking[1] although in practice the legal standard is usually somewhat more strict. So long as your friend, or some other curious person, is not doing it in such a way to make you afraid, it's not stalking. The observation would need to be recognized as an event by the observed, or there would need to be a third party witness or some way to relate to the observed that an observation occurred in order for a threat to even be considered. For example, that the observer dumped all of the individual-focused, but public-sourced surveillance into a web page. But it is not the surveillance itself that is the stalking threat, it's making it known that the surveillance is underway that is the stalking threat. The type of source used is incidental. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/16/13 9:45 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: join clubs that you join so I can sit next to you on the next rowing machine, drink at the next table at the bar that you frequent, etc., etc., Those specific behaviors are potentially stalking and they have nothing to do with my argument. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Nick - I acknowledge your grumpiness at feeling your serious quest on this topic was derailed by what you took to be fun-poking. I read the Blue Velvet reference as a slight tangent (me, a prince of tangents), but still relevant, and only a little appropriate mirth on Marcus' part. As one who has participated in making you grumpy in this way in the past, I acknowledge that your earnestness has been mishandled from time to time. I don't think this is what Marcus was up to but can see how you might have thought it was. As for me... I've been close to a situation such as you/Doug describe. I had to choose between helping someone close to me extract herself from the larger messy situation, helping make sure the sex offender was monitored by someone who knew his nature in detail vs making sure the letter of the law was upheld and the neighbors who looked could find him on the list. The sex offender was geriatric and very cowed by a decade in prison (by this time) and the estrangement of his entire family and community, not a big risk, but still worth keeping away from children. His son, the monitor, a victim himself and the brother and uncle to other victims needed to force his registration, or to do it himself. If anyone else had forced it, I think they would have simply moved the potential problem to someone else' back yard. Eventually they took themselves back to the community they came from where registration would have been redundant if technically required. I am not sure if any healing resulted, and I fear the greatest risk of propogation of the damage was through the victims themselves, not the original perpetrator. The cycle of abuse seems very real, if deeply puzzlingly paradoxical. I don't know Doug's situation and yours is hypothetical (right?) but sometimes I think taking personal responsibility (monitoring the situation yourself) may be more effective and important than making sure the bureaucratic requirements are met. It may not always be appropriate, possible, or effective to do this, but it is always worth considering. I also know people whose public record makes them look scarier than they are (or ever were) who have had to live with variations on the Scarlet A forever. Some would say false positives are a hazard necessary to reduce false negatives. They may be right, but I still don't like it when it happens to me or mine. Anyone want to take a polygraph and have the results published? - Steve Ah, a breath of fresh air. I'm afraid we're going to ask you to leave, Marcus. irritating smirky face --Doug On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Marcus G. Daniels mar...@snoutfarm.com mailto:mar...@snoutfarm.com wrote: On 1/16/13 3:56 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Makes me grumpy. Poor you. It is not surprising that criminals, deviants, and unstable humiliated people populate every community. There is inequity in the world.If people can't find a purpose or acceptable identity in their lives, then drug sex addiction, magical thinking, and exploitation of others provide some pleasure and sense of control. Meanwhile, it also should not come as any surprise that individuals in a society can learn how to play along and give the appearance of `normal'. The popular use of the Internet simply brings a little more in to the light what was always there: Lots and lots of troubled and mentally-ill people. It's important to make people look at it. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- /Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org mailto:drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net mailto:d...@parrot-farm.net/ /http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins/ / 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile/ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/16/13 9:59 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Where is it you said you live? A form of public information known as the phone book.. Also in the household is my pit bull. Shadow _her_ and you'll be in for a vicious demand for a belly rub. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/16/13 11:05 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Wait a minute, Marcus. Why would those behaviors be stalking, absent any intent to communicate a threat!? At the gym and I see a particular person from work over and over. I go for a walk and I see them at St. Johns. He is following me! Or am I following him? In your example, depending on what was said at the bar or rowing machine, a witness might agree that it was consistent with stalking. Was it asymmetric precise information about the `victim' pulled out of thin air? Did it happen several times? But we see each other and barely find the energy to grunt acknowledgement. So it's plainly just a similarity. By the way, have you ever read the book */Enduring Love/*? Ian McEwen. ...web search.. No, but sounds relevant. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Marcus, I once had a British friend who had a dog. We were invited over one evening to try out my friend's sumptuous new lounge chair, and as soon as I sat in it and lounged backward, the dog, a sort of blondish, short haired thing with a square jaw, started to take a very active interest in me. I asked, what was her interest. Oh, my friend said. She wants to climb up and lounge with you. Invite her up. So I did. At my prompting the dog eagerly jumped up in my lab and spread herself out on my chest with her head under my chin, and after a few moments began licking lovingly at my jugular vein. Oh, I said. What a sweet dog. What kind of dog is it? We call them American Staffordshire Terriers. Oh, I said. I didn't know there was a Staffordshire in America. There probably isn't, my friend said. I believe you call them Pit Bulls. I lay very still on the lounger. From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:46 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data On 1/16/13 9:59 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Where is it you said you live? A form of public information known as the phone book.. Also in the household is my pit bull. Shadow _her_ and you'll be in for a vicious demand for a belly rub. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
It has the best opening chapter of any book I have ever read. N From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 11:37 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data On 1/16/13 11:05 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Wait a minute, Marcus. Why would those behaviors be stalking, absent any intent to communicate a threat!? At the gym and I see a particular person from work over and over. I go for a walk and I see them at St. Johns. He is following me! Or am I following him? In your example, depending on what was said at the bar or rowing machine, a witness might agree that it was consistent with stalking. Was it asymmetric precise information about the `victim' pulled out of thin air? Did it happen several times? But we see each other and barely find the energy to grunt acknowledgement. So it's plainly just a similarity. By the way, have you ever read the book Enduring Love? Ian McEwen. ...web search.. No, but sounds relevant. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Nicholas Thompson wrote at 01/15/2013 11:45 AM: We then wondered what justified any kind of privacy law. If everybody were honest, the cameras would reveal nothing that everybody would not be happy to have known? Were not privacy concerns proof of guilt? No, we concluded: they might be proof of SHAME, but shame and guilt are not the same, and the law, per se, is not in the business of punishing SHAME. In addition to guilt or shame, there's also what I call the lurker use case. In my experiments with social media, I've found that some of my friends (in real life, not on twitter et al) are inherent lurkers. They enjoy monitoring my (or anyone's) exploits, but don't publicly participate ... don't chastise when the subject does something stupid ... don't accolade when the subject does something good ... etc. In stead, they'll wait until a private interaction to comment, usually offhandedly. Although I don't really care, I've tried to coerce the settings on various social media tools (and my phone's GPS/wifi tracker) so as to prevent (some) lurkers from monitoring me. Lurkers that I don't meet often face to face don't concern me because I can't control the experiment. I'd consider this a valid use case to consider with the government, too. For example, I don't really care what DISA.mil knows about me. But I do want to know whatever it is they know about me. 8^) ... without having to file a FOIA. To me, this is less about privacy and more about _control_ of information. But it seems quite distinct from guilt or shame. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/15/13 12:45 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: In the end I concluded that, as more and more public data is put on line and more and more sophisticated data mining techniques are deployed, there will come a time when a category of cyber-stalking might have to be identified which involves using */public/* data to track and aggregate in detail the movements of a particular individual. It will likely be Google, Amazon, or Facebook, or some other well-organized and well-equipped firm doing the tracking -- just one of thousands of image processing jobs queued-up on their compute farms around the world. Google has their own birds already (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeoEye-1). Note that these satellites have more capabilities than is published on the `public' maps.google.com. Marcus FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Per Nick's fine invitation, see: http://battellemedia.com/archives/2013/01/facebook-is-no-longer-flat.php -tom johnson On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Dear all, ** ** We had a discussion last Friday at Friam that I would like to see continued here. Many of us had seen a recent talk in which somebody was using satellite imagery to track an individual through his day. The resolution of such imagery is now down to 20 cm, and that is before processing. We stipulated (not sure it's true in NM) that if I were to follow one of you around for week, never intruding into your private space, but tagging along after you everywhere you went and patiently recording your every public act, that I could eventually be thrown in jail for stalking. We tried to decide what the law should say about assembling public data to create a record of the moment by moment activities of an individual. We suspected that nothing in law would forbid that kind of surveillance, but it made some of us uneasy. So much of what we take to be our private lives, is, after all, just a way of organizing public data. ** ** ** ** We then wondered what justified any kind of privacy law. If everybody were honest, the cameras would reveal nothing that everybody would not be happy to have known? Were not privacy concerns proof of guilt? No, we concluded: they might be proof of SHAME, but shame and guilt are not the same, and the law, *per se*, is not in the business of punishing SHAME. ** ** I thought our discussion was interesting for its combination of technological sophistication and legal naiveté. (In short, we needed a lawyer) In the end I concluded that, as more and more public data is put on line and more and more sophisticated data mining techniques are deployed, there will come a time when a category of cyber-stalking might have to be identified which involves using *public* data to track and aggregate in detail the movements of a particular individual. Do we have an opinion on this? ** ** We will now be at St. Johns for the foreseeable future. ** ** ** ** Nick ** ** Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ http://www.cusf.org ** ** ** ** FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- == J. T. Johnson Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USAhttp://www.analyticjournalism.com/ 505.577.6482(c)505.473.9646(h) Twitter: jtjohnson http://www.jtjohnson.com t...@jtjohnson.com == FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Nick, I have struggled with parts of this quite a bit. As you know, I am a somewhat-crazy Libertarian, and so get stuck in conversations like this on a fairly regular basis. In particular, I reject the idea that privacy is primarily about protecting people from shame or guilt. I believe that privacy (of a certain sort) is a basic right that is essential to a free society. Alas, it is difficult to explain why, as whenever I assert the right to not have certain information public, whomever is on the other side of the argument immediately tries to back me into a corner of being ashamed of whatever it is I want to keep private. There are a few things in my life I am indeed ashamed of, but very few, and I would probably tell most of them to anyone who asked. On the other hand, there are many things that I would like to keep private, and would probably not tell anyone who asked. How to explain the difference? The best I can say, I think, is that I see the right to (mostly) privacy as inextricably linked to the right to (mostly) self-determination. Whether people should have the latter right is certainly up for debate, but I think it has been a cornerstone of US culture through most of US history. At the least, it has been a cornerstone of our social myth structure (for sure if you were a white male, off and on for other groups). The idea that one could get a fresh start in America motivated many an immigrant... and part of getting a fresh start was people not knowing everything about you that those you were leaving knew. The mythic Old West was also largely based on such a principle. The ability to control (to some extent) what people know about you is often key to achieving goals (or at least it seems that way). Imagine for example, the otherwise charismatic man with a face made for radio. He might or might not be ashamed of his looks, but either way he has an interest in keeping his face (mostly) private until his career is sufficiently established. To put it in a more Victorian tone: There are certain things, we need not say which, that I am not ashamed of, and yet it would be inconvenient if they came out. Of those things we shan't speak, and it should be my prerogative to protect them as I see fit against the inquiries of others. -- To complicate your inquiry, one of the big legal issues in the fight you see brewing is this: Most of the new slush of public information you are concerned with is put out their voluntarily . The GPS in your phone turns on and off (and if not, you could get a different phone). Your posts, emails, blog entries, online photos, etc. are all being made public intentionally. Those software and website user agreements few ever reads often include consents to use your data in various ways, including making parts public. The old ideas of stalking, I think, mostly involved the accumulation of data against the will of the victim, and could potentially include the gathering of both private and technically public information (i.e., court records). I don't know how you could make a legal case against someone who only knew things about you that you intentionally threw out into the world for the purpose of people knowing it. If you wander around town everyday without clothes on, it would be hard to accuse someone of being a peeping Tom just because they saw you naked. Eric Eric Charles Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State, Altoona - Original Message - From: Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group friam@redfish.com Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:45:52 PM Subject: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data Dear all, We had a discussion last Friday at Friam that I would like to see continued here. Many of us had seen a recent talk in which somebody was using satellite imagery to track an individual through his day. The resolution of such imagery is now down to 20 cm, and that is before processing. We stipulated (not sure it's true in NM) that if I were to follow one of you around for week, never intruding into your private space, but tagging along after you everywhere you went and patiently recording your every public act, that I could eventually be thrown in jail for stalking. We tried to decide what the law should say about assembling public data to create a record of the moment by moment activities of an individual. We suspected that nothing in law would forbid that kind of surveillance, but it made some of us uneasy. So much of what we take to be our private lives, is, after all, just a way of organizing public data. We then wondered what justified any kind of privacy law. If everybody were honest, the cameras would reveal nothing that everybody would not be happy to have known? Were not privacy concerns proof of guilt? No, we concluded: they might be proof of SHAME, but shame and guilt are not the same, and the law,
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Nick - Shame and Guilt are definitely implicated in the loss of Privacy, but not the whole story. And the *legal* aspects come *after* the social and the human aspects of the topic. Eric - Privacy is a fundamental *need* of humans. I'm not sure where it comes from or what other animals share that need, but it is fundamental and unequivocal for humans, despite many situations where *overt* privacy is highly compromised. I think the voluntary aspect of much of our information exposure is somewhat of a red herring. I do not think most people appreciate how *exposed* their information is. For lots of reasons, we fail to read or ignore EULAs and Service Use Agreements all the time. We don't always appreciate the unexpected ways disparate information about us can be fused to infer new information. In some ways, saying that we *voluntarily* put our information into the public sphere is a lot like the arguments that women who do not remain fully scarfed in public are inciting sexual violence against them. Public figures, especially attractive young female entertainers, *know* that Paparazzi with very long lenses are stalking them all of the time. Whether they have anything to be ashamed of or feel guilty about is moot, their nature as public figures in the sightline of public places makes them fair game for such invasions of privacy. It is equally inevitable and unhealthy for stalked and stalker alike IMO. All - I think the term *stalking* also carries a connotation of engagement. A stalker who never reveals themselves, nor acts overtly on the knowledge they gained as a stalker is something else... perhaps a voyeur? I was once a private investigator and my job was, at it's core, to bend the boundaries of people's privacy if not to invade it directly. I was careful about how far I took it and thoughtful about what I did with what I learned. I left the profession for many reasons but one issue was that the private things I knew about many people weighed heavily on me. I took at most passing prurient interest in some of these things, and mostly curbed myself from abusing my unwholesome knowledge of others' lives (mostly in the context of conflict of interest when I learned things about my clients or took on clients who I already knew too much about). By the time I left it, I did not respect the profession, even in it's idealized image. As my wife's tech support, I have access to all of her e-mail and web history. I even set her up with Skype and turned on auto-answer so that she could check in on the dog at home from her smart phone (when she understood the implications of this, she made me turn it off). It is understood between us that I do not abuse the privileges my superior technical position gives me. She also has 30 years of journals shelved within 20 feet of me which I could pull down and read at the drop of the hat. It is important to her well-being that she feel secure in her privacy and it is important to my own emotional health that I not transgress, even if she would never know. I'm pretty sure she does not riffle my wallet or backpack or check my phone history, for precisely the same reasons. I contend that there is as much damage to the invader of privacy as there is to the invaded. Who do we become when we do not respect the boundaries of others? Who are we as a society when we allow or encourage others to transgress? I understand the arguments for Law Enforcement and Intelligence and Security *wanting* to spy on people freely... to restrict the use of cryptography, etc. but they don't outweigh the risk of who we become when we do these things. Unfortunately they really don't ask my opinion, much less permission in such matters. Subsequently I have a lot of mistrust for those apparati. - Steve Nick, I have struggled with parts of this quite a bit. As you know, I am a somewhat-crazy Libertarian, and so get stuck in conversations like this on a fairly regular basis. In particular, I reject the idea that privacy is primarily about protecting people from shame or guilt. I believe that privacy (of a certain sort) is a basic right that is essential to a free society. Alas, it is difficult to explain why, as whenever I assert the right to not have certain information public, whomever is on the other side of the argument immediately tries to back me into a corner of being ashamed of whatever it is I want to keep private. There are a few things in my life I am indeed ashamed of, but very few, and I would probably tell most of them to anyone who asked. On the other hand, there are many things that I would like to keep private, and would probably not tell anyone who asked. How to explain the difference? The best I can say, I think, is that I see the right to (mostly) privacy as inextricably linked to the right to (mostly) self-determination. Whether people should have the latter right is certainly
