Re: MannWorld vs. BrinWorld

2004-03-23 Thread Major Variola (ret)
At 09:30 PM 3/22/04 -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:12:34PM -0500, An Metet wrote:

 Robert Hettinga forwards:
  By concentrating sensing and data storage on the body, a wearable
  computer allows its user to ``control his own butt.''  The user

 What the hell does this have to do with cypherpunks?

   What the fuck rock did you crawl out from under?


Seconded, Harmon.  CP has long included privacy (ie control, aka
personal
infosec) as a topic.  And the use and abuse of wireless tracker^H^H^H^H
cellphones
(and what they will morph into) is a legit socio-tech topic which can
draw heavily on crypto.

And the other thread, s*veillance (ie reverse-panopticon) is completely
on target.
Again, the core idea being privacy.Something for which crypto was
invented.

Keep 'em coming Bob.






MannWorld vs. BrinWorld

2004-03-22 Thread R. A. Hettinga
A little touchy-feeley and communitarian for J. Random Anarcho-capitalist
Cypherpunk :-), but Steve's got a point about geodesic *supervision* of
one's property and person in the defense of same, and not centralized
*surveillance* by citizens by the state for the oppression thereof...

Cheers,
RAH

--- begin forwarded text


From: Steve Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [wearables] Wearable Computers and Privacy (surveillance and...)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thad E. Starner)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:38:57 -0500 (EST)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 By concentrating sensing and data storage on the body, a wearable
 computer allows its user to ``control his own bits.''  The user
 determines when and where his data is released and how much to trust
 the infrastructure around him.  For example, when a wearable user
 enters work in the morning, he may instruct his wearable to inform his
 office of his arrival so that his office unlocks his door or starts a
 pot of coffee.  However, the user would probably tell his wearable not
 to share his identity with billboards he walks past to avoid the sort
 of targeted advertising portrayed in the film ``Minority Report.''  Of
 course, some bargain hunters may choose to share their identity with
 advertisers to obtain better deals, much like membership cards in
 today's grocery stores.
.
 By using a combination of physical sensor limitations, legal recourse,


Some of the social, legal, ethical, moral, and policy issues you
raise are very relevant.  In thinking about our recent Special
Issue on cyborglaw, here is a comparison of architecture-based
recording (surveillance) and person-based recording (sousveillance).

You might find this comparison interesting and useful for your
article.

We'd also welcome thoughts from the whole group on this dichotomy:




Surveillance   Sousveillance


God's eye view from above. Human's eye view.
(Authority watching from on-high.) (Down-to-earth.)

Cameras usually mounted on highCameras down at ground-level,
poles, up on ceiling, etc..e.g. at human eye-level.

Architecture-centered  Human-centered
(e.g. cameras usually mounted on   (e.g. cameras carried or worn
or in structures). by, or on, people).

Recordings made by authorities,Recordings of an activity
remote security staff, etc..   made by a participant in the
   activity.

Note that in most states it's  In most states it's legal to
illegal to record a phone  record a phone conversation of
conversation of which you are  which you are a party.  Perhaps
not a party.  Perhaps the same the same would apply to an
would apply to an audiovisual  audiovisual recording of your own
recording of somebody else's   conversations, i.e. conversations
conversation.  in which you are a party.

Recordings are usually kept in Recordings are often made public
secret.e.g., on the World Wide Web.

Process usually shrouded inProcess, technology, etc., are
secrecy.   usually public, open source, etc..

Panoptic origins, as described Community-based origins, e.g.
by Foucault, originally in the a personal electronic diary,
context of a prison in which   made public on the World Wide Web.
prisoners were isolated from   Sousveillance tends to bring
each other but visible at all  together individuals, e.g. it
times by guards.  Surveillance tends to make a large city
tends to isolate individuals   function more like a small town,
from one another while setting with the pitfalls of gossip, but
forth a one-way visibility to  also the benefits of a sense of
authority figures. community participation.

Privacy violation may go   Privacy violation is usually
un-noticed, or un-checked. immediately evident.  Tends
Tends to not be self-correcting.   to be self-correcting.

It's hard to have a heart-to-heart At least there's a chance you can
conversation with a lamp post, talk to the person behind the
on top of which is mounted a   sousveillance camera.
surveillance camera.

When combined with computers, we   When combined with computers, we
get ubiquitous computing   get wearable computing.
(ubiqcomp) or pervasive  (wearcomp).  Wearcomp usually
computing (pervcomp).doesn't require the cooperation
Ubiq./perv. comp. tend to rely on  of any infrastructure in the
cooperation of the infrastructure  environments around us.
in the environments around us.

With surveillant-computing, theWith sousveillant-computing, it
locus of control tends to be with  is possible for the locus of
the authorities.