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
[FRIAM] I give you...
The Google Narcoleptic 4! http://things-linux.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-google-narcoleptic-4-phone.html -- *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] Dropbox big-time
I figured out the google drive vs g+ plan. It turns out they are integrated, a good thing I think. I was concerned it was yet another half baked stunt but this seems pretty well managed. -- Owen torage plan pricing Learn about your options for purchasing more storage for Google Drive, Google+ Photos, and Gmail. Store up to 5 GB between Google Drive and Google+ Photos, then pay for additional storage as your account grows. Here's how it works: - Tap into your free storage as soon as you start using Google Drive and G+ Photos. - Purchase additional storage that can be shared across Google Drive and G+ Photos. When you purchase additional storage, your Gmail storage limit will automatically be increased to 25 GB. 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] here we go
Steve Smith wrote at 01/15/2013 05:43 PM: a fatally wrong assumption underneath: that we can be distinguished from technology. I'm pretty sure we've covered this ground as well. I can sum it up with the aphorism: The problem with communication is the illusion that it exists. My turn to be puzzled. Is this a non-sequitur? Well, _I_ don't think so. But many others have accused me of committing non sequiturs on a regular basis. That's the trouble with thoughts (including logic), you could rightly accuse me of the fallacy if the progression in your own head is missing some pieces. But that does not mean the progression in my head is missing any pieces. In the end, it all boils down to the axiom of choice (the discretization of concepts). In any case, my point is that communication is supposed to occur by the reification of the thoughts of the sender into a medium and the reconstruction of those same (or similar _enough_) thoughts inside the receiver. The reification into the medium is _invention_, specifically the creation of a tool. But I'm arguing that an inventor's tools are merely abused if used by another who is dissimilar enough. The conclusion is that communication between dissimilar people does not exist. The application is that guns and 3D printers are natural to some and unnatural to others. [*] I do agree that since Homo Habilis (or even earlier) that our phenotype has been extended by the technology which we have developed and/or mastered. We can only separate ourselves from our technology in that we *can* choose what technology we pursue development of and what technology we adopt once developed. We can choose it for ourselves, but I contend, not for each other (the crux of gun control). I try to be empathetic when I read e-mails. But I am driven to point out that the way you use that language picks at me. You say our phenotype has been extended by the technology. But I mean we are our technology. I.e. technology is as much a part of us as, say, eyeballs or arms. I don't follow this entirely, but I do agree with the gist of it. While I may sound like a Luddite of the highest order, I'm not. I'm merely caught in what I perceive to be a paradox which I think effects us all once we consider it. Perhaps a more formal statement of the paradox would help? This is precisely what I'm trying to illuminate: 1. To make and use tools is irreversibly our nature. Agreed. 2. Our tools and toolmaking is on the verge of facilitating our self-extinction. I disagree. I would agree to a softer, more neutral statement, though ... something like this: Our tools and toolmaking can and do participate in both positive and negative feedback loops that inhibit and facilitate our survival. 3. We have choices in *how* we extend our phenotype but no methodology for That seems unfinished. Perhaps you mean ...for choosing? I think I disagree to some extent, as I'll address below. The last century has shown a quantitative and perhaps qualitative (with the introduction of stored code/data computing machinery) acceleration in our toolmaking. Our tools for addressing items 2 and 3 above are fairly limited. They appear to be combinations of religious zealotry and corruption fueled lobbying and lawmaking. I definitely disagree with this. I don't see any acceleration. (I don't buy the singularity or Abundance rhetoric either.) What I do see is an accelerating _awareness_ of the effects of our infestation of the earth. Our toolmaking should (and I think does, though I have no serious evidence) track tightly with our biological evolution. So, if there is an acceleration, we should see a correlate in the acceleration of our biological evolution. A more likely speculation is that, as we increase in population density, it becomes more and more (combinatorally) obvious what effect any one of us (mostly others, but ourselves for the more reflective amongst us) has on their environment. E.g. the fact that my neighbors' houses are so damned close to my house makes me very aware of when they use their leaf blower. The acceleration in toolmaking you perceive is really caused by collective behavior, an order or more beyond the making of tools. In other words, these collectively produced artifacts are not tools (by my definition) because they don't really serve any pass-through purpose. In many cases, they have become ends in themselves. This can be considered a pathology. E.g. A CEO whose objective is simply to _grow_ a company. If that's the case, the company (a human created artifact) is no longer a tool. It's now an end in and of itself, at least to that CEO. But it might also be considered healthy in some circumstances. In any case, I don't see an increase in our toolmaking so much as an increase in our awareness of the impacts of our toolmaking. Ultimately, what technology we develop and use is a personal choice, even if we want to dictate or
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] Dropbox big-time
I'll put in my two cents. All the files I care about are on a Mac, so I use Arq, which backs up to Amazon's S3 and Glacier services. There are two levels of S3 service which vary in their redundancy. The higher level (S3 standard storage) claims: Designed for 99.9% durability and 99.99% availability of objects over a given year. Designed to sustain the concurrent loss of data in two facilities. The price is now $.095 per gigabyte per month. I have watched it go down from $.15 to $.095, but it may not be going down as fast as hard drive prices. Amazon's Glacier storage is $.01 per gigabyte per month, but it has a time delay on recovery (about 4 hours, enough time for the gerbils to mount a tape). It can get expensive to move a lot of data in and out of Glacier, but it is fine for long time storage. So now I have my home folder tree on Time Machine and Amazon S3. I have a music and old data (carried forth from PC to PC since the late 80's) on Glacier, so for most of my data (but not bought applications) I have copies 1) on my Mac, 2) on my Time Machine, and 3) on S3 and Glacier offsite. The next problem is if (when) I have to reduce the amount of data on my Mac (when going to SSD, possibly) I will need a place for the data moved off my Mac and my Tiime Machine. I probably will go with a Drobo, which has a good bit of redundancy and which would require only a Glacier backup ($10.00 per terabyte per month) . I am putting some faith in Amazon, but their record is so far quite good, and a disk in a safety deposit box, at least in my case, would be updated rarely if at all. --Barry On Jan 16, 2013, at 9:30 AM, Owen Densmore wrote: I figured out the google drive vs g+ plan. It turns out they are integrated, a good thing I think. I was concerned it was yet another half baked stunt but this seems pretty well managed. -- Owen torage plan pricing Learn about your options for purchasing more storage for Google Drive, Google+ Photos, and Gmail. Store up to 5 GB between Google Drive and Google+ Photos, then pay for additional storage as your account grows. Here's how it works: Tap into your free storage as soon as you start using Google Drive and G+ Photos. Purchase additional storage that can be shared across Google Drive and G+ Photos. When you purchase additional storage, your Gmail storage limit will automatically be increased to 25 GB. 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] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data
Social structures work because we don't have to always be completely truthful. White lies grease the gears of society. Bruce points out that Japanese society engages in the illusion of privacy - western societies do that, also. I'm not talking only about That outfit doesn't make you look fat. I'm also talking about simple things like shopping at a store that competes with your friend's store or seeing a doctor not your primary care provider for a second opinion. Some folks can do these things boldly and without caring about hurting someone's feelings. Most folks prefer discretion and no hurt feelings. If your PCP or store-owner friend can easily find out that you've been straying, their feelings will be hurt doubly - because you didn't trust them or preferred a better price and because you did it behind their back. There's no shame or guilt to what you've done - but society runs smoother if there are no hurt feelings, also. Ray Parks Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084 NIPR: rcpa...@sandia.govmailto:rcpa...@sandia.gov SIPR: rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.govmailto:rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.gov (send NIPR reminder) JWICS: dopa...@doe.ic.govmailto:dopa...@doe.ic.gov (send NIPR reminder) On Jan 15, 2013, at 9:40 PM, Eric Charles 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.netmailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM: The Comic Edition!
On 1/16/13 10:44 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: This one of those moments in my life with FRIAM that I live for. A series of communications in which I have not an effing clue what any of you are talking about. Some of you have, in the past, been good at doing translations between Thompson-speak and the worst excesses of Friam=speak. Can anybody translate in the other direction? Maybe I will try my hand at putting the discussions you initiated about whirlpools into this form? The conversation rendered, despite being littered with model and brand names, technological acronyms and such was really about our human interface to an inhuman system. I thought that part was obvious even if you don't know what WIFI, PERL, Android, or Nexus 4 refer to? 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] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data
Raymond, I guess I am a behaviorist about shame. If my behavior makes me blush than it was shameful. Guilt, on the other hand is something the law determines. Just my way of talking, I guess. But why do petty lies grease the wheels of society. What lies behind that confident assertion? Nick From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Parks, Raymond Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 1:03 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data Social structures work because we don't have to always be completely truthful. White lies grease the gears of society. Bruce points out that Japanese society engages in the illusion of privacy - western societies do that, also. I'm not talking only about That outfit doesn't make you look fat. I'm also talking about simple things like shopping at a store that competes with your friend's store or seeing a doctor not your primary care provider for a second opinion. Some folks can do these things boldly and without caring about hurting someone's feelings. Most folks prefer discretion and no hurt feelings. If your PCP or store-owner friend can easily find out that you've been straying, their feelings will be hurt doubly - because you didn't trust them or preferred a better price and because you did it behind their back. There's no shame or guilt to what you've done - but society runs smoother if there are no hurt feelings, also. Ray Parks Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084 NIPR: rcpa...@sandia.gov SIPR: rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.gov (send NIPR reminder) JWICS: dopa...@doe.ic.gov (send NIPR reminder) On Jan 15, 2013, at 9:40 PM, Eric Charles 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
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] Dropbox big-time
Arq sounds great, thanks for the pointer. Looks like a winner. Kinda interesting dropbox uses amazon too. -- Owen On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Barry MacKichan barry.mackic...@mackichan.com wrote: I'll put in my two cents. All the files I care about are on a Mac, so I use Arq, which backs up to Amazon's S3 and Glacier services. There are two levels of S3 service which vary in their redundancy. The higher level (S3 standard storage) claims: Designed for 99.9% durability and 99.99% availability of objects over a given year. Designed to sustain the concurrent loss of data in two facilities. The price is now $.095 per gigabyte per month. I have watched it go down from $.15 to $.095, but it may not be going down as fast as hard drive prices. Amazon's Glacier storage is $.01 per gigabyte per month, but it has a time delay on recovery (about 4 hours, enough time for the gerbils to mount a tape). It can get expensive to move a lot of data in and out of Glacier, but it is fine for long time storage. So now I have my home folder tree on Time Machine and Amazon S3. I have a music and old data (carried forth from PC to PC since the late 80's) on Glacier, so for most of my data (but not bought applications) I have copies 1) on my Mac, 2) on my Time Machine, and 3) on S3 and Glacier offsite. The next problem is if (when) I have to reduce the amount of data on my Mac (when going to SSD, possibly) I will need a place for the data moved off my Mac and my Tiime Machine. I probably will go with a Drobo, which has a good bit of redundancy and which would require only a Glacier backup ($10.00 per terabyte per month) . I am putting some faith in Amazon, but their record is so far quite good, and a disk in a safety deposit box, at least in my case, would be updated rarely if at all. --Barry On Jan 16, 2013, at 9:30 AM, Owen Densmore wrote: I figured out the google drive vs g+ plan. It turns out they are integrated, a good thing I think. I was concerned it was yet another half baked stunt but this seems pretty well managed. -- Owen torage plan pricing Learn about your options for purchasing more storage for Google Drive, Google+ Photos, and Gmail. Store up to 5 GB between Google Drive and Google+ Photos, then pay for additional storage as your account grows. Here's how it works: - Tap into your free storage as soon as you start using Google Drive and G+ Photos. - Purchase additional storage that can be shared across Google Drive and G+ Photos. When you purchase additional storage, your Gmail storage limit will automatically be increased to 25 GB. 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 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] [EXTERNAL] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Full motion video is possible, but not for long as it uses a lot of bandwidth and storage. Also, the geometry of satellites is such that, depending upon their orbit, they can only provide good images of a single point on the ground for a limited amount of time. More likely, if a particular human can be identified (unlikely from space), one could use a sort of time-based synthetic aperture to build up knowledge of that person's activities. UAVs are much more likely to be used to track a particular individual in real-time. Ray Parks Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084 NIPR: rcpa...@sandia.govmailto:rcpa...@sandia.gov SIPR: rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.govmailto:rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.gov (send NIPR reminder) JWICS: dopa...@doe.ic.govmailto:dopa...@doe.ic.gov (send NIPR reminder) On Jan 16, 2013, at 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. -- 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 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] FRIAM: The Comic Edition!
lol On Jan 16, 2013, at 2:49 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: Couldn't have said it better myself. --Doug On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Eric Charles e...@psu.edu wrote: Nick, It is a distillation / satire of several of the threads that I only skimmed briefly over the past few months. Doug and others have all been working no installing linux (the penguin) on various phones, as well as dealing with various aspects of Google's android operating system. On a related note, some companies have recently gotten into the habit of calling what is clearly a bug in their program a feature, so as to try to avoid bad press / any obligation to fix it quickly and efficiently. On a related note, companies try not to admit something is a bug unless a lot of people have complained about it, which leads to weird conflicts where the company (probably lying) tries to deny it has heard about problems that people have been reporting left and right all over the web. Oh, and apparently some people think they can pester these companies into doing the right thing. Beyond that, it is at least as coherent as most Zippy comics. 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 12:44:19 PM Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM: The Comic Edition! This one of those moments in my life with FRIAM that I live for. A series of communications in which I have not an effing clue what any of you are talking about. Some of you have, in the past, been good at doing translations between Thompson-speak and the worst excesses of Friam=speak. Can anybody translate in the other direction? N From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 12:43 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FRIAM: The Comic Edition! Redux: image001.jpg Apologies to ... well... ALL of you, but Doug in particular! and special thanks to Josh for the inspiration. 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 -- 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 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] [EXTERNAL] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Raymond, Or we could just use the London Security Camera system, right? N From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Parks, Raymond Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:28 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Privacy vs Open Public Data Full motion video is possible, but not for long as it uses a lot of bandwidth and storage. Also, the geometry of satellites is such that, depending upon their orbit, they can only provide good images of a single point on the ground for a limited amount of time. More likely, if a particular human can be identified (unlikely from space), one could use a sort of time-based synthetic aperture to build up knowledge of that person's activities. UAVs are much more likely to be used to track a particular individual in real-time. Ray Parks Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084 NIPR: rcpa...@sandia.gov SIPR: rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.gov (send NIPR reminder) JWICS: dopa...@doe.ic.gov (send NIPR reminder) On Jan 16, 2013, at 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. -- 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 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 are not.
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] [EXTERNAL] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Full motion video is possible, but not for long as it uses a lot of bandwidth and storage. Also, the geometry of satellites is such that, depending upon their orbit, they can only provide good images of a single point on the ground for a limited amount of time. More likely, if a particular human can be identified (unlikely from space), one could use a sort of time-based synthetic aperture to build up knowledge of that person's activities. UAVs are much more likely to be used to track a particular individual in real-time. LANL and the Air Force developed something called Angel Fire www.afit.edu/en/.../AFIT%20Annual%20Report%202006.pdfthat was used in Iraq and Afghanistan based on high flying conventional aircraft (too high to see/hear/shoot from the ground) Steve Suddarth, now AF retired from that project, has started a commercial venture out of the Edgewood airport called Transparent Sky transparentsky.net, they flew at least one mission during the last devastating fires in the Jemez to demonstrate real-time acquisition and registration. Anecdotally, I understand that Angel Fire was used effectively with other tools layered on top to trace the source of IEDs after they were detonated (run back and see who had stopped at that location earlier in the day, where they drove in from, etc.) It has been called Tivo for Marines. All well and good perhaps for the battlefield but do we want that level of surveillance in civilian situations? 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] here we go
Glen - I'll save you and the rest of the list my long-winded point by point response (written but ready for delete) and try to summarize instead: I understand now your connection between communication and tool (mis)use. I think we disagree on a couple of things but I am sympathetic with what I think you are reacting to here. I react to it with others myself: I honestly don't agree that we *are* our extended phenotype, but accept that you do. It is an important difference and may explain much of our other disagreements. I accept that we *might not* have as much choice as I suggest about the development and use of our tools, but I think our choice is maximized by seeking to exercise it, even if it is limited. We do disagree about the relative rates of change. Biological evolution (scaled at thousands of years) of humans may have kept pace with technological evolution right up to the neolithic. Sociological evolution (scaled at tens or hundreds of years) might have kept pace with technological evolution until the industrial or perhaps the computer revolution. I honestly believe that significant technological change is happening on the scale of years or less. I agree that our perception of both technological change and it's effects is *amplified* by how the very same technology has shrunk the world (through communication and transportation). I agree that we have fetishised tool acquisition and possession and that this does not equal facility much less mastery with the tools. But I claim this aggravates the situation, not alleviates it. I am sympathetic with the feeling that there are many Chicken Little's about shrieking the end of the world with the thinnest of evidence sometimes. I may sound like that to you. I'm trying to pitch my voice an octave below that, but I may be failing. I honestly believe that we have reached a scale of technology that risks self-extermination and that this is exacerbated by the introduction of new technology faster than we can come to sociological grips with it (much less biological adaptation). The stakes are high enough that I would prefer to err on the conservative side. I accept that you do not agree with me on this general point. I share your experience that many people who _think_ they are competent at handling dangerous things (such as guns) are not. Fixing that (acknowledging the incompetence and acting on it by forgoing the privilege or by becoming competent) is the only answer. Attempts at gun control seem to aggravate the problem. I believe Australia's success in this matter might be a reflection of their readiness as a culture to embrace the first solution. We seem to be some distance from that. - Steve Steve Smith wrote at 01/15/2013 05:43 PM: a fatally wrong assumption underneath: that we can be distinguished from technology. I'm pretty sure we've covered this ground as well. I can sum it up with the aphorism: The problem with communication is the illusion that it exists. My turn to be puzzled. Is this a non-sequitur? Well, _I_ don't think so. But many others have accused me of committing non sequiturs on a regular basis. That's the trouble with thoughts (including logic), you could rightly accuse me of the fallacy if the progression in your own head is missing some pieces. But that does not mean the progression in my head is missing any pieces. In the end, it all boils down to the axiom of choice (the discretization of concepts). In any case, my point is that communication is supposed to occur by the reification of the thoughts of the sender into a medium and the reconstruction of those same (or similar _enough_) thoughts inside the receiver. The reification into the medium is _invention_, specifically the creation of a tool. But I'm arguing that an inventor's tools are merely abused if used by another who is dissimilar enough. The conclusion is that communication between dissimilar people does not exist. The application is that guns and 3D printers are natural to some and unnatural to others. [*] I do agree that since Homo Habilis (or even earlier) that our phenotype has been extended by the technology which we have developed and/or mastered. We can only separate ourselves from our technology in that we *can* choose what technology we pursue development of and what technology we adopt once developed. We can choose it for ourselves, but I contend, not for each other (the crux of gun control). I try to be empathetic when I read e-mails. But I am driven to point out that the way you use that language picks at me. You say our phenotype has been extended by the technology. But I mean we are our technology. I.e. technology is as much a part of us as, say, eyeballs or arms. I don't follow this entirely, but I do agree with the gist of it. While I may sound like a Luddite of the highest order, I'm not. I'm merely caught in what I perceive to be a paradox which I think effects
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
