Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 1/17/13 6:32 PM, Parks, Raymond wrote:
Sooner or later, someone will steal one of the cameras, RE it, and 
find some sort of common password, backdoor, or other vulnerability.


With a firmware update, Linksys boxes that can do 1000mw (about a 35 
fold increase in power).   Seems like jamming would be easier (put it in 
a briefcase, tape it to a out-of-sight post, wall, 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] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data

[Parks, Raymond]

I don't have any real information nor the inclination to do the research, but 
odds are that huge surveillance camera rollouts (as in city-wide) are IP not 
analog cameras.  Since running cables is so expensive, they probably use either 
wireless (GSM) to the monitoring center or at least wireless to a collection 
point with fiber or ISP connection back to the monitoring center.  Sooner or 
later, someone will steal one of the cameras, RE it, and find some sort of 
common password, backdoor, or other vulnerability.  Most IP cameras use H.263 
for the video - not all H.263 stacks are secure against fuzzing.  Since most 
smart phones have GPS, wifi, and bluetooth, an app could be written that takes 
advantage of the vulnerability to point the camera away (if it's PTZ) or simply 
turn it off temporarily (no monitoring center can look at all cameras all the 
time).  Sure, evidence of the turn-off would be evident in the Network Video 
Recorder (NVR) but there would be no evidence of why.  Replacement of video is 
not as easy as it seems - simple lack of video is just as good for privacy.

The point is that as more and more of our information is managed by computers, 
more and more opportunity exists to change that information to suit our 
purposes.  Paper records require physical access - virtual records require 
virtual access which can be much easier.

  Here's another example - a while back some ID thieves discovered that all 
they had to do to get access to a credit rating agency like TransUnion, 
Experian, or Equifax is be a business and pay some money.  They used that 
access to steal identify information and were caught when their volume rose to 
the wholesale level.  If, instead, they used their privileged access to those 
company's networks, they might have escalated their access and changed the 
information in those networks.  Maybe they could have made as much money 
offering a credit rating relief service as they did through ID theft.

Ray Parks
Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager
V: 505-844-4024  M: 505-238-9359  P: 505-951-6084
NIPR: rcpa...@sandia.gov<mailto:rcpa...@sandia.gov>
SIPR: rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.gov<mailto:rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.gov> (send 
NIPR reminder)
JWICS: dopa...@doe.ic.gov<mailto:dopa...@doe.ic.gov> (send NIPR reminder)



On Jan 17, 2013, at 6:09 PM, mailto:lrudo...@meganet.net>>
 wrote:

Why stop at "jam the camera"?  *Spoof* the camera (feed it false but plausible 
data, perhaps
inculpating someone else, or perhaps just showing an uppity empty Naugahyde 
`:chair): a real-
time, animated analogue of the photoshopped stills we now have learned to 
expect everywhere.

Ah.  The equivalent of the bank Robbers mask.  Jam the camera.  N



From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Parks, Raymond
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data



Nick,



 My point is that there are things we do not want to be public that are not
illegal nor shameful.  An example of such a thing is a behavior or statement
that seems to contradict one's relationship with another human.  It's
perfectly reasonable, but that other human can and frequently does feel
emotional pain if they find out about it.  Another example was brought up in
the thread of how humans manipulate their social environment to prevent
social pressure or improve their social situation.



 BTW, I find it interesting if not ironic that the very systems that allow
for ubiquitous surveillance are the same systems that allow for
indiscriminate self-exposure - computers.  Here's a prediction - someday
there will be an app that will turn off surveillance cameras as one passes
by them.  That may be a black-market app - but it will exist.  It's harder
but not impossible to do the same for UAVs/RPAs/regular aircraft.  The
hardest type of surveillance to turn off is satellite - but it's also the
easiest to predict.



Ray Parks

Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager

V: 505-844-4024  M: 505-238-9359  P: 505-951-6084

NIPR: rcpa...@sandia.gov<mailto:rcpa...@sandia.gov>

SIPR: rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.gov<mailto:rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.gov> (send 
NIPR reminder)

JWICS: dopa...@doe.ic.gov<mailto:dopa...@doe.ic.gov> (send NIPR reminder)







On Jan 17, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:





Sorry.  I wasn't asking whether we lie or not.  Or even whether it eases
some social situations.  I was asking for a theory of why lying greases
social situations.  Why is the NET effect of small lies positive?  I can
think of some reasons.  Like chimpanzees, we live in a fision-fusion
situation.  The size of the lie that one can "honestly" tell probably
depends in many cases on the frequency with which one sees the person one is
lying to.   And then there is the distinction be

Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data

[lrudolph]

Why stop at "jam the camera"?  *Spoof* the camera (feed it false but plausible 
data, perhaps 
inculpating someone else, or perhaps just showing an uppity empty Naugahyde 
`:chair): a real-
time, animated analogue of the photoshopped stills we now have learned to 
expect everywhere.

> Ah.  The equivalent of the bank Robbers mask.  Jam the camera.  N
> 
>  
> 
> From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Parks, Raymond
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:26 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data
> 
>  
> 
> Nick, 
> 
>  
> 
>   My point is that there are things we do not want to be public that are not
> illegal nor shameful.  An example of such a thing is a behavior or statement
> that seems to contradict one's relationship with another human.  It's
> perfectly reasonable, but that other human can and frequently does feel
> emotional pain if they find out about it.  Another example was brought up in
> the thread of how humans manipulate their social environment to prevent
> social pressure or improve their social situation.
> 
>  
> 
>   BTW, I find it interesting if not ironic that the very systems that allow
> for ubiquitous surveillance are the same systems that allow for
> indiscriminate self-exposure - computers.  Here's a prediction - someday
> there will be an app that will turn off surveillance cameras as one passes
> by them.  That may be a black-market app - but it will exist.  It's harder
> but not impossible to do the same for UAVs/RPAs/regular aircraft.  The
> hardest type of surveillance to turn off is satellite - but it's also the
> easiest to predict.
> 
>  
> 
> 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 17, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry.  I wasn't asking whether we lie or not.  Or even whether it eases
> some social situations.  I was asking for a theory of why lying greases
> social situations.  Why is the NET effect of small lies positive?  I can
> think of some reasons.  Like chimpanzees, we live in a fision-fusion
> situation.  The size of the lie that one can "honestly" tell probably
> depends in many cases on the frequency with which one sees the person one is
> lying to.   And then there is the distinction between speech as stroking and
> speech as conveying of information.  I get that wrong, a lot. 
> 
>  
> 
> I am having a hard time thinking how this is related to my original question
> about whether there should be a law against using public data to track
> individual behavior.  I know that I opened up the subthread about shame and
> guilt, so I stipulate that it is my fault that we are talking about it.  And
> I actually think it is related.  I just can't state the relation.   I am
> thinking we might be moving toward a belief that truth is like arousal .
> life goes best when one has a moderate level of it.  There was a wonderful
> study done some years ago about he relation between truth and the best
> marriages.  Married folk were asked to play The Dating Game together ..
> i.e., guess what spouses answers to personal questions would be,
> preferences, what have you.  Three categories of respondents were
> identified: spouse pairs that had an unrealistical enhanced view of one
> another, spouse pairs that had an unrealistically jaundiced view of one
> another, and spouse pairs that had a realistic view of one another.  As you
> might expect, the first group maintained the most enduring marriages.
> 
>  
> 
> But this just brings me back to the need for a theory of why a society is
> better is there is just a bit less truth in it.  A pragmatic notion, but
> not, I fear, a Pragmatic one. 
> 
>  
> 
> Nick  
> 
>  
> 
> 




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

[Nicholas Thompson]

Ah.  The equivalent of the bank Robbers mask.  Jam the camera.  N

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Parks, Raymond
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data

 

Nick, 

 

  My point is that there are things we do not want to be public that are not
illegal nor shameful.  An example of such a thing is a behavior or statement
that seems to contradict one's relationship with another human.  It's
perfectly reasonable, but that other human can and frequently does feel
emotional pain if they find out about it.  Another example was brought up in
the thread of how humans manipulate their social environment to prevent
social pressure or improve their social situation.

 

  BTW, I find it interesting if not ironic that the very systems that allow
for ubiquitous surveillance are the same systems that allow for
indiscriminate self-exposure - computers.  Here's a prediction - someday
there will be an app that will turn off surveillance cameras as one passes
by them.  That may be a black-market app - but it will exist.  It's harder
but not impossible to do the same for UAVs/RPAs/regular aircraft.  The
hardest type of surveillance to turn off is satellite - but it's also the
easiest to predict.

 

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 17, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:





Sorry.  I wasn't asking whether we lie or not.  Or even whether it eases
some social situations.  I was asking for a theory of why lying greases
social situations.  Why is the NET effect of small lies positive?  I can
think of some reasons.  Like chimpanzees, we live in a fision-fusion
situation.  The size of the lie that one can "honestly" tell probably
depends in many cases on the frequency with which one sees the person one is
lying to.   And then there is the distinction between speech as stroking and
speech as conveying of information.  I get that wrong, a lot. 

 

I am having a hard time thinking how this is related to my original question
about whether there should be a law against using public data to track
individual behavior.  I know that I opened up the subthread about shame and
guilt, so I stipulate that it is my fault that we are talking about it.  And
I actually think it is related.  I just can't state the relation.   I am
thinking we might be moving toward a belief that truth is like arousal .
life goes best when one has a moderate level of it.  There was a wonderful
study done some years ago about he relation between truth and the best
marriages.  Married folk were asked to play The Dating Game together ..
i.e., guess what spouses answers to personal questions would be,
preferences, what have you.  Three categories of respondents were
identified: spouse pairs that had an unrealistical enhanced view of one
another, spouse pairs that had an unrealistically jaundiced view of one
another, and spouse pairs that had a realistic view of one another.  As you
might expect, the first group maintained the most enduring marriages.

 

But this just brings me back to the need for a theory of why a society is
better is there is just a bit less truth in it.  A pragmatic notion, but
not, I fear, a Pragmatic one. 

 

Nick  

 


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

[Parks, Raymond]

Nick,

  My point is that there are things we do not want to be public that are not 
illegal nor shameful.  An example of such a thing is a behavior or statement 
that seems to contradict one's relationship with another human.  It's perfectly 
reasonable, but that other human can and frequently does feel emotional pain if 
they find out about it.  Another example was brought up in the thread of how 
humans manipulate their social environment to prevent social pressure or 
improve their social situation.

  BTW, I find it interesting if not ironic that the very systems that allow for 
ubiquitous surveillance are the same systems that allow for indiscriminate 
self-exposure - computers.  Here's a prediction - someday there will be an app 
that will turn off surveillance cameras as one passes by them.  That may be a 
black-market app - but it will exist.  It's harder but not impossible to do the 
same for UAVs/RPAs/regular aircraft.  The hardest type of surveillance to turn 
off is satellite - but it's also the easiest to predict.

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 17, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

Sorry.  I wasn’t asking whether we lie or not.  Or even whether it eases some 
social situations.  I was asking for a theory of why lying greases social 
situations.  Why is the NET effect of small lies positive?  I can think of some 
reasons.  Like chimpanzees, we live in a fision-fusion situation.  The size of 
the lie that one can “honestly” tell probably depends in many cases on the 
frequency with which one sees the person one is lying to.   And then there is 
the distinction between speech as stroking and speech as conveying of 
information.  I get that wrong, a lot.

I am having a hard time thinking how this is related to my original question 
about whether there should be a law against using public data to track 
individual behavior.  I know that I opened up the subthread about shame and 
guilt, so I stipulate that it is my fault that we are talking about it.  And I 
actually think it is related.  I just can’t state the relation.   I am thinking 
we might be moving toward a belief that truth is like arousal … life goes best 
when one has a moderate level of it.  There was a wonderful study done some 
years ago about he relation between truth and the best marriages.  Married folk 
were asked to play The Dating Game together …. i.e., guess what spouses answers 
to personal questions would be, preferences, what have you.  Three categories 
of respondents were identified: spouse pairs that had an unrealistical enhanced 
view of one another, spouse pairs that had an unrealistically jaundiced view of 
one another, and spouse pairs that had a realistic view of one another.  As you 
might expect, the first group maintained the most enduring marriages.

But this just brings me back to the need for a theory of why a society is 
better is there is just a bit less truth in it.  A pragmatic notion, but not, I 
fear, a Pragmatic one.

Nick


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

[Parks, Raymond]

Humans lie but not everything a human says is a lie.  If your sample size is 
conversation rather than word, then you can safely say humans always lie.  
Otherwise, you're straying into politician lying joke territory.

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 17, 2013, at 11:42 AM, glen wrote:

Parks, Raymond wrote at 01/17/2013 10:34 AM:
Yes, we lie frequently.  Yes, it is lying - we are either stating a
falsehood or omitting the truth (the atheist example upthread).
Human beings are social animals - we constantly try to manipulate our
social situation for our personal optimum - it's built into us.  Some
of us are better at it than others.  Some (Aspergers?) are downright
incapable.

OK.  Well, if we're all always lying, then it seems like "lying" is a
useless term.  In order to make progress in the discussion, we'll have
to come up with a taxonomy of qualifiers.  We've covered "white".  It's
ubiquitous, and hence also useless.  What other types of lying are
there?  Specifically, which lies are indicators of legally relevant
internal states like shame versus which lies are merely facilitators of
the type of information control advocated by Eric and my lurker's use case?

--
glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com



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

[Steve Smith]

Nick -

Sorry. I wasn't asking whether we lie or not.  Or even whether it 
eases some social situations.  I was asking for a theory of why lying 
greases social situations.  Why is the NET effect of small lies 
positive?  I can think of some reasons.  Like chimpanzees, we live in 
a fision-fusion situation.  The size of the lie that one can 
"honestly" tell probably depends in many cases on the frequency with 
which one sees the person one is lying to.   And then there is the 
distinction between speech as stroking and speech as conveying of 
information. I get that wrong, a lot.


To expand the argumentation without being (hopefully) argumentative, I 
defer to Glen's aphorism:


  "The problem with communication is the illusion that it exists."

and also offer the analogy to "tolerancing" in mechanical systems.

To the extent that communication (as we idealize it) is an illusion, 
then everything we say (or hear?) is inaccurate in the way that "all 
models are wrong, some are useful".   Since what we say (and hear) is 
intrinsically inaccurate, everything is, in that sense a *lie*. We bias 
and expand these inaccuracies to our convenience and they become lies in 
the traditional sense of the term.


These *lies* are useful to more than optimizing our personal situation 
in the way that two parts fit together with a deliberate *tolerance* 
work better over the long run than those fit as precisely as possible 
and then allowed to "wear in".  Among other things, a broken part cannot 
simply be replaced by another one identical to the original, it must be 
custom fit  to match the wear on the broken part.  The wear patterns on 
the part have become part of the system.  By introducing some 
well-controlled and deliberate error (aka tolerance) into the parts of 
the system, they do not need to wear as much to "break in" and as a 
result replacing a broken part with a new "unworn" one is more effective.


More formally trained engineers here may correct me of course.

The effectivity of interchangeable parts in mass production was heavily 
dependent on this kind of tolerancing.  I submit that in human exchange, 
proper tolerancing is like the use of "white lies".   There are limits 
to the accuracy of our communication (fit of our parts) so we might as 
well bias the (mis) fit toward leaving room for the social machine to 
continue to function.  A hand-fit machine can have higher performance 
and efficiency than one designed with suitable tolerances to not require 
careful break-in and to optimize replacement of parts down the line.  Or 
to extend the metaphor of social engagement as mechanical system, humans 
are like gears with teeth that engage.   If gears were not designed with 
"lash" (a specific form of tolerance), they would bind.  If humans are 
not allowed a little bit of error in their communication (biased to 
their own needs) then they will bind.


Tolerancing also helps to manage "degrees of freedom".   Gears must be 
co-linear (or orthogonal in some case) to work properly.   A gear which 
"wobbles" too much on it's axis can bind, but a little bit of that 
"wobble" can also prevent binding in an otherwise overly closely 
toleranced system.  In human discourse, it might be the equivalent of 
changing the subject or giving evasive answers.


Q: "Do you like my new hat honey?"
A: "It is really unique!"

I am having a hard time thinking how this is related to my original 
question about whether there should be a law against using public data 
to track individual behavior.  I know that I opened up the subthread 
about shame and guilt, so I stipulate that it is my fault that we are 
talking about it.  And I actually think it is related.  I just can't 
state the relation.   I am thinking we might be moving toward a belief 
that truth is like arousal ... life goes best when one has a moderate 
level of it.  There was a wonderful study done some years ago about he 
relation between truth and the best marriages.  Married folk were 
asked to play The Dating Game together  i.e., guess what spouses 
answers to personal questions would be, preferences, what have you. 
Three categories of respondents were identified: spouse pairs that had 
an unrealistical enhanced view of one another, spouse pairs that had 
an unrealistically jaundiced view of one another, and spouse pairs 
that had a realistic view of one another.  As you might expect, the 
first group maintained the most enduring marriages.


But this just brings me back to the need for a theory of why a society 
is better is there is just a bit less truth in it. A pragmatic notion, 
but not, I fear, a Pragmatic one.


Nick

*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Parks, 
Raymond

*Sent:* Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:19 AM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee

Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data

[Nicholas Thompson]

Sorry.  I wasn't asking whether we lie or not.  Or even whether it eases
some social situations.  I was asking for a theory of why lying greases
social situations.  Why is the NET effect of small lies positive?  I can
think of some reasons.  Like chimpanzees, we live in a fision-fusion
situation.  The size of the lie that one can "honestly" tell probably
depends in many cases on the frequency with which one sees the person one is
lying to.   And then there is the distinction between speech as stroking and
speech as conveying of information.  I get that wrong, a lot.  

 

I am having a hard time thinking how this is related to my original question
about whether there should be a law against using public data to track
individual behavior.  I know that I opened up the subthread about shame and
guilt, so I stipulate that it is my fault that we are talking about it.  And
I actually think it is related.  I just can't state the relation.   I am
thinking we might be moving toward a belief that truth is like arousal .
life goes best when one has a moderate level of it.  There was a wonderful
study done some years ago about he relation between truth and the best
marriages.  Married folk were asked to play The Dating Game together ..
i.e., guess what spouses answers to personal questions would be,
preferences, what have you.  Three categories of respondents were
identified: spouse pairs that had an unrealistical enhanced view of one
another, spouse pairs that had an unrealistically jaundiced view of one
another, and spouse pairs that had a realistic view of one another.  As you
might expect, the first group maintained the most enduring marriages.

 

But this just brings me back to the need for a theory of why a society is
better is there is just a bit less truth in it.  A pragmatic notion, but
not, I fear, a Pragmatic one.  

 

Nick  

 

 

 

From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Parks, Raymond
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:19 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data

 

I prefer embarrassed to shamed - perhaps there's a spectrum from proud to
embarrassed to shamed to guilty.

 

Perhaps white lies do not grease your part of the wheels of society - but
I'm reasonably sure, based on my experience, that they are in use in many
societies including ours.  There's the blatant pretense of privacy that
Marcus mentioned exists in Japan.  There's the "white" lies mentioned in
books of etiquette.  There's the common jokes about answering one's SO's
question of whether they look good (in particular clothing or after getting
their hair styled or ..).  These are all proof that we lie frequently in
order to grease the wheels of society.

 

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 3:01 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:





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? 

 


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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 1/17/13 11:19 AM, Parks, Raymond wrote:
There's the blatant pretense of privacy that Marcus mentioned exists 
in Japan.

It was Bruce that made this point.  This article elaborates..

http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/ar/libros/raec/ethicomp5/docs/htm_papers/52Orito,%20Yohko.htm

<< Within the context of these socio-cultural and linguistic 
circumstances, insistence on the right to privacy as "the right to be 
let alone" indicates a lack of cooperativeness as well as an inability 
to communicate with others. The right to privacy, understood as "the 
individual's right to control the circulation of information concerning 
him or her", is considered a shameful excess of mistrust in relation 
both to a cooperative society and to those who collect, store, share, 
and use personal data. Consequently, the sense of a right to privacy is 
foreign and less important to Japanese society than it is in Western 
societies. >>

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

[Parks, Raymond]

Yes, we lie frequently.  Yes, it is lying - we are either stating a falsehood 
or omitting the truth (the atheist example upthread).  Human beings are social 
animals - we constantly try to manipulate our social situation for our personal 
optimum - it's built into us.  Some of us are better at it than others.  Some 
(Aspergers?) are downright incapable.

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 17, 2013, at 11:29 AM, glen wrote:

Parks, Raymond wrote at 01/17/2013 10:19 AM:
These are all proof that we lie frequently in order to grease the
wheels of society.

Isn't it something like a false distinction to call all this "lying"?
After all, we have von Neumann's extrapolation of Tarski's (or perhaps
Goedel's) work claiming that it's impossible to tell the whole truth.
And we have non-well-founded set theory to tell us that it's problematic
to tell nothing but the truth.

Hence, if we follow your setup to its logical conclusion, then everyone
is always lying.

--
glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com



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

[glen]

Parks, Raymond wrote at 01/17/2013 10:19 AM:
> These are all proof that we lie frequently in order to grease the
> wheels of society.

Isn't it something like a false distinction to call all this "lying"?
After all, we have von Neumann's extrapolation of Tarski's (or perhaps
Goedel's) work claiming that it's impossible to tell the whole truth.
And we have non-well-founded set theory to tell us that it's problematic
to tell nothing but the truth.

Hence, if we follow your setup to its logical conclusion, then everyone
is always lying.

-- 
glen


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data

[Parks, Raymond]

I prefer embarrassed to shamed - perhaps there's a spectrum from proud to 
embarrassed to shamed to guilty.

Perhaps white lies do not grease your part of the wheels of society - but I'm 
reasonably sure, based on my experience, that they are in use in many societies 
including ours.  There's the blatant pretense of privacy that Marcus mentioned 
exists in Japan.  There's the "white" lies mentioned in books of etiquette.  
There's the common jokes about answering one's SO's question of whether they 
look good (in particular clothing or after getting their hair styled or ….).  
These are all proof that we lie frequently in order to grease the wheels of 
society.

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 3:01 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

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?


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

[lrudolph]

Nick avers:

> I guess I am a behaviorist about shame.   If my behavior makes me blush than
> it was shameful.

Alternatively, someone has slipped you a large dose of niacin, which has made 
you blush, which 
you have felt as shame.  

I suggested this several times to Jim Laird as a worthwhile experiment in his 
framework, but 
he never got off his butt to (have his undergradutes) do it.  Now *there's* a 
crying shame. 


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

[Nicholas Thompson]

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 yo

Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data

[Parks, Raymond]

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 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" 
mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>>
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" 
mailto:friam@re