This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

A conversation with my Mum

edited February 2010 in Everything Else
I want to post this because it is very interesting. It would be better as a blog post, but my mom and I have been having a talk about openness in data and technological adaptation. The email chain started with this:

From Mom:

Whaddya think of this?:

Washington Post Buzz Article

Mom

Comments

  • From Me:
    Aww, people who make a big deal out of Buzz don't know what they are
    talking about. It's not that big a deal.
    People are bitching about it all the time, but you can turn it off,
    and you don't have to activate it. Basically, all the hullabaloo is
    that people clicked it to join it, without realizing that it would
    friend your contacts, and that people could see your friends. Oh
    noes! People can tell who I mail a lot! But it is their own
    prerogative to keep their top contacts private, I suppose. Just don't
    sign up for Buzz, because no one tricked you into it! If you read
    what they say, you know that's what it will do ahead of time.

    Speaking of which, when are you going to stop using that bleh email of
    dad's from Road Runner? Do you really trust Time Warner more than
    Google with your secret-secret personal data? I don't get your thing
    against Google, and with your data-openness phobia in general. The
    thing that we have to do, in an increasingly interconnected world, is
    rather than obsessing over privacy, we must make openness not
    dangerous. Take Iran for example. It is dangerous to be open, not
    because of the nature of data, but because of the problems with the
    government. External problems, such as bad governments or the ease of
    identity theft (which could be avoided if people were not so
    technologically phobic, and understood digital ID, instead of saying
    stupid things about "the number of the beast" and crap!) Instead of
    social security numbers, one should have a data set, an encrypted key
    many, many numbers long. One could have a card like a credit card,
    that was used in conjunction with a password. Three pillars of
    Security: something you are, Something you have, and something you
    know. Also, there should be separate national ID numbers and Social
    Security numbers.) Fears of privacy make it difficult to transfer my
    medical records. If they were in some sort of national database
    accessible to doctors when you swipe your national id, when I went to
    the doctor I could just stick my government issued key in and they
    could access the database, but they don't! I have to jump through all
    these hoops, because nothing is connected! Look at the headaches I
    deal with just going to the goddam pharmacy! And don't get me started
    on signatures! Why do we still consider these even remotely valid?
    Why if I scribble a mark on some paper and send it in the mail is it
    more legally accepted than a digital copy that has been encrypted with
    my personal key?

    The problem is, things that should be really protected, like your
    Social Security number identity, are totally not secure, and things
    that should be open for ease of use are also protected by the same
    crummy half-security. We need to put better security on the stuff
    that really matters, and stop obsessing about openness caused by
    technology on the stuff that doesn't. We don't need better and better
    security on most of this stuff, we need to fix society.

    /end rant - I know I sound mad, but I am not mad at you, I am mad at
    this state of affairs.

    -Emily

    The show Rym and Scott did yesterday about Buzz: these are not
    necessarily my opinions, but I agree with some of the stuff they say.
    http://media.libsyn.com/media/geeknights/20100215.mp3
  • From Mom:

    Those are some interesting observations.

    I don't think the main privacy problem that most people have is the issue of identity theft, (at least a lot of privacy advocates) , but the use of private information to coerce and intimidate (and neutralize) people. A few examples that come quickly to mind are that of the bill in Oklahoma, created so that details of state's abortion records would be made public (!) by posting them on a website, (and remember the KS attorney general who shared abortion records with Bill O' Reilly?) and of course the Chinese government. Being able to shift through large amounts of personal data is swell and convenient in the right hands, but it can be used for not-so-savory purposes. So the whole thing is a balancing act between convenience and safety. As you noted, it is not the openness, per se that is dangerous, but those in power (though some of us don't like a lot of openness. We are cranky like that). It is a nice thought that we shouldn't have to worry about it (in a perfect world!) but the reality is just not there. There are many repressive regimes, and many who would exploit personal data for their own ends. Our government also. And revenge filled exes.

    Regarding Time Warner: I don't love them, and if I had another service provider that offered a comparable speed, etc, I would use it, because TW rips me off every month. The mail system is used merely because it was there, just like AOL was used because it was there. I haven't used AOL lately because it is so slow and crashes and I have to sign in as I am too lazy to change it to automatically sign in. Would either of them sell out to the government? Probably. But then again they aren't hypocritical like Google either by making a big deal of how groovy and swell they are ("Do No Harm", my aunt fanny). But I haven't had a pressing need to create a new email account. As you can see, I am even to lazy to do an additional one on RR. I guess I just don't care.

    Re: technical dunderheads and identity theft. One can be savvy technology-wise, but still your personal data might fall into the wrong hands. Look at what happened at NYU your freshman year with all the SS#s getting lifted from the school sports team. And at Kodak a business that handles certain stock programs had their customer records compromised (which is why we get even more free credit checks compliments of them). So technical savvy is only good as the weakest link.

    Signatures are just easy, because they are pretty unique though not immune from forgery. I thought electronic signatures were like groovy now anyway. The legal significance of signatures doesn't bother me in the least (easier than fingerprints). And the electronic 'key' you talk about only works for those who are hooked in to the electronic system. Not everyone is or probably will be for a long time, if ever. Just like not everyone reads, drives a car, uses a phone, lives in a house or has electricity. Signatures (or their corresponding mark) is more or less universal and low tech. Not everything has to be high tech. Diversity is the spice of life, yes?

    And I don't get the "number of the beast" reference. Is that from some religious kook?

    Also, I am not intimately familiar with the Buzz thing. It merely sounded like folks bitched about being automatically signed up. (It sounded like they changed it so you have to purposely activate it now) Anyway, I hate stuff like that. I find it annoying to have to expend effort for something you DON'T want. Like having to set mouse traps to get rid of mice. I don't want them, I didn't ask for them. Or like the annoying seat belt alarm in my car. Sheesh.
  • From Me:

    Buzz: It's just another icon that appears in Google. You don't have
    to click on it, or do anything to it. The only automatic thing is
    that another little icon shows up, and if you click it, then you get
    signed up.

    The "number of the beast" reference is the fact that religious people
    freak out if the government issues anything with a number for every
    person because they think it is the thing foretold in the book of
    Revelations. Just recently South Carolina passed a law forbidding
    companies to require their workers to have RFID chips (like pets have)
    implanted. This was not because of medical/body rights reasons, but
    explicitly religious motivation. It is a huge flamewar right now
    among separation of church and state people.

    About your question of lack of technological literacy/availability.
    Sure not everyone can read, or drive, or whatever, but if they are so
    lacking in these skills it will hamper their interfacing with the
    modern society. Same goes for electronic signatures. It smacks, in
    my opinion, of No Child Left Behind. Just because there are some
    people who can't do it, why does it have to become the default for the
    rest of us? Just like the illiterate person used to be allowed to
    make an "X" as their mark, so too shall the paper signature represent
    the technologically illiterate. I'm not saying you have to force
    mountain men to use computers, but to keep clinging to an old standard
    just so things are fully standardized causes lack of progress.

    Regardless of the fact that I think Google is a better company than
    Time Warner, the tools for email/chat/document sharing are sooo much
    better than your old email. It's no problem. You can just import
    your contact list. Trust me. Even if you feel uncomfortable, at
    least just try it out. You don't even have to enter your real info.
    Just do it, for me, please? Because it really bothers me for some
    reason that you keep using that old one. Don't be adverse to change!
    The fact that you used AOL for so long was kind of frustrating. It
    was so old and broken and better tools were available, but you
    wouldn't listen to me, even though I felt I knew better. That's okay,
    do what you want to.

    That thing about abortion is weird and horrible. The fact is, though,
    what I am saying is that we must try to address these bad people who
    shame the abortion people and put dissidents in Jail more than we need
    to worry about encrypting things to make them more private. The fact
    is, many people are saying openness of data is unavoidable whether we
    like it or not, and we cannot stop it fully, so rather than trying to
    combat data leaks, we need to smash the people and the ways of
    thinking that make it necessary to keep things a secret.

    For example, it's like being Gay. Some places there is merely social
    pressure to keep closeted, some places you can be put to death.
    Hiding homosexuality in those places is only good until the problem is
    solved, and is an unreliable method. Just like that, hiding data
    instead of confronting these problems politically and socially can
    only be viewed as a ineffective stop-gap measure until head on
    fighting makes the need to hide it moot.

    I love you Mom!
    Emi
  • Mom:

    RE: Buzz. It used to be (apparently anyway, the article states it and Dad confirms it) that Google used to automatically sign customers up for Buzz and one had to opt out of it not to have it.

    RE: my 'sucky' email. It's not that I "care" about or "feel uncomfortable" with anything regarding Gmail vs. RR, it is the opposite. I don't care or feel uncomfortable or much of anything about it. I haven't had the need to change as it has not become uncomfortable/inconvenient using RR and I have used my energy toward other activities (like writing the actually emails and reading Twisty's blog). You seem to be under the impression that I am doing it for some reason rather than because of a lack of reason. [...] I would still be using AOL if it didn't become cumbersome. But it did, so I stopped.

    I didn't know it was so important to you. Are you ok with [sister's] hotmail? Is it a status thing? I am curious to know why you have such strong feelings about it ("frustrating" that I was using AOL? What an interesting choice of words!). I have no feelings about what sort of email you use. I guess I have more interest that you write!

    RE: "fear/adverse to change: Both Dad and I are pretty similar in this and are classified generally as "early adapters" when it comes to electronic/other technologies (perhaps Dad a little so more than me), so there is not fear involved as much as laziness/lack of interest (or sometimes lack of funds) when we don't do something. I figure I have limited time, so why waste it on stuff I don't need/isn't satisfying or important to me? I'd rather watch anime reruns. If I think it is cool, and I have a use for it, I will use it. I have always been this way.

    RE: illiterate and the no-tech folks: They do participate in "modern" society. It is just not a electronic technology centered society like your own modern society, but it is modern. (Perhaps I am splitting hairs here). Some are poor and can't afford many types of technologies (cars/phones/computers), however, many are also not interested. So I guess things like signatures become the default for the 'rest of us' only when there is needed a standard for something that everyone can use. Not everyone needs encrypted security for electronic information, because not everyone will be using electronic information. Signatures give the widest range of options for lifestyle and still can be recognized as valid ID.

    Though electronic verification will become the most used, I imagine, not everyone is or will be in need of bank accounts and all that stuff. It just isn't relevant to their lives. Does it need to be? No. It doesn't make them less of a human being. You seem to be fetishising technology! Sure it's fun, it's cool, but it is, in the end, not necessary to live a full and happy life. Not everyone has to be like you. Variety is the spice of life, right? Think about how you come from a position of privilege. You live in a wealthy nation, and come from a relatively (by world standards) wealthy background. It's analogous of a middle class white American man telling poor African women of color what they need and want. He just really can't know. We don't need to live in lock step with each other. (Same reasoning behind my views on 'choice' being the most inclusive option re pregnancy -- which by the way is 'choice for all pregnancies, all the time').

    We are not technophobes, we merely like privacy both personal and business. It is more a control thing, I guess.

    Related in a weird way in my mind is a new book that touches on ownership/privacy in a different realm. It sounds really good "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" by Rebecca Skloot (great name!) about medical ethics and the origin of the HeLa cell line. [Sister] is very familiar with HeLa, and I might get her the book for her birthday. Do you own your genetic material? Nope! and folks can even patent you and make money off you (unless you beat them to it). Lots of good conversation about this on the White Coat Underground.

    [Sister], by the way, says fine RE using her ID. Send her a note, and she will take care of it for you.

    I love you too!
    Mom

    P.S. I think the requiring of RFID chips is mega creepy. It reminds me (on a greater creep-i-fication scale) of requiring women to wear make-up combined with EZ-Pass!
  • Me:

    I'm techno-progressive. I realized that's what I was a few months ago.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techno-progressivism

    It's interesting that you bring up the poor in Africa. Look how much
    good distribution of simple cell phones has done in many areas! I'm
    not saying everyone needs a mac, but rather that technology can be
    used to solve many problems, first and foremost by increasing
    efficiency within a system. I'm saying that people, rather than
    saying "It's fine the way it is," should keep moving forward. The
    former is the traditionalist/conservative approach, and when it comes
    to moral values both you and I abhor that kind of thinking.

    Sometimes it is not even a conscious choice on the part of a society,
    but merely the repercussions of an important invention. The car
    changed America. Does everyone have a car? No. But our society
    became structured around cars and roads whether the people wanted it
    too or not. In the same vein, I believe that soon our society will
    inevitably be structured around the digital. Therefore, I wish people
    would not be adverse to adopting new methods of communication and new
    systems, because they are slowing the rate of this change across all
    demographics. I'm sure there were many people who didn't think phones
    were necessary to them. Society started using the invention and the
    world changed. The problem is not that there are the proverbial
    "mountain men" (I always use Rancid Crabtree as my example) who do not
    use technology, but the fact that because these people dictate the
    governmental standard, rather than being the exception. It takes a
    very long time, but gradually stuff like electricity/cars/phones
    becomes accepted.

    About me being frustrated, I get frustrated when people use old broken
    tools, when there are better ones are available. It's kind of like a
    foodie watching someone eat White Castle when there is arugula and
    brie in the fridge. I'm sure it works for you, but does it work well?
    Basically, tech is an interest of mine and so I am opinionated.
    Don't take my ragging on your email address personally.

    I didn't say the tags were not creepy, but to make a religious
    argument against them is obnoxious. It's an ethical question, not a
    question about the apocalypse, right?

    I don't think that you are technophobic. In fact, I think you and dad
    are unique compared to most parents of my friends in that you are very
    internet-y and pro science-y. I just disagree with you in regards to
    openness of data.

    <3 Heart
    -Emi
  • I hope you got your Mom's permission to post this. ^_~
  • Cliff notes for people with short attention spans?
  • Sharing personal data should be a choice whenever possible. Personal choice is the basis of personal freedoms. End of story.
  • Sharing personal data should be a choice whenever possible.
    But once shared, the sharee has 100% control over that data. If someone ever gives me a piece of information without a pre-agreed-to binding contract to the contrary, I can publish it wherever I want for whatever reasons I want. This is why even trust networks can break down.

    More to the point, our technology is nearing the point at which it will not be a choice. Data aggregation will statistically reveal true information about you that you yourself have never actually revealed or shared with anyone based solely on the existing publicly available data.

    So, how do we handle this when personal choice is impossible?
  • Sharing personal data should be a choice whenever possible.
    But once shared, the sharee has 100% control over that data. If someone ever gives me a piece of information without a pre-agreed-to binding contract to the contrary, I can publish it wherever I want for whatever reasons I want. This is why even trust networks can break down.

    More to the point, our technology is nearing the point at which it willnotbe a choice. Data aggregation will statistically reveal true information about you that you yourself have never actually revealed or shared withanyonebased solely on the existing publicly available data.

    So, how do we handle this when personal choice is impossible?
    Create fail-safes and other options for interacting with technology. We control technology, not the other way around. If consumers want privacy, then their money will make it so.
  • RymRym
    edited February 2010
    Create fail-safes and other options for interacting with technology.
    But there's no way to do that with information. If information is available, you can statistically correlate it with other information, even if that data is aggregated or anonymized.

    Remember that old script that could tell, with a 90% accuracy rate, whether or not a genetic man or woman wrote a snippet of text? We'll have the technology soon to do something like the following:

    1. Troll this forum and read every post by "Kate Monster"
    2. From statistical analysis of these posts, find any other writing anywhere else on the Internet that was written by the same person (regardless of whether or not the screen names match or are even similar).
    3. Mine all of this combined data to determine things like name, phone number, address, age, race, gender, religion, sexuality, political affiliation, possibly even passwords
    4. Determine who your friends, family members, and contacts are based on interrelationships in these posts, creating a super "Facebook profile" that is 100% accurate yet has never received any input whatsoever from you.

    This is just from your anonymous posts and conversations on the Internet. The only possible "failsafe" would be to NOT communicate on the Internet.

    The aggregation of public information is the death of privacy, and the prevention of the existence of public information is the death of one's ability to interact with the world.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • All of that information is electively put in the forum and on other websites. If I don't want it there, then it won't be there.
  • RymRym
    edited February 2010
    If I don't want it there, then it won't be there.
    But they're already there, and can't ever be made "not there." The only way to avoid this is to never have posted to any forum, and to never again post to any forum.

    Also, a great deal of information is extant. Phone records are often there without your consent, and are easily digitized. Public filings are open to anyone who cares to look, and are currently only obscured by their lack of digital accessibility (which is changing rapidly). IP logs (what IP hit what web server when) are often public, beyond your control, and easily aggregated. Even if you never post anything on the Internet, there is a lot of data out there about you. All someone needs to do is aggregate it, and they've got you.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • If I don't want it there, then it won't be there.
    But they're already there, and can't ever be made "not there." The only way to avoid this is to never have posted to any forum, and to never again post to any forum.
    Exactly. I elected to put that information there. To remove it would be impossible. I don't see your point. As long as I am electing to put it out there, I am still making a choice.
    It is just like making any public statement. Once made it cannot be unmade.
  • edited February 2010
    Exactly. I elected to put that information there. To remove it would be impossible. I don't see your point. As long as I am electing to put it out there, I am still making a choice.
    It is just like making any public statement. Once made it cannot be unmade.
    Well, I think the point is that, in order to meaningfully interact with the Internet, you will necessarily sacrifice privacy. If you've ordered something on Amazon, and you've posted on this forum, someone with sufficient technology could make the connection and get personal information about you. As long as a trail of technological connections exists, it can be followed. I take it as a call to monitor risk.
    So, how do we handle this when personal choice is impossible?
    Outlaw it. I know that won't stop it, but making anonymous data aggregation illegal except in certain circumstances is the only way to go. Remove freedoms.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • Outlaw it. I know that won't stop it, but making anonymous data aggregation illegal except in certain circumstances is the only way to go.
    So what qualifies as anonymous data? I aggregate data when I read two forum posts on the Internet. I aggregate data when perform a DNS lookup. It's impossible to regulate, because you'd effectively be saying "you're not allowed to use your personal knowledge of certain arbitrary and verified facts in evaluating the relevance of certain other arbitrary and verifiable facts." It's patently ludicrous.
  • Outlaw it. I know that won't stop it, but making anonymous data aggregation illegal except in certain circumstances is the only way to go.
    So what qualifies as anonymous data? I aggregate data when I read two forum posts on the Internet. I aggregate data when perform a DNS lookup. It's impossible to regulate, because you'd effectively be saying "you're not allowed to use your personal knowledge of certain arbitrary and verified facts in evaluating the relevance of certain other arbitrary and verifiable facts." It's patently ludicrous.
    When you use that data to take any harmful action against a person or you utilize that data in a way that is not sanctioned by the person.
  • RymRym
    edited February 2010
    When you use that data to take any harmful action against a person
    Already illegal, though revealing truth about a person is not generally considered illegal, even if that truth causes harm. Truth, at least in America, is defense against libel and slander in most cases. (IANAL)
    or you utilize that data in a way that is not sanctioned by the person.
    I call BS on this restriction. If I quote your post somewhere else or forward/publish an email you sent me, you have zero control over that, nor should you. If you give someone your phone number or email address, they're free to share it with whomever they like. If they find your phone number in public records, they have the same freedom.

    If I know a fact, and have no pre-existing binding contract to the contrary and violated no law in acquiring said fact, I should be able to share this fact as I see fit.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • When I say in a manner not sanctioned, I mean if I e-mail you a draft of a short story and then you publish that short story under your name.
  • I mean if I e-mail you a draft of a short story and then you publish that short story under your name.
    Already covered by existing IP law, happily. ^_^
  • I call BS on this restriction. If I quote your post somewhere else or forward/publish an email you sent me, you have zero control over that, nor should you. If you give someone your phone number or email address, they're free to share it with whomever they like. If they find your phone number in public records, they have the same freedom.
    I had someone once give my gmail address to someone stalking me. I was patently displeased.
  • I had someone once give my gmail address to someone stalking me. I was patently displeased.
    That should be solved by a swift application of a dickpunch.
    It's patently ludicrous.
    I never said it was a good idea. I only said it was the only way. :P If the only way is ludicrous, then I guess that's it, eh?
  • That should be solved by a swift application of a dickpunch.
    Funny how dick punching can solve so many problems, yet is so infrequently applied.

    I long for the day when a judge, before the court, says the words "I hereby sentence you to a dick punch, to be administered by the plaintiff at a date to be determined after this session."
  • I had someone once give my gmail address to someone stalking me. I was patently displeased.
    Why is this a problem? It is trivially solved by a simple e-mail filter.

    Unlike a telephone, where someone can call you repeatedly and harass you simply by calling, e-mail is pull instead of push. It is trivially easy to ignore or block any e-mails you do not want. The same goes for forums like this. If there is someone posting things you do not like, just don't read them.
  • Why is this a problem? It is trivially solved by a simple e-mail filter.
    Oh it wasn't, it was just annoying is all. She already had my cell number and AIM SN. It was just one more way she was trying to intrude into my life.
  • Oh it wasn't, it was just annoying is all. She already had my cell number and AIM SN. It was just one more way she was trying to intrude into my life.
    Dude, you should've hit that.

    In the face.

    ...

    With a brick.
  • One time my mom gave my cell number to a Korean kid who was kinda stalking me.
    He proceeded to call me incessantly, sometimes when drunk, until I told him off. I made it clear that I had a boyfriend and NOT TO CALL ME DURING WORK! That made it better.
  • Oh it wasn't, it was just annoying is all. She already had my cell number and AIM SN. It was just one more way she was trying to intrude into my life.
    Dude, you should've hit that.

    In the face.

    ...

    With a brick.
    image
  • edited February 2010
    One time my mom gave my cell number to a Korean kid who was kinda stalking me.
    He proceeded to call me incessantly, sometimes when drunk, until I told him off. I made it clear that I had a boyfriend and NOT TO CALL ME DURING WORK! That made it better.
    You told that story in one of the early geekchats, me thinks.
    Anyhow, I think information is very much the "genie in the bottle" kind of situation; Once you let to genie out, good luck trying to get him back in. Still, even though the kinds of information aggregation can infer about a person is kinda amazing (and on some level, a bit intruding), I don't think it should be outlawed. A great deal of good can come from aggregation.
    Post edited by Victor Frost on
  • I'm not really as concerned with privacy as much as other people. On most sites I am very open about who I am and what I do. I'm not foolish enough to give out any financial or SS level info, but my full contact information is available to whoever wants it. Yet, doesn't seem like anyone really cares. My e-mail doesn't get spammed, I never get called by anyone, and my mailbox is always empty (like 90% of my mail is Netflix).

    But at the same time, I don't want these services to be giving away other people's information that I happen to have. Google made a huge mistake there.
Sign In or Register to comment.