Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
A conversation with my Mum
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
From Mom:
Whaddya think of this?:
Washington Post Buzz Article
Mom
Comments
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
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.
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
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!
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.
-Emi
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?
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.
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.
It is just like making any public statement. Once made it cannot be unmade.
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.
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."
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.
In the face.
...
With a brick.
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.
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.
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.