"Reality Mining" Resets the Privacy Debate 209
An anonymous reader sends us to the NYTimes for a sobering look at the frontiers of "collective intelligence," also called in the article "reality mining." These techniques go several steps beyond the pedestrian version of "data mining" with which the Pentagon and/or DHS have been flirting. The article profiles projects at MIT, UCLA, Google, and elsewhere in networked sensor research and other forms of collective intelligence. "About 100 students at MIT agreed to completely give away their privacy to get a free smartphone. 'Now, when he dials another student, researchers know. When he sends an e-mail or text message, they also know. When he listens to music, they know the song. Every moment he has his Windows Mobile smartphone with him, they know where he is, and who's nearby.' ... Indeed, some collective-intelligence researchers argue that strong concerns about privacy rights are a relatively recent phenomenon in human history. ... 'For most of human history, people have lived in small tribes where everything they did was known by everyone they knew,' Dr. Malone said. 'In some sense we're becoming a global village. Privacy may turn out to have become an anomaly.'"
Privacy as a recent phenomenon (Score:5, Insightful)
Providers should bear some of the responsibility (Score:2, Insightful)
I wonder... (Score:2, Insightful)
I also wonder how his behaviour might be different if he didn't know he was being watched.
privacy not an anomaly (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit.
First of all, "history" post-dates civilization. People have been gathering into villages, larger than small tribes, for longer than we've known how to write. So, no, we haven't lived in small tribes for most of human history. Most of us have been living in agricultural villages for all of human history - those few who still maintained a hunter-gatherer lifestyle didn't get recorded and are ahistorical.
Anyway. For most of human existence, to get privacy all you had to do was walk away a bit. If I wanted to have a private conversation with you, walking for twenty minutes out of the campsite or village would do it. And what went on in another hut or teepee was not your business; spying was non-trivial.
This idea that privacy is a temporary anomaly is a bullshit justification by lovers of a surveillance society.
Bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Privacy may turn out to have become an anomaly.
Ridiculous. If this were true, why didn't everyone in those old-school villages live in the same big hut? Likewise with animal homes. As some poster above said, territoriality, and hence privacy, is inherent to all life above a certain intelligence threshold.
Though, as in all things, there are exceptions to prove the rule. Like dirty hippies.
Not the same at all (Score:1, Insightful)
'For most of human history, people have lived in small tribes where everything they did was known by everyone they knew,'
Bad analogy. People in someone's physical neighbourhood would know what the person was doing. Go to another village, and the first village would not know. Take a would alone in the forest, and noone would know exactly where you'd been. Now we have an omniscient observer who knows everything we do all of the time, even if s/he is not physically around, or even unknown to us.
And even more dangerous, this flood of information is used to draw conclusions from...
-peter
Can I personally accost the global village elder? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is, it's not reciprocal (Score:5, Insightful)
'For most of human history, people have lived in small tribes where everything they did was known by everyone they knew...' The key is 'everyone they knew'. That is, they knew everything about everyone who knew everything about them. With the 'global village', people I don't know can know everything about me; but I can't know everything about anyone else, including them. So, I don't know their motives or intentions with respect to the info they have about me. So, I don't want them having that info about me.
Re:About privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not particularly attractive with my balding head and too-large belly
With your too-large belly you have a higher risk at heart disease, but I guess you don't mind your insurance company finding out about it and charging you a higher fee...
Re:About privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
poly-culturalism (Score:5, Insightful)
EVERY culture is "really fucked up" when compared to any other culture ... based upon the bias of the person doing the comparing.
You can find single examples to demonstrate that claim ... but you cannot find multiple examples in a single ancient culture to support it. Again, depending upon the bias of the person doing the comparing.
Culture X was more enlightened regarding Y than modern cultures ... but less enlightened regarding A, B, C and D.
That's the trap of that "logic". (Score:5, Insightful)
It's okay to have the information open ... as long as the information is not used in any way that you disapprove of.
The problem is that once the information is open, you no longer control it. You do NOT have a say in how it will be used.
If it is used in some way that you do not want it to be used, sucks to be you. That is why privacy is important.
Talk about misunderstanding previous societies (Score:4, Insightful)
'For most of human history, people have lived in small tribes where everything they did was known by everyone they knew,' Dr. Malone said. 'In some sense we're becoming a global village. Privacy may turn out to have become an anomaly.'"
Well, hats off to for completely misunderstanding previous societies.
Yes, before the telegraph we didn't have good comms. Messages took days, even weeks to be conveyed. Then they took a few minutes.
Now they are almost instant.
That is nothing to do with previous village societies where small groups of people would know everything about everyone else in the same small group.
The state still knew NOTHING about those people.
And industry and commerce and marketing groups and political pressure groups knew NOTHING about these people.
Its a totally different ball game. To compare the old "I know everyone in my street" mentality to global gropu associations is grossly ignorant. They are not comparable.
Therefore the privacy implications are completely different.
Stephen, can't be bothered to login.
Re:I call bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
I've got nothing to hide.
But the Government shouldn't be looking either.
What about the privacy of others? (Score:4, Insightful)
What measures are being taken to ensure that the privacy of others who communicate with these students isn't being compromised? Are they having the students tell everyone they communicate with, "Hey, I'm in this data gathering study, so everything you send to my phone is going to be collected for study?"
If they're not doing the above, how are the students any different from the informants employed by the East German STASI?
Re:Privacy as a recent phenomenon (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, because what happens in some other culture completely invalidates the point. I mean clearly he's being culturally insensitive for not using an example that's relevant to every possible culture.
But hey, it's not like the reader is supposed to consider the point offered on it's merits instead of making culturally insensitive remarks. What fun is posting if rational thought gets in the way of bigotry.
Re:About privacy (Score:0, Insightful)
If a crazy law is passed, then the problem is the crazy law, not whether something only tangentially related makes it easier to enforce.
Huge difference (Score:4, Insightful)
> For most of human history, people have lived in small tribes where everything they did was known by everyone they knew,'
> Dr. Malone said. 'In some sense we're becoming a global village. Privacy may turn out to have become an anomaly.
There's huge difference. In the tribal setting, a small group of people knew everything about each other, but that small group of people had to deal with the consequences of misusing that trust because they lived and died based on the strength of their community.
In the global village, people are numbers with attributes associated with them. You're free to misuse this lack of privacy without bearing the consequences or even seeing the faces of the people whose lives you hurt or even destroy.
Hit the nail on the head (Score:3, Insightful)
How do they feel about people outside their "tribe" knowing this stuff? I know a lot of people who share pretty personal stuff on LJ but locked to friends, but I wouldn't claim to know them that well.
People have a very different emotional reaction between, "Oh, all my friends found out about it," and "Oh, everyone in town found out about it," and "Oh, crap, it's all over the internet and the news now. I will forever be known as 'the Noodle Guy'" (to quasi-steal from Calvin & Hobbes).
Some things you can live down because everybody knows you. Other things you can't because that's all most people know about you. It's the difference between having no privacy between peers and being infamous in the community.
Also, privacy gives people a chance to redeem themselves or start their lives over if things get really bad. When some incident becomes enshrined on the internet or in the news for all to find when searching for your name, your job prospects and love life can be ruined forever in a way that wasn't possible when you could just pack up and leave for somewhere where people didn't know all your past sins.
cracker jack PhD (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you get to be a doctor by spewing out crap like this? Far from actual justification, it's quite a poor analogy, even on Slashdot.
If you were to go back in time and join a tribal village, everyone else may know everything you do, but you also know everything they do. However in today's world, corporations and governments want to know everything about the populace but keep their own activities a closely-guarded secret.
In tribal communities, knowledge of others' activities is balanced. In "civilized society," the distribution of knowledge (not to mention money and power) is extremely lopsided. Those in power want to keep it that way. If everyone knew about all of their activities, they wouldn't be able to retain their power for very long.
I would actually be in favor of a surveillance state if (and *only* if) the camera points both ways. They get to see what goes on through cameras on our streets and outside every home and we get to see everything that goes on around every police car and inside every government meeting. But since that's never going to happen, the only sensible thing to do is fight for no cameras at all, losing battle though it may be.
Re:"Privacy" in a crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody thinks twice about talking on their phone in public. Anyone can listen in if they wish, but they usually don't. It's not privacy that most people have issue with, it's being singled out. As has been said many times, it's not a problem so long as everyone is treated the same way. General trends and statistics are fine, it's being the focus of attention of Big Brother that gets creepy.
But that's the problem with what is happening to privacy. It's the citizens that are losing their privacy, while governments are keeping more and more secrets, and guarding them fiercely (and with heavy weaponry).
It should be the opposite. Everything the government does should be transparent (at least to their own citizens), and they should be required to go to extraordinary lengths to obtain private information about their citizens. Otherwise, tyranny will inevitably result. As they say "knowledge is power", and gaining knowledge of citizens while denying knowledge of government to the citizens is nothing but a semi-transparent power-grab.
Considering the amount of authority vested in government representatives, we should be demanding much greater transparency, just to level the playing field.
Re:About privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
If a crazy law is passed, then the problem is the crazy law, not whether something only tangentially related makes it easier to enforce.
Hey, that's going to make the guy that gets arrested and persectued/tortured/whatever for some mildly kinky sex act feel *much* better!
"Hey, I realise that you probably wouldn't have got caught if they hadn't been able to spy on you like that... but that's really not the problem here! In a world where only fair and sensible laws are passed and fluffy bunnies and magical fairies live, it wouldn't have mattered."
Wake up and get real. It's nice that you have the luxury of arguing this in idealised, abstract and separate terms. However, in the real world, the fact that this would make it exponentially easier to enforce repressive laws *is* as much the problem.
Re:About privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
"Honestly, there is very little I do or say that I care if it's kept private."
In that case, would you mind telling us ... I'm joking of course, but there is a very serious point, in that total information one someone, allows total power over them. The wishful thinking reply to that, is that with total information on everyone then everyone can see the crime being commited. No. That's not going to happen. In the case of a petty criminal, like the above example, yes it will stop them. But it will not stop a powerful political group seeking to use total information to gain great power over others and to push out their competitors. Even push out other political groups, in effect creating dictatorships.
(1)... Where you live.
(2)... When you will be on holiday
(3)... Where you hide anything valuable.
(4)... PROFIT!
Its an illusion to think that everyone will have total information on everyone else. The world doesn't work like that. The world forms a hierachy of power, its not flat and open. The ones at the top in power are not going to let that power be taken from them. They will create laws protecting against information being allowed on them, while making it open season for information on everyone else, so they can watch what others are doing. Its what is happening now. Just look at the political moves being made in the UK for example. (Ironically the home country of George Orwell).
The power stuggles will not end, with total information... This reality mining is a naive dream. It reminds me of the early wishful thinking dreams in the early stages of the Internet, where it was said and seen as some kind of utopian force for freedom of speech. Now look at where the Internet is going, with many countries trying to clamp down and monitor the Internet for decent. Detecting decent is all part of the process of seeking political power. This process is called Opposition Research and its a whole area of political activity, that most people don't usually get to see, but it occurs continuously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_research [wikipedia.org]
Now imagine total Opposition Research applied to vast majority of people on the planet. They will do Opposition Research on everyone, be absolutely sure of this one point, its all part of the process of seeking power over someone else.
You're tranposing "economics" and "good". (Score:4, Insightful)
Look up the historical records of how "social good" is defined. You'll find everything from slavery to genocide.
See above. Individuals throughout history have opposed the "social good" of the time and we regard them as selfless heroes now.
It is the choice of the individual. Not the society.
I worked for an insurance company. They aren't doing it because they think they're improving society.
They're doing it because the owners believe they, personally, can turn a profit. And they believe that the more information they can collect, the greater their profit (and the smaller their losses) will be.
Don't confuse "economical" with "good".
Yes, of course it is.
Again, look up slavery and genocide.
It "may well be" ... but if you study history you'll see that the opposite seems to be the norm.
The more privacy the population has, the more "Free" that society is.
The less privacy the population has, the less "Free" that society is.
Re:Not the same at all (Score:3, Insightful)
The religious right puts forward an omnipotent God that watches us everywhere we go and ultimately judges all of our actions and determines the state of our eternal soul. So they are already inherently conditioned to this big brother mentality. The part that I have a hard time following is they are also the ones that tend to be the biggest pushers for this kind of big brother society run by man. The conditioning part of it makes sense, but it seems to me by demanding it in their own society they are questioning their God's ability to watch/judge. This is actually pretty counter to the teachings they claim to uphold because it is pretty clear about the whole don't worry about what anyone else is up to because God will judge them.
It is amusing watching them try to work around that argument btw if you ever have that conversation. "So, what you are telling me is that you need the power to watch me and judge me because God can't?" What these people represent and what is actually in their little book they beat on are most often two very different things. For those of you above the intelligence level of "haha invisible sky wizard" mocking, you should flip through New Testement stuff (the basis of Christianity). In a nutshell the whole story is about an angry jewish kid who fights the legalistic approach to religion at the time and gets executed for it. That this spawned a new legalistic religion in his name is terribly ironic. There are some real gems in there that can be used to absolutely destroy fundamentalist arguments using their own "weapon". Getting them mad at sky wizard drivel isn't nearly as entertaining as watching them get stuck fighting the words of their own savior as documented in their own holy texts.
Re:About privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, there is very little I do or say that I care if it's kept private.
The point of all this is, some people worry too much about their privacy.
Since you take an extreme position on this, let's take some extreme examples to show that the issue is far wider than the fact that you think you have nothing to hide.
Should you walk directly to your car from the door of the supermarket, or stop to look at that attractive woman loading her groceries first? If you stop, will that action be recorded and used against you by your wife in 10 years time? Do you smack down that moron accusing you of butting into the queue when you were there before him, in case you're being videoed from an angle where he looks like he's in the right? What do you say to your boss when he asks you whether you did your 7 hours that time you were working from home? Does he know that you spent 30 mins reading the paper after lunch?
If you made literally everything in your life available to the scrutiny of persons unknown, you would have to live your life as if in one eternal press conference: every word and every action would have to be pre-meditated and vetted inside your head (the only private place you had). Look up the word "panopticon" and you'll see where I'm going with this.
Now, you may tell me not to exaggerate, that things will never get that bad. The point is though - when will you draw the line? When you have some privacy to protect? If so, how much?
Or do you think that wresting control of your life back from those who have it is going to be easier than giving it to them in the first place? After all, I suppose if you have nothing to hide...
We won't know what hit us (Score:2, Insightful)
In addition to the obvious, there is a more insidious second order effect that professional social engineers (madison avenue, politicians, con artists, etc.) will have the feedback to really fine tune their approach. It will be a focus group of 100% accuracy.
Re:About privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
I utterly reject your philosophy (Score:3, Insightful)
Its as simple as that. It is morally bankrupt and I have to say I see your position as both simplistic in the extreme and grossly myopic.
Nobody is claiming insurance companies aren't operating for profit, of course they are. So what? It is simply irrelevant. You have cast the whole question into some sort of zero sum equation where if they gain you loose. You'll have to do better than that.
I also disagree that privacy and freedom are inextricably entwined in such a way that a simplistic "if we have less privacy we have less freedom" is a justifiable position. Prove it.
If your theory of ethical behavior is nothing more than you blindly maximizing your own selfish interests then I pity you friend.
Re:There is no proof outside of mathematics. (Score:3, Insightful)
Cite a 'historical fact'.
Here, I'll give you an alternative analysis of your freedom/privacy formulation. Left to their own devices people tend to be secretive. Thus I would say that it is quite true that totalitarian societies don't respect privacy, but they by definition don't respect ANYTHING about individuals, so I can't see where you have established cause and effect. More like reversed it the way I see it.
Show me one example from history in which a free people freely gave up their privacy and that LED to a totalitarian state. Just one.
Re:Hmmm, here's another point of view (Score:3, Insightful)
I have advanced a hypothesis that there can be benefits to giving up privacy. I am not trying to maintain that there is a single unalterable principle that says we should surrender all information about ourselves to everyone at all times (although one might make that case). Just that there is some (probably a great deal) of information we could benefit from sharing. Indeed anonymization may be a pretty good strategy.
It is all well and good, and I don't disparage people for being prudent, but I think we're doing ourselves and society in general a disservice if we simply reject the concept of openness out of hand.
There is another consideration as well. Sticking to one's guns to the bitter end seems all noble and romantic and all, but it is rarely the most prudent course of action. I thus advance the hypothesis that privacy, at least as we have known it in this country over the last couple of centuries is a dead letter. The choice is only between a hopeless and ultimately futile resistance to the inevitable, or a measured and thoughtful institution of mechanisms which could mitigate the possible harmful effects of living in the open. We can put up the noble resistance and we'll end up with a system where the information is shared in some secretive place somewhere out of the control of the public, or we can go ahead and create a reasonable set of rules by which the information can be shared in the open with some level of accountability and control. That may not be a terribly palatable position for me to take from the perspective of die hard libertarians, but reality always triumphs over principle...
I think that is cogent (Score:3, Insightful)
Although I suspect that military secrecy is highly overrated myself. In my experience in the defense industry what I observed was that secrecy was mainly a way of hiding greed and corruption. The projects I worked on weren't secret because it served any military purpose, they were secret because they were a giant waste of money.
Granted, if you want to fight a war, then you would pretty much require operational level military secrecy. So, hmmm, that might lead me to conclude that war in an open society is pretty much impossible. Can't really exactly see that as a disadvantage myself... ;)
Disparity of power could be an issue. In my mind that is an argument for 'no half measures'. What I fear most is that by resisting openness tooth and nail we set the stage for exactly that scenario. The powerful will still gather massive amounts of information about the rest of us, but if we force them to do it covertly, and don't give ourselves the right to do the same back to them, then we've lost. Privacy IMHO IS dead, that isn't an issue anymore. The technology exists to learn virtually anything about anyone, and that technology WILL be used. It is useless to fight the hopeless battle of trying to undo that or deny its use to the powerful. The only question left open is whether or not the rest of us also get access. If we ourselves resist that, then we're our own worst enemies.