Privacy vs Open Public Data
Locked
12345
12345
Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data
 
|
On 1/17/13 11:19 AM, glen wrote:
> The problem with this part of the discussion is that because of the > "Information Age, etc." (aka population density ;-), the composition > of polite behavior changes rapidly within an individual's lifetime. > Add to that the mobility of individuals, and there are multiple, > perhaps competing understandings of what polite behavior is. Politics tends to make cliques fragile because individual powerful people defect and one slightly weaker clique can quickly become a powerful clique. The rules they make to lend legitimacy to their endless conflicts can help the little guy! The more competing understandings there are, the less important it is for to conform to any one of them. 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 |
|
|
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 01/18/2013 08:47 AM:
> Politics tends to make cliques fragile because individual powerful > people defect and one slightly weaker clique can quickly become a > powerful clique. The rules they make to lend legitimacy to their > endless conflicts can help the little guy! The more competing > understandings there are, the less important it is for to conform to any > one of them. Right. And that decrease in importance of conforming to any single concept of polite behavior, erodes the concept of polite behavior altogether. And that means polite behavior _must_ change because of the Information Age, etc. -- 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: Privacy vs Open Public Data
|
|
On 1/18/13 10:14 AM, glen wrote:
> And that means polite behavior _must_ change because of the > Information Age, etc. Yes, I see I overstated that for no good reason. Thanks. Still, I think it is important to try to push any enduring group toward polite behavior, however short-lived. Tyranny of the majority and all that. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com |
|
|
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 01/18/2013 09:19 AM:
> Still, I think it is important to try to push any enduring group toward > polite behavior, however short-lived. OK. But the deeper problem is the definition of politeness, especially as a vanishing point ideal. To stress the point, I could argue that, if the clique endures, then whatever behavior they engage in already defines politeness, regardless of how impolite their behavior may seem to an outsider. A personal example is all the touching, hugging, and pressing the flesh people seem to love. I had a boss for awhile that seemed to think it positive to pat his male employees on the back on a regular (like ... high frequency regular) basis. He's a good guy and I kinda like him otherwise. But that incessant touching was seriously irritating. Ugh. -- 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: Privacy vs Open Public Data
|
|
On 1/18/13 10:32 AM, glen wrote:
> To stress the point, I could argue that, if the clique endures, then > whatever behavior they engage in already defines politeness, > regardless of how impolite their behavior may seem to an outsider. I think there is a distinction. Organizations that seek to endure need to prevent bully cliques if for no other reason than so that their officials maintain their authority, e.g. The President needs to tell the Generals what to do, not the reverse. I think it's a scale-free thing. That means holding individual and emergent group behavior to some standard. People at all levels in the organization need to be able to agree that so-and-so went wacko and behaved inappropriately, that they don't need to tolerate it. Individuals can help this to happen just by acting consistently with the implicit standard, especially when it is in their interest to do so. 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 |
|
|
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 01/18/2013 10:12 AM:
> I think there is a distinction. Organizations that seek to endure need > to prevent bully cliques if for no other reason than so that their > officials maintain their authority, e.g. The President needs to tell the > Generals what to do, not the reverse. I think it's a scale-free thing. > > That means holding individual and emergent group behavior to some > standard. People at all levels in the organization need to be able to > agree that so-and-so went wacko and behaved inappropriately, that they > don't need to tolerate it. Individuals can help this to happen just by > acting consistently with the implicit standard, especially when it is in > their interest to do so. Hm. So can we use practical jokes as an example? That domain should bring us back to Nick's original issue. Practical jokers are on the cusp between [im]polite behavior. If you're established as part of the clique (say in a cubicle dominated office), then it's considered polite to, say, smear another clique member's phone with vaseline. But it's considered impolite to do that to someone who's not in the clique, even _if_ that outsider might want to be in the clique. The practical joker clique can easily turn into a bully clique by recognizing the wants of the outsider and as they test her to see if she fits the predicate, if they determine she does not, they may play exceptionally cruel jokes on her in order to clarify her out-group status. But they will maintain that, had someone played those jokes on them, they would have taken it in stride because that's what they do to each other "all the time". In an office setting, the boss has an obligation to set the standards for the practical joke boundaries. But by their very nature, the in-group practical jokers purposefully push those boundaries because that's what the clique is defined as ... that _is_ the predicate. The boss also has a competing constraint to encourage camaraderie. How do the in-group practical jokers define [im]polite? I submit that they must have at least 2 definitions of [im]polite, one for members and one for non-members. And they'll likely have a 3rd for the boss. -- 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: Privacy vs Open Public Data
|
|
On 1/18/13 11:33 AM, glen wrote:
"I submit that they must have at least 2 definitions of [im]polite, one for members and one for non-members. And they'll likely have a 3rd for the boss" No argument really. Just that the definitions probably at least have some constraints -- and that if they aren't somehow reconcilable with the definitions of those in the out-group and the boss, then there may be trouble that damages the organization's productivity. 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 |
|
|
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 01/18/2013 10:47 AM:
> No argument really. Just that the definitions probably at least have > some constraints -- and that if they aren't somehow reconcilable with > the definitions of those in the out-group and the boss, then there may > be trouble that damages the organization's productivity. Interesting. So, going back to embarrassing or implicating a victim by aggregating public data, the guide for when it's [not] OK to do that, might be related to this external set of constraints. By external, I mean external to members (open data advocates) and non-members (privacy advocates) of the clique, as well as an authority figure (prosecutors). While we often assume the prosecutors, or more generally the whole justice dept, are slaves of the law, they're actually not. LEOs bias the law by paying closer attention to various attributes. Hence, the law could be the external constraints you're proposing, right? But we'd need non-LEOs ... perhaps "watchdogs" ... to bridge the gap between the LEO bias and the constraints. If we went in this direction, it would provide an argument for placing legal restrictions on the aggregation of public data. I.e. it's not the vague notion of politeness that does it. It's the implicit status as "watchdog", enforcer of the unenforced-due-to-bias parts of the standard, that does what we need. -- -- 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
OK... so as an example of insider/outsider behaviour, my cartoons
starring Doug are a form of ribbing that has the same quality as practical jokes. I feel I know Doug well enough on and off list to know what he would find rude or hurtful and what he would not, so I am comfortable poking a little fun at him. For example, I know that Doug's self identity includes that of being a Skeptic (Zhiangzi reference) and of being tenacious (as stated). I also know Stephen well enough to do this, but he wisely (or out of boredom with us!) stays out of the fray here, so he is relatively safe. I'm getting to know others well enough that I think I could parody some of you with impunity and possibly with appreciation by the recipients as well as the audience. Glen and I have not finished our back-n-forth about technology, but deep in that conversation is another subconversation about insider/outsider and language... - Steve > Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 01/18/2013 10:12 AM: >> I think there is a distinction. Organizations that seek to endure need >> to prevent bully cliques if for no other reason than so that their >> officials maintain their authority, e.g. The President needs to tell the >> Generals what to do, not the reverse. I think it's a scale-free thing. >> >> That means holding individual and emergent group behavior to some >> standard. People at all levels in the organization need to be able to >> agree that so-and-so went wacko and behaved inappropriately, that they >> don't need to tolerate it. Individuals can help this to happen just by >> acting consistently with the implicit standard, especially when it is in >> their interest to do so. > Hm. So can we use practical jokes as an example? That domain should > bring us back to Nick's original issue. > > Practical jokers are on the cusp between [im]polite behavior. If you're > established as part of the clique (say in a cubicle dominated office), > then it's considered polite to, say, smear another clique member's phone > with vaseline. But it's considered impolite to do that to someone who's > not in the clique, even _if_ that outsider might want to be in the clique. > > The practical joker clique can easily turn into a bully clique by > recognizing the wants of the outsider and as they test her to see if she > fits the predicate, if they determine she does not, they may play > exceptionally cruel jokes on her in order to clarify her out-group > status. But they will maintain that, had someone played those jokes on > them, they would have taken it in stride because that's what they do to > each other "all the time". > > In an office setting, the boss has an obligation to set the standards > for the practical joke boundaries. But by their very nature, the > in-group practical jokers purposefully push those boundaries because > that's what the clique is defined as ... that _is_ the predicate. The > boss also has a competing constraint to encourage camaraderie. > > How do the in-group practical jokers define [im]polite? > > I submit that they must have at least 2 definitions of [im]polite, one > for members and one for non-members. And they'll likely have a 3rd for > the boss. > ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
The interesting thing about making fun of people is the amount of peripheral or contextual information that's necessary. I'm not really a fan of Louis C.K. But if you watch his stand-up, you can see him say the nastiest things without it seeming so nasty. He says these things while smiling or laughing. Of course, he's not a wild-type subject because you know he's a comedian tuned to his audience. But I can also confess that my dad was a master at deadpan cruelty. Not only were we (his family, but mostly my mom) his victims, but I would watch him, in bars [*] and at the Wurstfest, shred someone completely without them having any clue what was happening. The smarter ones would notice that, while he was "ribbing" them, he would watch them extra closely. So, they learned to recognize when they were the butt of the joke by watching him as he told his "story". At his funeral, they would wax poetic about the "twinkle in his eye" when he was telling a joke. Of course, this behavior tended to slough off the people who were just smart enough, yet just insecure enough to recognize when they were the butt of a joke, but not able to recognize it as a joke. That said, my dad was a bully of the first order. If you were too insecure to _take_ the joke, then you were a wimp and a coward. He used his abilities to engineer swaths of people so that they behaved as he wanted them to behave. And the ones that didn't play along were ridiculed and pushed out of the clique. Luckily, he couldn't do that to me. ;-) [*] I was practically reared in a bar called Lloyd's. Lloyd was a one-armed bartender who taught me how to open a beer with one hand at the age of about 8. Oh, and Lloyd had also had a laryngectomy and while not opening beers with his one arm, had to hold a wand to his throat in order to speak. Steve Smith wrote at 01/18/2013 11:43 AM: > OK... so as an example of insider/outsider behaviour, my cartoons > starring Doug are a form of ribbing that has the same quality as > practical jokes. I feel I know Doug well enough on and off list to > know what he would find rude or hurtful and what he would not, so I am > comfortable poking a little fun at him. For example, I know that > Doug's self identity includes that of being a Skeptic (Zhiangzi > reference) and of being tenacious (as stated). > > I also know Stephen well enough to do this, but he wisely (or out of > boredom with us!) stays out of the fray here, so he is relatively > safe. I'm getting to know others well enough that I think I could > parody some of you with impunity and possibly with appreciation by the > recipients as well as the audience. > > Glen and I have not finished our back-n-forth about technology, but deep > in that conversation is another subconversation about insider/outsider > and language... -- 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: Privacy vs Open Public Data
|
|
Well, (he said with a twinkle in his, yet hoping for a friendly riposte in return), that explains a lot. :) --Doug On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Doug Roberts [hidden email] [hidden email] ============================================================ 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: Privacy vs Open Public Data
|
|
EYE! TWINKEL IN HIS FUCKING EYE! On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:
Doug Roberts [hidden email] [hidden email] ============================================================ 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: Privacy vs Open Public Data
|
|
i'VE BEEN CODING ALL DAY. cAN'T SEE STRAIGHT. nOR FIND THE caps KEY. On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:
Doug Roberts [hidden email] [hidden email] ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
Douglas Roberts wrote at 01/18/2013 02:34 PM:
> Well, (he said with a twinkle in his, yet hoping for a friendly riposte in > return), that explains a lot. Ha! Were we in close proximity, I'd stick you in the chest with my rapier and call it a day. Alas, all I have are my ham-handed, context-free words. -- 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 |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Glen -
Thanks for sharing the personal anecdote. It provides context and fodder for later ribbing if it comes to that. I just finished reading J.R. Moehringer's autobiography "The Tender Bar" describing his own raising/coming-of-age in a local tavern where all of his male relatives drank, excepting his father who had left the family and was a radio personality in the big city so that the son could *hear* his father but never really got to know him. Raised firstly by his mother, he was raised also by the male relatives and other denezins of the tavern. There was a lot of insider/outsider understanding in that story as well.[*] I was practically reared in a bar called Lloyd's. Lloyd was a one-armed bartender who taught me how to open a beer with one hand at the age of about 8. Oh, and Lloyd had also had a laryngectomy and while not opening beers with his one arm, had to hold a wand to his throat in order to speak. I myself learned to drink and shark pool (well, I wasn't good enough to shark but I made a good prop for my boss at the time who was excellent at it) in a country tavern (a block from where my friend killed his parents!) just at the edge of town. I towered over most grown men and had a reasonable beard at 16, and accompanied by either my 40 year old boss or my 23 year old sometimes (when it was convenient for her) girlfriend, Nobody questioned me ... It also helped that drinking age was 19 at that time. My presence at the bar was public data and I didn't do anything in particular to keep it private. Fortunately neither of my parents were drinkers (except at home in small quantities) and only a couple of times did it seem like I was close to getting busted. It was a large enough town or small enough city that such a thing could happen... and a good lesson in the issues of public/private. - Steve ============================================================ 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 |
|
|
Steve Smith wrote at 01/18/2013 08:27 PM:
> My presence at the bar was public data and I didn't do anything in > particular to keep it private. Fortunately neither of my parents were > drinkers (except at home in small quantities) and only a couple of times > did it seem like I was close to getting busted. It was a large enough > town or small enough city that such a thing could happen... and a good > lesson in the issues of public/private. I've always found it a fun and interesting challenge when someone I know expresses "too much" knowledge about me. In most polite contexts, this doesn't seem to happen. Everyone is polite enough to let old people tell the same story over and over again, or avoid correcting a friend who remembers things wrong or embellishes for the purpose of the story. I can remember vividly when I first grokked that quote by Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." I was sitting at a crawfish boil at my uncle's house listening to two men (it's always men who do this, I think) discuss in very great detail what roads would take another guy to the beer store. This is in rural Texas and it's debatable whether there were multiple (practical) paths. They went on and on about the distance you had to go on any given road and what landmarks you had to watch for. For me, somewhere at age 12-14 at the time, it was like listening to them talk about baseball or football, which were the other useless subjects they talked for hours about. Amazingly, the guy tasked to make the beer run tolerated all this and showed no apprehension or anxiety whatsoever... perhaps because it's a family full of cajuns? Had it been me, I would have abandoned them and engaged in the search on my own within the first minute ... no wonder they never liked me. >8^) Anyway, my apathy toward that sort of thing changes if someone expresses detailed, true[*], _personal_ knowledge about me, even if it's just one on one conversation. In a friendly setting, it triggers a fugue-ish introspection. In a hostile setting, it triggers a kind of super-search to flesh out the knowledge graph around the factoid the bogey presented, still introspective, but not reflective. [*] Obviously, by "true", I mean their account matches my own memory. If they're wrong, it triggers an entirely different set of behaviors. -- 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 |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |