Friam

online privacy (again)

Classic

List

Threaded

12 messages Options

Nick Thompson

online privacy (again)

Hi, everybody,

Did you see this odd, avuncular op-ed from the Federal Trade Commission?

I don’t know whether it reassured me more than it scared the living bejeesus out of me. “Big-Brother’s Big Brother is looking out for you.”

I take it back about contempt: If one of you would like to write me an email, right now, which begins, “Nick, you miserable, feckless, idiot: go immediately to your browser properties, google profile, registry, WHATEVER, and do the following N things. And tell everybody in your family to do the same.” , I would give you a totally free pass on the contempt thing. And be grateful for it.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

http://www.cusf.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: online privacy (again)

Some forms of ignorance and/or stupidity are worthy, nay, richly deserving of contempt. And disparagement. We have, IMO, a societal obligation to push back against stupidity, and arrogance, and studied ignorance.

But not on this topic. Times are a changin'. Personal privacy no longer exists if you use internet technologies to communicate, or browse for information, or to share pictures of your kitties. Or look up bomb recipes. If you're going to do something online that could come back to bite you, you'd better become a top-notch expert on anonymizing technologies and methodology and practices.

Get used to it, it is the way it is.

--Doug

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, everybody,

Did you see this odd, avuncular op-ed from the Federal Trade Commission?

I don’t know whether it reassured me more than it scared the living bejeesus out of me. “Big-Brother’s Big Brother is looking out for you.”

I take it back about contempt: If one of you would like to write me an email, right now, which begins, “Nick, you miserable, feckless, idiot: go immediately to your browser properties, google profile, registry, WHATEVER, and do the following N things. And tell everybody in your family to do the same.” , I would give you a totally free pass on the contempt thing. And be grateful for it.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

http://www.cusf.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: online privacy (again)

Lest there be any misapprehension that increased internet surveillance is a predominantly US artifact, take a glance at where the UK appears to be heading:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/01/1411238/british-government-to-grant-warrantless-trawl-of-communications-data

--Doug

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

Very little wisdom is required to realize that any online communication is subject to government scrutiny these days. You just have to keep abreast of the news.

If this particular topic interests you, I'd suggest that you add http://slashdot.org/ to your reading list. Privacy issues are discussed nearly every day there, sometimes, even, by experts.

--Doug

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thank you doug, for your wisdom AND for your mercy. Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 10:02 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] online privacy (again)

Some forms of ignorance and/or stupidity are worthy, nay, richly deserving of contempt. And disparagement. We have, IMO, a societal obligation to push back against stupidity, and arrogance, and studied ignorance.

But not on this topic. Times are a changin'. Personal privacy no longer exists if you use internet technologies to communicate, or browse for information, or to share pictures of your kitties. Or look up bomb recipes. If you're going to do something online that could come back to bite you, you'd better become a top-notch expert on anonymizing technologies and methodology and practices.

Get used to it, it is the way it is.

--Doug
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, everybody,

Did you see this odd, avuncular op-ed from the Federal Trade Commission?

I don’t know whether it reassured me more than it scared the living bejeesus out of me. “Big-Brother’s Big Brother is looking out for you.”

I take it back about contempt: If one of you would like to write me an email, right now, which begins, “Nick, you miserable, feckless, idiot: go immediately to your browser properties, google profile, registry, WHATEVER, and do the following N things. And tell everybody in your family to do the same.” , I would give you a totally free pass on the contempt thing. And be grateful for it.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

http://www.cusf.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" value="+15054557333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" value="+15056708195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" value="+15054557333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" value="+15056708195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Robert Lancaster-3

Re: online privacy (again)

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

I need to inject a strenuous objection to the response "get used to it." which affects me much like the supposed red

flag and the bull. I will stipulate the enormous odds that face whoever will refuse to "get used to it," but we had

better remember that just about anyone who has refused to "get used to" hundreds or thousands of hopeless

situations throughout most of human history has faced impossible odds except that in quite a few cases they

turned out not to be impossible. Yes. this is a tough one. They have all been tough. The truly hopeless response,

however, is only surrender. II'll stick with Churchill…Never give in, Never give in Never never never NEVER.

Losing the fight is only defeat. Get used to it is surrender.

Bob Lancaster

On Apr 2, 2012, at 10:11 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

Thank you doug, for your wisdom AND for your mercy. Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 10:02 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] online privacy (again)

Some forms of ignorance and/or stupidity are worthy, nay, richly deserving of contempt. And disparagement. We have, IMO, a societal obligation to push back against stupidity, and arrogance, and studied ignorance.

But not on this topic. Times are a changin'. Personal privacy no longer exists if you use internet technologies to communicate, or browse for information, or to share pictures of your kitties. Or look up bomb recipes. If you're going to do something online that could come back to bite you, you'd better become a top-notch expert on anonymizing technologies and methodology and practices.

Get used to it, it is the way it is.

--Doug
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi, everybody,

Did you see this odd, avuncular op-ed from the Federal Trade Commission?

I don’t know whether it reassured me more than it scared the living bejeesus out of me. “Big-Brother’s Big Brother is looking out for you.”

I take it back about contempt: If one of you would like to write me an email, right now, which begins, “Nick, you miserable, feckless, idiot: go immediately to your browser properties, google profile, registry, WHATEVER, and do the following N things. And tell everybody in your family to do the same.” , I would give you a totally free pass on the contempt thing. And be grateful for it.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
http://www.cusf.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Re: online privacy (again)

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

Bob,
I'm not the expert on internet rules and regulations by any means... but... I think this situation is a bit different. In particular, hasn't it always been the case that most everything you do on the web is, in some important sense, public. You have an IP number, you go through shared servers that connect the url you enter with another specific computer, you use shared wires, shared protocols, etc. Unless you are direct-connecting to a specific IP address with a secure line, you are probably interacting in an easily intercept-able way. As I understand it, using the internet is much the same as conversing in a public square - sure, most people don't care what you are saying, and have no interest in ease-dropping, but it would not be very hard for a stranger to ease drop if they wanted to.

All that has changed, is that some large and powerful entity has announced, openly, that it will begin listening to what people say in the public square. That is, nothing about the square has changed, and people may still use it as they see fit, but there is a higher probability that someone is listening as they walk by. What is there to resist? What would such resistance accomplish? Your options are to not care and go about your business as before, to learn to talk in some sophisticated code, or to stop using the square. What else is there?

Eric

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 01:36 PM, Robert Lancaster <[hidden email]> wrote:

I need to inject a strenuous objection to the response "get used to it." which affects me much like the supposed red

flag and the bull. I will stipulate the enormous odds that face whoever will refuse to "get used to it," but we had

better remember that just about anyone who has refused to "get used to" hundreds or thousands of hopeless

situations throughout most of human history has faced impossible odds except that in quite a few cases they

turned out not to be impossible. Yes. this is a tough one. They have all been tough. The truly hopeless response,

however, is only surrender. II'll stick with Churchill…Never give in, Never give in Never never never NEVER.

Losing the fight is only defeat. Get used to it is surrender.

Bob Lancaster

On Apr 2, 2012, at 10:11 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

Thank you doug, for your wisdom AND for your mercy. Nick

From: friam-bounces@... [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 10:02 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] online privacy (again)

Some forms of ignorance and/or stupidity are worthy, nay, richly deserving of contempt. And disparagement. We have, IMO, a societal obligation to push back against stupidity, and arrogance, and studied ignorance.

But not on this topic. Times are a changin'. Personal privacy no longer exists if you use internet technologies to communicate, or browse for information, or to share pictures of your kitties. Or look up bomb recipes. If you're going to do something online that could come back to bite you, you'd better become a top-notch expert on anonymizing technologies and methodology and practices.

Get used to it, it is the way it is.

--Doug

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Nicholas Thompson <nickthompson@...> wrote:

Hi, everybody,

Did you see this odd, avuncular op-ed from the Federal Trade Commission?

I don’t know whether it reassured me more than it scared the living bejeesus out of me. “Big-Brother’s Big Brother is looking out for you.”

I take it back about contempt: If one of you would like to write me an email, right now, which begins, “Nick, you miserable, feckless, idiot: go immediately to your browser properties, google profile, registry, WHATEVER, and do the following N things. And tell everybody in your family to do the same.” , I would give you a totally free pass on the contempt thing. And be grateful for it.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

<a href="http://home.earthlink.net/%7Enickthompson/naturaldesigns/" target="" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; " onclick="window.open('http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/');return false;">http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

<a href="http://www.cusf.org/" target="" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; " onclick="window.open('http://www.cusf.org/');return false;">http://www.cusf.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a href="http://www.friam.org" target="" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; " onclick="window.open('http://www.friam.org');return false;">http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
droberts@...
doug@...

<a href="http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins" target="" style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; " onclick="window.open('http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins');return false;">http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at <a href="http://www.friam.org" onclick="window.open('http://www.friam.org');return false;">http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

glen ropella

Re: online privacy (again)

ERIC P. CHARLES wrote at 04/02/2012 12:08 PM:
> What is there to resist? What would such resistance accomplish?
> Your options are to not care and go about your business as before, to learn to
> talk in some sophisticated code, or to stop using the square. What else is
> there?

There are at least 2 other resistance routes ... possibly more.

1) Use tools like the internet _more_ ... as much as you can, and
2) Press for _laws_ that prevent asymmetries and the enforcement of
those laws on asymmetric agents (like Presidents who commit crimes but
bet -- and usually win -- that they'll never be prosecuted).

(1) contributes to "security through obscurity". The more normal people
use the media for normal activities, the more difficult it will be to
de-anonymize (make personal) any subset of transactions. And while
security through obscurity is terrible when used in isolation, it can
help. [*]

(2) The prevalence for openness we see in our youth is _not_ identical
to apathy about who's snooping. The openness is, I think, a lack of
wisdom about how asymmetric relationships can become. The problems
don't lie in people _knowing_ that I have cats and what they look like.
The problem lies in nefarious or all-powerful agents knowing that I
have cats and what they look like. Any federal agency (by the very
definition of "federal") sets up an asymmetric relation from the start.
And _that's_ bad. Asymmetry always leads to abuse, unless it is well
regulated.

So, definitely don't just get used to it. Push for research into where
anonymity fosters or hinders human rights. Push for open government.
Guilt trip your friends into setting up and using GPG, Tor, BitTorrent,
Etc. Use the internet for buying groceries and talking to grandma as
well as downloading music and looking up bomb recipes. Etc. Do anything
_but_ give up and get used to whatever bad situation you're in.

[*] Using the commons for things other than specific "suspicious"
activity is what the Occupy movement is all about. If we only encrypt
our _important_ e-mails, then the NSA knows _exactly_ which e-mails to
attack. It's so obvious I'm totally confused why more people don't
support Occupy. We should not only protest in the commons ... we should
also play chess there ... drink beer there ... play football there ... etc.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

James Steiner

Re: online privacy (again)

Option 1, use the network more (throw out chaff), won't work, unless you are very sophisticated about the chaff you produce. Normal unecrypted communications are easy to filter and sort.

The real answer is For everyone to use *encrypted* communications more. Aka SSL/VPN everywhere.

The more we use encrypted communications for everyday things, there is no new pattern to detect when we use it for...other...things.

As for the outputs like twitter, discus(forum comment system), Reddit, etc, it is key that anonymous or pseudonymous speech remain available.

~~James

On Apr 3, 2012 7:32 PM, "glen" <[hidden email]> wrote:

ERIC P. CHARLES wrote at 04/02/2012 12:08 PM:
> What is there to resist? What would such resistance accomplish?
> Your options are to not care and go about your business as before, to learn to
> talk in some sophisticated code, or to stop using the square. What else is
> there?

There are at least 2 other resistance routes ... possibly more.

1) Use tools like the internet _more_ ... as much as you can, and
2) Press for _laws_ that prevent asymmetries and the enforcement of
those laws on asymmetric agents (like Presidents who commit crimes but
bet -- and usually win -- that they'll never be prosecuted).

(1) contributes to "security through obscurity". The more normal people
use the media for normal activities, the more difficult it will be to
de-anonymize (make personal) any subset of transactions. And while
security through obscurity is terrible when used in isolation, it can
help. [*]

(2) The prevalence for openness we see in our youth is _not_ identical
to apathy about who's snooping. The openness is, I think, a lack of
wisdom about how asymmetric relationships can become. The problems
don't lie in people _knowing_ that I have cats and what they look like.
The problem lies in nefarious or all-powerful agents knowing that I
have cats and what they look like. Any federal agency (by the very
definition of "federal") sets up an asymmetric relation from the start.
And _that's_ bad. Asymmetry always leads to abuse, unless it is well
regulated.

So, definitely don't just get used to it. Push for research into where
anonymity fosters or hinders human rights. Push for open government.
Guilt trip your friends into setting up and using GPG, Tor, BitTorrent,
Etc. Use the internet for buying groceries and talking to grandma as
well as downloading music and looking up bomb recipes. Etc. Do anything
_but_ give up and get used to whatever bad situation you're in.

[*] Using the commons for things other than specific "suspicious"
activity is what the Occupy movement is all about. If we only encrypt
our _important_ e-mails, then the NSA knows _exactly_ which e-mails to
attack. It's so obvious I'm totally confused why more people don't
support Occupy. We should not only protest in the commons ... we should
also play chess there ... drink beer there ... play football there ... etc.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

James Steiner

Re: online privacy (again)

Whoops, sorry glen, I didn't read to the end of your post, missed the "*". I said what you already said. Sorry.

~~James

On Apr 3, 2012 10:06 PM, "James Steiner" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Option 1, use the network more (throw out chaff), won't work, unless you are very sophisticated about the chaff you produce. Normal unecrypted communications are easy to filter and sort.

The real answer is For everyone to use *encrypted* communications more. Aka SSL/VPN everywhere.

The more we use encrypted communications for everyday things, there is no new pattern to detect when we use it for...other...things.

As for the outputs like twitter, discus(forum comment system), Reddit, etc, it is key that anonymous or pseudonymous speech remain available.

~~James

On Apr 3, 2012 7:32 PM, "glen" <[hidden email]> wrote:
ERIC P. CHARLES wrote at 04/02/2012 12:08 PM:
> What is there to resist? What would such resistance accomplish?
> Your options are to not care and go about your business as before, to learn to
> talk in some sophisticated code, or to stop using the square. What else is
> there?

There are at least 2 other resistance routes ... possibly more.

1) Use tools like the internet _more_ ... as much as you can, and
2) Press for _laws_ that prevent asymmetries and the enforcement of
those laws on asymmetric agents (like Presidents who commit crimes but
bet -- and usually win -- that they'll never be prosecuted).

(1) contributes to "security through obscurity". The more normal people
use the media for normal activities, the more difficult it will be to
de-anonymize (make personal) any subset of transactions. And while
security through obscurity is terrible when used in isolation, it can
help. [*]

(2) The prevalence for openness we see in our youth is _not_ identical
to apathy about who's snooping. The openness is, I think, a lack of
wisdom about how asymmetric relationships can become. The problems
don't lie in people _knowing_ that I have cats and what they look like.
The problem lies in nefarious or all-powerful agents knowing that I
have cats and what they look like. Any federal agency (by the very
definition of "federal") sets up an asymmetric relation from the start.
And _that's_ bad. Asymmetry always leads to abuse, unless it is well
regulated.

So, definitely don't just get used to it. Push for research into where
anonymity fosters or hinders human rights. Push for open government.
Guilt trip your friends into setting up and using GPG, Tor, BitTorrent,
Etc. Use the internet for buying groceries and talking to grandma as
well as downloading music and looking up bomb recipes. Etc. Do anything
_but_ give up and get used to whatever bad situation you're in.

[*] Using the commons for things other than specific "suspicious"
activity is what the Occupy movement is all about. If we only encrypt
our _important_ e-mails, then the NSA knows _exactly_ which e-mails to
attack. It's so obvious I'm totally confused why more people don't
support Occupy. We should not only protest in the commons ... we should
also play chess there ... drink beer there ... play football there ... etc.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: online privacy (again)

In reply to this post by James Steiner

So. In short. Has everybody BUT me gone to some toggle in Google and in Firefox and in I.E. and done something like “turn off tracking”. Is the peril anything worse that when I am trying to show you the “Great New Ap” on my lAPtop, google keeps putting up ads for a lotion that will grow hair on a billiard ball? Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of James Steiner
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 8:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] online privacy (again)

Option 1, use the network more (throw out chaff), won't work, unless you are very sophisticated about the chaff you produce. Normal unecrypted communications are easy to filter and sort.

The real answer is For everyone to use *encrypted* communications more. Aka SSL/VPN everywhere.

The more we use encrypted communications for everyday things, there is no new pattern to detect when we use it for...other...things.

As for the outputs like twitter, discus(forum comment system), Reddit, etc, it is key that anonymous or pseudonymous speech remain available.

~~James

On Apr 3, 2012 7:32 PM, "glen" <[hidden email]> wrote:

glen ropella

Re: online privacy (again)

Refined control (and awareness) of what's on your machine (executing as
well as stored -- and "machine" means pretty much anything from your car
to your jewelry) is important. But that hasn't changed. When I was a
kid, it was important to know what type of carburetor you had, what
gauges you had on your dash, what music you had in your boom box, etc.

Nowadays, it's just a little different. It's important to know what
hardware comes with your phone and what software is executing on it ...
or, for that matter, what h/w is mounted in your car and what software
runs on it. (I'm participating in the very evil Progressive Insurance
Snapshot program. They log all my trips with a little device plugged
into the computer port. With my truck, it's quite obvious because it
sticks out under the dash. But with other cars, it might be fun to get
one and plug it into your spouse's or your friend's cars just to monitor
their trips. Progressive wouldn't know if you used your snapshot in
someone else's car. ;-) More importantly, it wouldn't be difficult to
build your own little device and hook it to your friend's car's computer
to take different/more data.)

The moral? Know what's on/in your machines.

But this knowledge isn't all that important. As we continue to populate
the earth with more humans engaging in more frivolous activity, the more
difficult it will be to _manage_ the population's activities. We'll
either fall into some speciation pattern where the _hub_ organizations
like the FTC or the NSA will be able to manage whole demographics, or
the system will crash. As James points out, the unencrypted
communication is easy to filter out to some extent. But, as we also see
with the rise of the DDoS attack (for political activism as well as
nefarious purposes) and co-evolutionary spamming technology, more
traffic can be strategically used to debilitate the filters.

So, what matters is that we put _everything_ online. If the feds want
to know the contents of our urine and whether we ate our peas at dinner,
then I say let's tell them! Resistance will eventually take the form of
open participation.

Openness is the enemy of asymmetry.

Now, if you _know_ you're at a high risk of being quarantined or
eliminated by the hubs, then this may not be the right strategy for your
selfish purposes. Criminals need to be more careful about what they
share than your average Joe. But for average Joes, you're likely to be
thrown in jail (without due process) whether you're engaging in criminal
activity or not. You may happen to be hispanic in Arizona or black in
Florida or gay in Texas or Muslim in Oregon. Whatever your attributes,
some hub, somewhere will be interested in quarantining or eliminating
you. So, your best bet is to admit that you may have to be sacrificed
for the good of the collective. You may be taken down by one hub or
another, but at least you provided some cover for your colleague Joes
who survived another day.

Get out there. Participate in Facebook, Pinterest, etc. Play frisbee
in the Plaza. Make an ass of yourself arguing with people in your
neighborhood association. Occupy everything. Don't make it easy for
the hubs to pinpoint whatever demographic they're after.

Sarbajit Roy wrote at 04/04/2012 09:38 AM:
> Turn off Javascript,.disable Java.
> In Firefox, Tools > Options > Content
>
> On 4/4/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> So. In short. Has everybody BUT me gone to some toggle in Google and in
>> Firefox and in I.E. and done something like “turn off tracking”. Is the
>> peril anything worse that when I am trying to show you the “Great New Ap” on
>> my lAPtop, google keeps putting up ads for a lotion that will grow hair on a
>> billiard ball? Nick

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: online privacy (again)

Glen wrote:

. But for average Joes, you're likely to be thrown in jail (without due process) whether you're engaging in criminal activity or not. You may happen to be hispanic in Arizona or black in Florida or gay in Texas or Muslim in Oregon. Whatever your attributes, some hub, somewhere will be interested in quarantining or eliminating you. So, your best bet is to admit that you may have to be sacrificed for the good of the collective. You may be taken down by one hub or another, but at least you provided some cover for your colleague Joes who survived another day.

Get out there. Participate in Facebook, Pinterest, etc. Play frisbee in the Plaza. Make an ass of yourself arguing with people in your neighborhood association. Occupy everything. Don't make it easy for the hubs to pinpoint whatever demographic they're after.

I love it. Blather as altruism. I always knew I was a Good Man.

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 11:54 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] online privacy (again)

Nowadays, it's just a little different. It's important to know what hardware comes with your phone and what software is executing on it ...

or, for that matter, what h/w is mounted in your car and what software runs on it. (I'm participating in the very evil Progressive Insurance Snapshot program. They log all my trips with a little device plugged into the computer port. With my truck, it's quite obvious because it sticks out under the dash. But with other cars, it might be fun to get one and plug it into your spouse's or your friend's cars just to monitor their trips. Progressive wouldn't know if you used your snapshot in someone else's car. ;-) More importantly, it wouldn't be difficult to build your own little device and hook it to your friend's car's computer to take different/more data.)

The moral? Know what's on/in your machines.

But this knowledge isn't all that important. As we continue to populate the earth with more humans engaging in more frivolous activity, the more difficult it will be to _manage_ the population's activities. We'll either fall into some speciation pattern where the _hub_ organizations like the FTC or the NSA will be able to manage whole demographics, or the system will crash. As James points out, the unencrypted communication is easy to filter out to some extent. But, as we also see with the rise of the DDoS attack (for political activism as well as nefarious purposes) and co-evolutionary spamming technology, more traffic can be strategically used to debilitate the filters.

So, what matters is that we put _everything_ online. If the feds want to know the contents of our urine and whether we ate our peas at dinner, then I say let's tell them! Resistance will eventually take the form of open participation.

Openness is the enemy of asymmetry.

Now, if you _know_ you're at a high risk of being quarantined or eliminated by the hubs, then this may not be the right strategy for your selfish purposes. Criminals need to be more careful about what they share than your average Joe. But for average Joes, you're likely to be thrown in jail (without due process) whether you're engaging in criminal activity or not. You may happen to be hispanic in Arizona or black in Florida or gay in Texas or Muslim in Oregon. Whatever your attributes, some hub, somewhere will be interested in quarantining or eliminating you. So, your best bet is to admit that you may have to be sacrificed for the good of the collective. You may be taken down by one hub or another, but at least you provided some cover for your colleague Joes who survived another day.

Sarbajit Roy wrote at 04/04/2012 09:38 AM:

> Turn off Javascript,.disable Java.

> In Firefox, Tools > Options > Content

> On 4/4/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> So. In short. Has everybody BUT me gone to some toggle in Google

>> and in Firefox and in I.E. and done something like “turn off

>> tracking”. Is the peril anything worse that when I am trying to show

>> you the “Great New Ap” on my lAPtop, google keeps putting up ads for

>> a lotion that will grow hair on a billiard ball? Nick

glen

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Arlo Barnes

Re: online privacy (again)

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

I actually have not turned off such a switch. This is not because I am lazy or because I do not care about matters of privacy - on the contrary, I care a great deal that people have the law-guaranteed right to create, reveal, own, and trade/barter/buy/sell as much or as little data about or by them as they want. Of course, saying who owns data gets tricky in some areas, but it is pretty clear when it comes to content made (rather than gathered) by someone that they own it and can control it's dissemination, and also personal facts such as name/location are subject to requests for retraction. I believe anyone should be able to be psedonymous and anonymous, as I do not believe any crimes are unavoidably enabled by these things. If a population cannot protect itself from an enemy it does not know, it cannot protect itself at all. This is why security through obscurity is intrinsically faulty, without equivocation. This is, interestingly, also my reason why I do not turn off tracking and switches and things - even taking into account the very real and probable possibility that any government or company can view any data I have, regardless of what promises or user agreements they have made, I can think of nothing that I do not want them to have, that they could leverage against me.
[EDIT: Glen just said most of what I was going to say. The rest:]

Also, we should not differentiate ideologically (as well as the aforementioned technologically) between one activity and another. Everybody does what they do for an honest reason, and most of us do most of those things for a well-intentioned (subjectively speaking) reason. If somebody looks on the Internet for bomb-making recipes, it may be 1) out of harmless curiosity or 2) to make a bomb, to blow up something they have a problem with. If we deal with this as a legitimate opinion, albeit one threatening to be expressed very badly, perhaps we can come to some sort of decision on how to address that. Or perhaps that is naiive...it is also a bad example, but what I mean is that just as we must insist that 'fake names' are just as valid as real names, there is no wrong use of the internet, just bad consequences.

-Arlo James Barnes