http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Privacy-vs-Open-Public-Data-tp7581246p7581352.html
Why stop at "jam the camera"? *Spoof* the camera (feed it false but plausible data, perhaps
inculpating someone else, or perhaps just showing an uppity empty Naugahyde `:chair): a real-
time, animated analogue of the photoshopped stills we now have learned to expect everywhere.
> Ah. The equivalent of the bank Robbers mask. Jam the camera. N
>
>
>
> From: Friam [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Parks, Raymond
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:26 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data
>
>
>
> Nick,
>
>
>
> My point is that there are things we do not want to be public that are not
> illegal nor shameful. An example of such a thing is a behavior or statement
> that seems to contradict one's relationship with another human. It's
> perfectly reasonable, but that other human can and frequently does feel
> emotional pain if they find out about it. Another example was brought up in
> the thread of how humans manipulate their social environment to prevent
> social pressure or improve their social situation.
>
>
>
> BTW, I find it interesting if not ironic that the very systems that allow
> for ubiquitous surveillance are the same systems that allow for
> indiscriminate self-exposure - computers. Here's a prediction - someday
> there will be an app that will turn off surveillance cameras as one passes
> by them. That may be a black-market app - but it will exist. It's harder
> but not impossible to do the same for UAVs/RPAs/regular aircraft. The
> hardest type of surveillance to turn off is satellite - but it's also the
> easiest to predict.
>
>
>
> Ray Parks
>
> Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager
>
> V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084
>
> NIPR:
[hidden email]
>
> SIPR:
[hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)
>
> JWICS:
[hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 17, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Sorry. I wasn't asking whether we lie or not. Or even whether it eases
> some social situations. I was asking for a theory of why lying greases
> social situations. Why is the NET effect of small lies positive? I can
> think of some reasons. Like chimpanzees, we live in a fision-fusion
> situation. The size of the lie that one can "honestly" tell probably
> depends in many cases on the frequency with which one sees the person one is
> lying to. And then there is the distinction between speech as stroking and
> speech as conveying of information. I get that wrong, a lot.
>
>
>
> I am having a hard time thinking how this is related to my original question
> about whether there should be a law against using public data to track
> individual behavior. I know that I opened up the subthread about shame and
> guilt, so I stipulate that it is my fault that we are talking about it. And
> I actually think it is related. I just can't state the relation. I am
> thinking we might be moving toward a belief that truth is like arousal .
> life goes best when one has a moderate level of it. There was a wonderful
> study done some years ago about he relation between truth and the best
> marriages. Married folk were asked to play The Dating Game together ..
> i.e., guess what spouses answers to personal questions would be,
> preferences, what have you. Three categories of respondents were
> identified: spouse pairs that had an unrealistical enhanced view of one
> another, spouse pairs that had an unrealistically jaundiced view of one
> another, and spouse pairs that had a realistic view of one another. As you
> might expect, the first group maintained the most enduring marriages.
>
>
>
> But this just brings me back to the need for a theory of why a society is
> better is there is just a bit less truth in it. A pragmatic notion, but
> not, I fear, a Pragmatic one.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College