Posted by
Marcus G. Daniels on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/asymmetric-snooping-tp7583857p7583885.html
On 9/25/13 9:44 AM, glen wrote:
> While it makes perfect sense to use a digital classification scheme
> (confidential, secret, top secret, nuclear, etc.) as a guide for an
> individual (artifact or human) making a decision, it is unreasonable
> to expect that classification scheme to arise naturally. The thing
> about measures is that they can't really be planned, at least not
> completely. E.g. whether George W. Bush will be considered anything
> other than an idiot 100 years from now is not something we can
> specify. Hence, measures tend to produce continua, even if forcibly
> discretized.
I don't really see what you mean by "arise naturally", nor do I see why
W's historical significance is something that needs to be anticipated.
People, I think, can come to `classify' the importance of their
information. For example, if a gay person applies for a job and has
reason to think that their employer would be biased against that, they
might either avoid that employer, or keep their status a secret.
A person might not disclose their age or marital status for similar
reasons, say, because they believed the employer preferred a young,
single person would work harder. The process of growing up, and
observing how social systems impinge on individuals forces a person to
extrapolate to anticipate outcomes, and to discriminate how they reveal
information. It seems to me the difference between the
`classification' that government or a corporation performs is just that
the rules are formed by powerful organizations rather than individuals
or families, political advocacy groups, churches, etc.
>
> I suppose this is just another form of Stallman's argument for viral
> openness in the face of the weaker forms. The real target is the
> behavior of the humans. The fossilized imprints of their behavior is
> only a side effect.
Of course..
>
> But that takes me back to the main issue, which is the privileged
> access of the morlocks. Can the eloi _ever_ expect privacy?
>
I think no, unless they go to the trouble of thinking hard about how
they reveal information, and employ a means by which they enforce it
(not just relying on mechanisms provided by a company that will happily
betray their users when the government comes down on them). This may
just make them, or select them as, morlocks.
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