Slashdot Mirror
"Reality Mining" Resets the Privacy Debate
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.'"
I'd do it for a sony experia x1, or htc touch pro. If it became too obtrusive, I could always buy my own phone and walk away from it. I doubt I would. Of course, if this were forced on me, I would effect armed resistance. But for a free sweet phone.....
--why?
Isn't territorial behaviour a precursor to privacy? I mean, the idea of "Stay out of my room, I'm getting dressed" can't be that far off "Stay out of my burrow or I bite you, you strange animal"
Honestly, there is very little I do or say that I care if it's kept private. What I do in the bedroom? No, really I don't care. I'm not particularly attractive with my balding head and too-large belly, but if someone really wants to watch that, it's kind of their problem.
In theory the government could use data mining to distort reality and accuse someone falsely of some crime, but really, if the government is to the point that they want to go out of their way to accuse people, there are lots of tried and tested methods that have been used throughout history. Privacy or lack of privacy is not going to make a bit of difference in whom the government arrests or kills.
If someone DOES want to kill me, having that kind of information would be helpful, but realistically, if someone wants to kill me, there are so many opportunities to kill me that just by following me around a bit they will have no problem finding a time to knock me off. Hit men have been doing their jobs for millennia, without modern technology.
The point of all this is, some people worry too much about their privacy.
Qxe4
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.
The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.
It would be nice if myspace/facebook & other social networking sites offered some information to new users educating them on what they are really getting themselves into. I don't think most young people have a real sense of what online privacy even is or why it is important.
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.
I also wonder how his behaviour might be different if he didn't know he was being watched.
If the world is becoming a 'global village', who is the village idiot?
Oh, sweet irony.
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.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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 going to happen. The social networking sites are financially fuelled by people's private info. They won't discourage people from giving up as much as possible.
We all have secrets, but it can only be a good thing when people screw up their careers/lives because they gave too much away on facebook. In a Darwinian sense I mean.
in a medium sized village during my youth. Maybe I am just generalizing based on my experience in this one village, but what they claim is a big exaggeration. Sure you will hear about who is going out with who or who is cheating on their husband or wife but you won't know how many phone calls someone makes a day or what channel he watches on TV or listens on the radio. There is an unwritten treshold of 'decency' where as long as what you do is not over this decency threshold, no one will take notice, hence the gossips about infidelity etc. So, no, we are not returning to norm with regards to privacy.
100 Students gave away their privacy to get a cell phone that probably isn't an open operating system.
All the talk is corporations need to keep their secrets, but the people don't need privacy.
'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.
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.
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.
'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.
I've got nothing to hide.
But the Government shouldn't be looking either.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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?
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
You can download the entire data set, which has had some data removed.
It's mostly cellular phone transactions. Your cellphone provider and NSA already have this data.
> 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.
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.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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.
What business do you have keeping information from the rest of society which could be used for a social good? Do you really think you live in some kind of vacuum where only you the individual matters?
How about if all these 'evil' insurance companies can drastically reduce the overall cost of health care to a point where it saves a large number of lives? Is it ethical for you to want to withhold that information simply because it benefits you personally to do so?
Human society is more than the sum of the individuals which make it up, and the interests of that society are more than the sum of the interests of its individual members.
Not that I think we should mindlessly surrender all privacy, but to insist on mindlessly guarding everything about ourselves we are paying a price, and that price may well be higher than the price of openness. It may also be a lot higher than we think it is. Seems to me the issue bears a lot more study.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
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.
Your use of words is interesting to me for a simple reason.
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.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
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.
"Intelligence is like four wheel drive, it gets you stuck in more remote places" --Garrison Kiellor
I cannot exercise. At all. There's a physical reason, one that robs me of the control of my limbs and sense of balance when I try to.
Obviously, I'm overweight.
And it's my fault?
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.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
Attempts to have disclosure of information from the former to the latter exist (eg google "freedom of information", "open government" or "corporate disclosue") but they are usually weak, because of the laziness of members of the latter.
-- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
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.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
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.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson