"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.'"

Comments

Privacy as a recent phenomenon

[Ash.D.Giles]

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"

Re:Privacy as a recent phenomenon

[ruin20]

I think one of the things that was missing from the previous paragraph is that in a tribal setting there is an expectation of behavior between members in the tribe. As information disseminates outside the tribe, there is a disconnect between availability of the information and an understanding of how that information is used. So it becomes harder to decide on what to share, as it has to be assumed that it could be used in any conceivable way.

in other words, a tribe is established by who we choose to share information with, and although we can now share information globally without respect to boundaries, that doesn't mean we're a part of a "global tribe" because the tribe is still a subset of the global system. Where who we choose to share info with might have once been an issue of geographic happenstance, it no longer a sufficient criteria for the designation of a tribe. There is no longer a one to one mapping of the people in close proximity and the people who have open access to my information and actions.

About privacy

[phantomfive]

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.

Re:About privacy

[ILoveCrack83]

I'm not particularly attractive with my balding head and too-large belly

With your too-large belly you have a higher risk at heart disease, but I guess you don't mind your insurance company finding out about it and charging you a higher fee...

Re:About privacy

[D_Blackthorne]

How about this scenario, then: The religious right manages to get enough power to actually attempt to legislate "morality" (or at least their twisted version of it). They do decide that they need to know what you and your wife are doing in the bedroom. They discover that you're having sex in something other than the missionary position, and what's more, you're using birth control. "No, no!" they say, "That's illegal now, you're going to have to be arrested and punished for that!". So tell me, how do you feel now? Don't sit there and tell me it can't happen, either, since it DOES happen in one form or another somewhere on this planet all the time -- just not in this country, YET. You, sir, don't worry ENOUGH about privacy. If the above doesn't get to you, then let's see what you have to say when identity thieves ruin your life, because some nosy corporation with poor information security measures practically hands someone the keys to your life.

Re:About privacy

[phantomfive]

Insurance companies shouldn't be able to charge a higher rate for pre-existing conditions. For being overweight, it might be arguable that I should get a punitive rate until I can get my weight down, since it is something I can manage. But if we as a society are not providing for the medical care of people who have no other recourse, then we need to change that.

Re:About privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

"Honestly, there is very little I do or say that I care if it's kept private."

In that case, would you mind telling us
(1)... Where you live.
(2)... When you will be on holiday
(3)... Where you hide anything valuable.
(4)... PROFIT! ... I'm joking of course, but there is a very serious point, in that total information one someone, allows total power over them. The wishful thinking reply to that, is that with total information on everyone then everyone can see the crime being commited. No. That's not going to happen. In the case of a petty criminal, like the above example, yes it will stop them. But it will not stop a powerful political group seeking to use total information to gain great power over others and to push out their competitors. Even push out other political groups, in effect creating dictatorships.

Its an illusion to think that everyone will have total information on everyone else. The world doesn't work like that. The world forms a hierachy of power, its not flat and open. The ones at the top in power are not going to let that power be taken from them. They will create laws protecting against information being allowed on them, while making it open season for information on everyone else, so they can watch what others are doing. Its what is happening now. Just look at the political moves being made in the UK for example. (Ironically the home country of George Orwell).

The power stuggles will not end, with total information... This reality mining is a naive dream. It reminds me of the early wishful thinking dreams in the early stages of the Internet, where it was said and seen as some kind of utopian force for freedom of speech. Now look at where the Internet is going, with many countries trying to clamp down and monitor the Internet for decent. Detecting decent is all part of the process of seeking political power. This process is called Opposition Research and its a whole area of political activity, that most people don't usually get to see, but it occurs continuously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_research

Now imagine total Opposition Research applied to vast majority of people on the planet. They will do Opposition Research on everyone, be absolutely sure of this one point, its all part of the process of seeking power over someone else.

Re:About privacy

[gilgongo]

Honestly, there is very little I do or say that I care if it's kept private.

...

The point of all this is, some people worry too much about their privacy.

Since you take an extreme position on this, let's take some extreme examples to show that the issue is far wider than the fact that you think you have nothing to hide.

Should you walk directly to your car from the door of the supermarket, or stop to look at that attractive woman loading her groceries first? If you stop, will that action be recorded and used against you by your wife in 10 years time? Do you smack down that moron accusing you of butting into the queue when you were there before him, in case you're being videoed from an angle where he looks like he's in the right? What do you say to your boss when he asks you whether you did your 7 hours that time you were working from home? Does he know that you spent 30 mins reading the paper after lunch?

If you made literally everything in your life available to the scrutiny of persons unknown, you would have to live your life as if in one eternal press conference: every word and every action would have to be pre-meditated and vetted inside your head (the only private place you had). Look up the word "panopticon" and you'll see where I'm going with this.

Now, you may tell me not to exaggerate, that things will never get that bad. The point is though - when will you draw the line? When you have some privacy to protect? If so, how much?

Or do you think that wresting control of your life back from those who have it is going to be easier than giving it to them in the first place? After all, I suppose if you have nothing to hide...

"Privacy" in a crowd

[Lupulack]

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.

Re:"Privacy" in a crowd

[Curunir_wolf]

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.

But that's the problem with what is happening to privacy. It's the citizens that are losing their privacy, while governments are keeping more and more secrets, and guarding them fiercely (and with heavy weaponry).

It should be the opposite. Everything the government does should be transparent (at least to their own citizens), and they should be required to go to extraordinary lengths to obtain private information about their citizens. Otherwise, tyranny will inevitably result. As they say "knowledge is power", and gaining knowledge of citizens while denying knowledge of government to the citizens is nothing but a semi-transparent power-grab.

Considering the amount of authority vested in government representatives, we should be demanding much greater transparency, just to level the playing field.

Re:fr!st ps0t

[Antlerbot]

Oh, sweet irony.

privacy not an anomaly

[Mr. Slippery]

For most of human history, people have lived in small tribes where everything they did was known by everyone they knew

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.

Bullshit.

[Antlerbot]

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.

Unlike the researchers, I have lived

[Chicken_Kickers]

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.

The problem is, it's not reciprocal

[Anonymous Coward]

'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.

poly-culturalism

[khasim]

Christianity and western culture is really fucked up when it concerns nudity and sexuality when you compare it against other peoples, cultures and times.

EVERY culture is "really fucked up" when compared to any other culture ... based upon the bias of the person doing the comparing.

Many modern people are more primitive then many ancient cultures in their behaviour and ethics.

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.

That's the trap of that "logic".

[khasim]

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.

Talk about misunderstanding previous societies

[Anonymous Coward]

'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.

What about the privacy of others?

[quanticle]

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?

Re:Thread abuse

[Tubal-Cain]

Anonymous Cowards, obviously.

Huge difference

[g2devi]

> 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.

cracker jack PhD

[Eil]

Dr. Malone said. 'In some sense we're becoming a global village. Privacy may turn out to have become an anomaly.'"

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.

You're tranposing "economics" and "good".

[khasim]

What business do you have keeping information from the rest of society which could be used for a social good?

Look up the historical records of how "social good" is defined. You'll find everything from slavery to genocide.

Do you really think you live in some kind of vacuum where only you the individual matters?

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.

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?

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".

Is it ethical for you to want to withhold that information simply because it benefits you personally to do so?

Yes, of course it is.

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.

Again, look up slavery and genocide.

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.

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.