Vint Cerf Thinks Privacy May Be an Anomaly

Nerval's Lobster writes "Vint Cerf, widely considered one of the 'founders of the Internet,' told an audience at the Federal Trade Commission's Internet of Things workshop that privacy could be considered 'an anomaly.' That workshop, held Nov. 19 in Washington, DC, explored (via speeches and panel discussions) how the proliferation of sensors on everything from cars to household devices is fundamentally changing how people live and work—while raising questions of how to best maintain privacy and security in an environment where more and more things are 'watchers.' 'The technology that we use today has far outraced our social intuition, our headlights,' he added. '[There's a] need to develop social conventions that are more respectful of people's privacy.' Current social behaviors, such as instantly posting images from smartphones to social networks, can result in a whole lot of embarrassment—and maybe even penalties, if data and media happens to catch someone in the act of doing something illegal. Cerf currently works at Google as chief Internet evangelist, which would make him uniquely positioned to comment on these sorts of issues even if he hadn't co-created the TCP/IP backbone that supports the modern Web. (Back in April, he told an audience that, if he had to do it all over again, he'd construct the Internet in the mold of Software-Defined Networking — but that's a whole different, tangled discussion.)"

Comments

It's not an anomaly - it's entirely new

[Press2ToContinue]

It's the ubiquity of the observer base and indelible record of our actions that make this a new and different problem.

Historically, people have usually had the ability to move to a location where they are in proximity to and observed by like-minded people. The internet brings all people into proximity and therefore we subject to a raft of populations who we we would have historically avoided. This is like being put into prison, where all inmates are able to see all other inmates actions and are under constant watch by authorities. It's demeaning and oppressive. Not much good comes out of it except to keep the inmates segregated and controlled.

The other great difference is that, for the first time in human history, an indelible, incontrovertible record can be and usually is created of all that is observed, especially that which is posted to the internet. It the past, what was observed was always subject to interpretation by the observer, and it was not usually recorded, and even if it was, it was always subject to human bias. If it was not recorded, small transgressions could be forgotten, and forgiven by the small number of potential first-hand observers. Even if recorded, the scope of who would find the record was still limited, and an act of volition was usually required to read it. So the past situation was one of inherent "you could usually leave your mistakes behind", you could grow up and correct your mistakes (because we all make them) and most could be not haunted forever by a single misspoken word or misdeed. It was organic, and inherently forgiving.

The cold, hard, oxide that records most of what is observed now is neither forgiving nor fades with time (if backups don't fail lol,) And that makes the situation different. Small misjudgements are spread to an immense population instantly, and recorded forever. This makes the impact of what used to be small, gargantuan. In short, everything is amplified, judged, and impermeable.

This can be an unpleasant a way to live, is a lot like prison, and is very different from the past.

Re:It's not an anomaly - it's entirely new

[kheldan]

The internet brings all people into proximity

No, it doesn't. The text and images that people post on the internet, like on Facebook, have about as much to do with who and what they are as the speeches that a political candidate gives during their election campaign; it's a carefully crafted, edited, imaginary-ideal version of that person. Who and what they are in real life, in person is something different from that. Furthermore for all anyone knows, what you see posted on someone's Facebook page, unless you know them personally, may as well be some computer-generated fantasy character and not a real person. The Internet hasn't "brought people together", it's provided another layer of separation that masquerades as something bringing them together.

Protect people's privacy in earnest

[Anonymous Coward]

or only the rich will have privacy. They can afford to live in gated communities, on big plots where even their rich neighbors would have to go out of their way to catch a glimpse of what they're doing. They can afford to shun insurance that records their driving. One particular rich guy was famous for not having license plates and just paying the fines. The rich don't show up on passenger lists if they don't want to.

Re:Simple...

[ElectricTurtle]

Which part of "another" didn't you get? I might further add that I probably know more about historical patterns of social changes relating to sexuality in multiple different cultures. If you have to look up 'kisang', 'hetaira', or 'ningxing' this is probably true. The fact is that after the end of antiquity civilization began a tailspin of sexual repression due to a combination of Roman monogamy (which was arguably the most important element of Roman pagan society that was grafted into Christianity and consequently all Western society to the modern era) and Abrahamic anti-pluralism which didn't really abate until civilization "rediscovered" the value of ancient pluralism and everything that catalyzed.

I have a feeling that you're oblivious to how openly sexual some great civilizations of the past were. Here's a hint: when the Victorian prudes started digging around in Egypt, they uncovered and subsequently defaced a lot of murals of boners. Even today when archaeologists have the sense to not smash everything that rustles their jimmies, the topic is rarely talked about because we're still repressed compared to the great ancient societies that created these things.

You need to take your myopic, decade to decade perspective and educate yourself on the much broader arcs of development throughout the world. The framework of human social evolution is immensely broader and deeper than you know or understand.

A mildly amusing anecdote.

[wcrowe]

I know privacy is a serious issue, but I have to relate something funny that happened to me last week.

I was in the checkout line at the supermarket, and the first thing the checkout clerk said to me was, "I need your date of birth".
I thought to myself, Hmmph! What the hell do they need my date of birth for? So I said, "No you don't."
"Yes I do," she said.
"What do you need my date of birth for!" I said, my voice rising.
"It won't let me go on unless you give me your date of birth," she said, meekly.
"You guys always want too much information. You don't need my date of birth," I argued.
"Can't you just give me a hint?" she said. She was actually being quite sweet about it. I gave her a year and she punched in a date.

It was at that point that I realized that the first item to be checked out was a case of beer. Their system wouldn't allow it to be purchased without adding the date of birth. I sheepishly apologized for giving her a hard time. What I thought was an invasion of privacy was a reasonable request for valid ID. Except she wasn't a very bright woman, and instead of asking me for my ID, and then punching in the date of birth, she just asked me for the relevant information.

I think my initial reaction was indicative of our sensitivity to privacy issues these days.

Re:Anomaly Or Not...

[93 Escort Wagon]

Anomaly or not, privacy is a very valuable if not inherent social norm. It is to be revered and protected.

ANYONE who thinks otherwise needs to STFU!

I respect Vint Cerf's massive contributions to the Internet and the digital age we now live in.

That said, the guy works for Google. Anything he says with regards to privacy needs to be taken with a giant grain of salt. Privacy being considered something outside the norm is very much in Google's best interests... but not in yours or mine.

Re:I really do not think people know what is priva

[Kjella]

So basically if a girl shows her boyfriend her boobies and he covertly snaps a photo and posts it on the Internet linked to her name for all to see it's the same thing? After all if you showed one, you showed the world right? Or someone accidentally walked in on her because she forgot to lock the door or she had a wardrobe malfunction or whatever, same thing right? One accidental exposure to one person and you're just supposed to accept it being posted all over the Internet? And I guess you think it's perfectly okay if the sex toy store to tell everyone what you bought, after all they know so why not the world? You're creating a completely ridiculous standard of privacy where the only thing that's private are secrets, which don't need any protection because nobody knows about them. You reduce the "right to privacy" to "right to try keeping a secret, and if you fail tough luck".