Slashdot Mirror
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.)"
...I can monitor exactly what the people in charge, whether it's government or corporations, do at any point in their life we can start talking. Until then, keep out.
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.
Sent from my ENIAC
...those that avoid publicly screwing up will end up doing better than those whose mistakes are documented for all to find.
This is not a new problem, it's simply a bigger problem than it used to be as communications have allowed one party to find out about another party more quickly and easily, and our collective narcissism has meant that we're constantly publishing our "accomplishments" for any random person to see, whether they're actually worth noting or not. A lot of people simply do not understand that moments or situations special to them are not special or important to anyone else.
Unfortunately the only way to really curtail this is to tell people that they're not special. To tell them that most people, even likely their friends, do not care about Johnny's part in the school play or Suzie's piano recital, let alone Ricky's first steps or Adrienne's first words. They really don't care about what you had for lunch unless you're eating something that most wouldn't consider food, and they don't care how you looked snockered at that party unless you're showing them something of prurient interest.
Stop oversharing and mind who's watching what you do, or expect to have less opportunity as those in positions of authority choose to turn you down in favor of someone that will embarrass them less.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Really just about anything you do in public is public. That is the way it has been for a long time. What the Internet has done is made the planet a small town.
Smoke a joint at a party? You are doing it in public. This is not new. There was always a chance that someone would tell your boss, wife, or parents you where doing something that they would not approve of. The difference is it is just more likely.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Really just about anything you do in public is public. That is the way it has been for a long time. What the Internet has done is made the planet a small town.
Smoke a joint at a party? You are doing it in public. This is not new. There was always a chance that someone would tell your boss, wife, or parents you where doing something that they would not approve of. The difference is it is just more likely.
The difference is culpable deniability; using your example, if someone tells your boss they saw you smoking pot at a party, you can easily deny the charge, as well as turn it back on the person making it ("Don't know what he's talking about, but why was he at a pot-smoking party to begin with, hmmmm?")
As Micheal Phelps found out, a picture some asshole posts online is a lot harder to deny.
That's not even mentioning the can of worms that things like internet access in the home and automotive telemetric monitoring equipment create.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I think a lot of people use the term "privacy" to mean "without a persistent source of worldwide evidence showing irrefutable proof otherwise".
The guy at your party has to pit his word against mine. He has to know my boss, wife, or parents to be able to tell them, and even then I still have the ability for that to be forgotten about, and can go back to living my life. Contrast that with the picture someone snapped of the hypothetical me that insta-uploaded itself to facebook, all privacy settings turned off. Or the 'viral' video that becomes an internet meme hobbling my odds of getting a job, because I'm "the (whatever) guy from the video".
The societal issue here is that we're all a little too happy to self-righteously crucify the guy who has a picture of him smoking a substance of dubious nature online, and then go over to fuck the BSDM mistress while the wife is out of town... at least, until those pictures leak, and then the guy who does coke off the bathroom sink at work is crucifying you, and the circle-jerk continues.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
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.
Begging the question that it is substantially more likely. As the volume of data increases, the signal to noise ratio decreases. Lots of data is being generated that no one is looking at. As the volume increases, it becomes that much harder to search despite the fact that something 'incriminating' is more likely to be in there to find. The practical outcome of this, I think, is that most indiscretions will still go unnoticed, but if someone is really looking for something to bust your ass, they'll find it. So some behavior modification is likely, but less than most people suppose. Furthermore, pro-privacy technology is likely to keep pace with surveillance, along with following best practices. Like if you're up to no good, turn off your cell phone. Disable 3rd party cookies in your browser. Block ads.
Scott McNealy (oops, I meant Vint Cerf) is saying that if his pet technology causes problems, then there is nothing wrong with the tech, and people's expectations should change. I call that bad engineering (and politics). In the 19th and early 20th century the choking smoke from everything from locomotives to smelters was just the "price of progress". Similarly, there used to be a cold calculation that every $1M in construction would result in one construction worker's death. Can't be avoided. Bull. Those problems were the result of bad engineering and bad politics, as improvements since have demonstrated. Claiming that "privacy is an anomaly" and society should change to support the Internet is just a half-assed excuse. This man has clearly run out of new ideas, and is just resting on his laurels.
We are living in the transition time where some people have private lives and some are more public
If current trends continue, everybody will have embarrassing pictures on the internet and nobody will care
Anytime someone makes this argument I read it as: "Other people's privacy is an anomaly and should be abolished, my privacy should be secured."
If you believe you do not think this way, you are lying to yourself.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
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.
Proverbs 21:19
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.
#DeleteChrome
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".
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Maybe the rest of the human rights are anomalies too. Cant we start stripping them from the people that affirms that privacy should not need to be respected?
Really? Not even a rival, like a coworker with whom you were competing for a promotion or a political opponent? Not somebody who wronged you, and against whom you want revenge? Not someone holding beliefs with which you disagreed, who therefore "deserves" to be punished? None of those things?
Well in that case, congratulations! You're not a sociopath.
But some people are.
You don't need privacy because you're wrong and you want to hide your guilt; you need privacy because sooner or later some Machiavellian asshole is going to twist your innocent actions into the perception of wrongness, and then use that perception against you.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz