tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14665266.post194070832554798025..comments2008-12-02T12:37:42.315-08:00Comments on Up the Withywindle: The All Seeing EyeTom Bombadilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09926239651674777846noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14665266.post-4083785597770811942007-11-19T16:52:00.000-08:002007-11-19T16:52:00.000-08:00On August 28, 2007, the World Organization for Hum...On August 28, 2007, the World Organization for Human Rights sued Yahoo for allegedly passing information (email and IP address) with the Chinese government that caused the arrests of writers and dissidents. The suit was filed in San Francisco for journalists, <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Tao" REL="nofollow">Shi Tao</A>, and <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Xiaoning" REL="nofollow">Wang Xiaoning</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14665266.post-82520991373515469102007-11-19T15:37:00.000-08:002007-11-19T15:37:00.000-08:00BIG BROTHER AND THE WEBMany ISPs sell their visito...BIG BROTHER AND THE WEB<BR/><BR/>Many ISPs sell their visitors semi-anonymous website visitation records to outfits like <A HREF="http://siteanalytics.compete.com/" REL="nofollow">Compete</A>. It's estimated that they make about $5 per user monthly from selling your clickstream data. No ISPs admit to the practice. (<A HREF="http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Do-Not-Track-List-88985" REL="nofollow">link</A>)<BR/><BR/>What use is made of users' IP address and private informations by unscrupulous ISPs and/or potentially whimsical or domineering webmasters are all extension into Cyberspace of the same Privacy Invasion issue.<BR/><BR/>Anonymity and pseudonymity exist online as in the world at large for good reasons. (e,g. : All of the Federalist Papers were signed by Publius - a pseudonym representing the trio of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay.) While I respect the opinion of those who prefer transparency, I also feel compelled to respect the preference of those who want to safeguard their privacy, whatever their reasons might be. Furthermore, where made available - that is when visitors are invited to participate on a forum or on a network with the freedom of using, as they so chose, either their real name or a handle (if they want to keep their identity confidential) - for a network to publicly display, after the fact, and retroactively, the IP address of all comments left overtime by visitors who had been trustingly posting on such network, constitute a serious invasion of privacy. Personal tracking really bothers some folks, and they don't necessarily need to be up to something shady either. <BR/><BR/>Consumer advocate groups, including the Consumer Federation of America, the World Privacy Forum and the Center for Democracy and Technology, collectively called, just recently, for a "do not track list" intended to protect Internet users from having their online activities unknowingly tracked, stored and made publicly available or accessible to marketers and advertising networks, without the user's informed consent. <BR/><BR/>This is from their press release:<BR/><BR/><I>Across an ever-growing array of electronic devices, from the Internet to mobile devices and beyond, consumers leave behind a vast amount of behavioral information that is being tracked and targeted without their knowledge. This "behavioral tracking" -- the practice of collecting and compiling a record of individual consumers' activities, interests, preferences, and/or communications over time -- places consumers' privacy at risk, and is not covered by federal law.</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14665266.post-90655077974476954242007-10-23T16:41:00.000-07:002007-10-23T16:41:00.000-07:00Interesting post about privacy here by Dan Geer - ...Interesting post about privacy <A HREF="http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/1999-10/features/privacy.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> by Dan Geer - the transcript of a speech he delivered on May 20, 1999, at the SmartCard Forum in Washington, D.C., in a debate setting.<BR/><BR/>While I don't agree with absolutely everything the speaker said, I find that he did raise there four very pertinent points - I don't known whether there were further developed in the ensuing debate but it makes a good draft of some of the issues at stake:<BR/><BR/><B>1. Privacy as a precondition to a coherent self</B><BR/>quote: <I>Since "philosophical and legal analysis has often identified privacy as a precondition for the development of a coherent self,"[4] one must conclude that it is a mortal peril to give up privacy.</I><BR/><BR/>----The architecture of Identity and social impact theory: Interesting! Plenty of things to think about here - It would deserve to be developed further - beginning with the notion of "self" and "identity," and the phenomenon of "normative influences." <BR/><BR/><B>2. Utopia or Dystopia? Is living in a global "small town" all what it's cracked up to be?</B><BR/>quote: <I>It is said that the wonderful thing about a small town is that you know everyone, while the terrible thing about a small town is that they all know you. Indeed, a coherent if nostalgic argument for a "transparent society" can be made, one where there are no secrets, where there is no privacy, where everyone knows everyone else's business, where unsolved crime is very nearly impossible, where neither need nor triumph is invisible, a place where everything that is not self-incriminating is therefore public.</I><BR/><BR/>----I am not so sure. Living in a small town - is it heaven or hell? Anyone who has lived in a small town will tell you it can be a little bit of both - and oftentimes more hell than heaven (depending on the town.) The Sartrean hell of No EXIT comes readily to mind: <I>L' enfer, c'est les autres</I>("Hell is others"). As does the New Testament (Mark 6:4-6, Matthew 13:57-58, Luke 4:23-24, and John 4:44) and the Gospel of Thomas: "No prophet is accepted in his own village; no physician heals those who know him."<BR/><BR/><B>3. Would a Transparent Society succeed in safeguarding itself from the very same failing that has been undermining our societies? What if it didn't?</B><BR/>quote: <I>If the reason I reject the transparent society is that I acknowledge my inability to sufficiently police its stronger members, then the most important thing I can do is to protect my privacy — and, frankly, at all costs. The loss of privacy is irreversible, for information is never un-revealed. Privacy is therefore the paragon of Hume's conjecture: Few liberties are lost all at once. In the face of the snowballing bigness of the institutions of globalized human life, we must reserve privacy rights explicitly so that we may misrepresent ourselves to those against whom we have no other defense, against those for whom our name is but a label on data collected without our consent.</I><BR/><BR/><B>4. Is the choice really between "One Big Brother" or "Lots of Little Brothers"?</B><BR/>quote: <I>A wise man of my acquaintance, a career man in federal law enforcement, reacted to my arguments by telling me that I was typically naive. He said that my choice is not between Big Brother or no Big Brother; rather, it is between one Big Brother and lots of Little Brothers. He suggests that I think carefully before I choose.</I><BR/><BR/>----Doesn't seem like much of a choice to me. I don't know whether the speaker is "typically naive," as allegedly his friend claimed he was, but I can't help but point out here at an equally "typical" lack of imagination on the part of this friend. It smacks of the "devil's choice" - a metaphor to describe a choice that arises in circumstances where two available options are both unwanted and perverse - its purpose is often about forcing one's choice in accepting what is presented as a lesser of two evils.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com