I live and work in the hammock of an irony. At one anchor is knowing our species is a pestilence on the planet, and having little hope that -- even in the long run -- we'll fix human nature, which has us running headlong toward many kinds of systemic collapse. At the other anchor is knowing that equipping individuals with tools of independence and engagement can have profound positive effects (and, potentially, some negative ones too). Being able to do something about the latter is what keeps me going.
Did he say that? Either way, quote-worthy stuff there.On Sep 26, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Devon Loffreto wrote:Well written Joe.Rather than a red herring though, I think what we have in this world, as represented by the original statement as well as the intelligent perspective you add to it,is a contentious notion about what Individuals can expect from a world where our social structures have ended this original participation archetype.You say "The entire point of society is to give up some of our natural rights in
order that we might construct a better living." I agree with that.What I disagree with is that we have "given up" our natural rights for a "better living". Neither the word 'given' or 'better living' is unilaterally acceptable. I can think of many cases where 'taken' and 'less beneficial' are much more apt, and meaningfully, are colored by systemic intent.So on this premise, the argument is about systemic viability to the core. Sure, you can forensically track someone with a degree of certitude that is usable in court to convict. And an Individual can reciprocate and preemptively shoot trackers for doing their "jobs" with the same end result. The problem is that the one is provocative of the other as a matter of design. Fail-Fail.In the world of agriculture, we know that this species has overshot its target. The carrying capacity of the Earth without man-made interventionist practices is well-beyond a point of sustainability. Industrial development, same deal. Heck, where is it not the case? We hope for technical agility to overcome our failed practices. But look at our current technical approach to data within a global system that started with such great possibility. Where do Individuals retreat within a system design that wants nothing to do with Individuality...opting instead for standardized compliant social graphs owned by an aggregating center? When your President sees a day in the future when you will have your medical records on Facebook... we might want to dissolve the union and start shopping for caves.Not sure where to write responses, since your case here is a long one. So I'll start here.With regard to our systemic soil-nitrogen-fixation predicament, we did not only arrive here because we love making babies and it is our sovereign free right to do so. We did it as a function of system design. We have not put intelligence into our systems in the right context, and in many cases we are discouraged from doing so because of the adverse effect it would have on something as abstract as GDP or re-election. Neither of which are even structured the right way to correlate to the aggregate voice of reality.The revolutions that matter are not friendly ones usually. There is nothing friendly happening in the world of data-tracking. There is nothing friendly happening in the world of globalization of labor. There is nothing friendly happening in the massive systemic theft created by the structure of Government and its aggregated capitalist machinery. There is simply looting... and its easy... too easy... because its systemically managed that way.I live and work in the hammock of an irony. At one anchor is knowing our species is a pestilence on the planet, and having little hope that -- even in the long run -- we'll fix human nature, which has us running headlong toward many kinds of systemic collapse. At the other anchor is knowing that equipping individuals with tools of independence and engagement can have profound positive effects (and, potentially, some negative ones too). Being able to do something about the latter is what keeps me going.Sure.We need to believe in the opportunity to recreate ourselves... to redesign our infrastructure... not merely re-tool it so that now existing systems work a little better... but also to creatively destroy it and start over where necessary.I'm with you (I think) up to that last sentence. I'm not sure we have a digital brain, or that it's being structured, except by the neuronal pathways of habits that can change. I've watched kids adopt and dump AOL, MySpace and Facebook in the span of a few years, like hunter-gatherers moving on to better lands. I also have faith in the inevitability of corporate failure, and disruption out the wazoo.I support your perspective and efforts. VRM is not only about incremental improvement, it is about the opportunity to start over and design the relationships in this socio-economic universe again from square one. This is not an argument against your points, so much as it is a statement that I want a redefinition of context with regards to your points. I want your points to be true enough today, but not enough for an understanding of tomorrow.The moment life went digital, something profound happened that still is not fully understood. We have sparse metaphors to use in drawing our cave pictures at this point. What I know is that in my mind my ideas are anonymous. If I speak as Ben Franklin spoke in times of need when speaking matters, I want the opportunity for anonymity in temporary time, at least. You may search and discover me, but I may speak and cover without harming my intended outcome. Our digital brain is being structured in such a way as to destroy that. It will destroy itself if it continues on this path unchecked.I gather we are of the same mind that this would be most unfortunate to experience.Stop right here and watch Geoffrey West on cities and companies:Pardoxes abound.Note what he says about the need for a quantifiable theory of cities around 3:00 into his talk.Are networks cities? Is the Internet a city?Important: The Net not *like* anything. "Define the internet" is like "Define the universe." You can't give examples. It is only itself, and there is only one of it. And we don't understand it, or much of what we can do with it, and the technologies we operate over and through it.I don't know what else to say about all that now. I do, however, know that:Anonymity matters.Even though it's not exactly the right word. We don't have the right word. Worse, we have a new context that makes all words inadequate.We should have as much of it as we can, as much of it as we want. Pseudonyms are a baseline approach to have it in a limited context, or for a limited purpose. The fact that even this is under attack points to the fact that our technical literalists do not "get it". There can be no integration on that foundation.Tracking happens in both directions. Engineers should realize that the tools they create which do harm cut both ways eventually. Motives need some checking these days.DevonThanks for keeping this interesting. Thanks to Joe and everybody else too. Keep it up.DocOn Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:08 PM, Joe Andrieu < " target="_blank"> > wrote:A while back Doc wrote:
> When I wondered about the connection between anonymity and principles, Joyce
> said this:
>
> "You can't have true autonomy unless you can move in an anonymous way."
>
I think this is a bit of a red herring. It's true and interesting, but
it's not particularly relevant, because we don't want and can never
actually have true autonomy unless we return to a state of nature.
The entire point of society is to give up some of our natural rights in
order that we might construct a better living. Even in the most
libertarian views of the world, your autonomy ends where your neighbor's
begins. Negotiating those boundaries is the whole point of the social
contract that creates our civic world. What we're doing here with VRM
is renegotiating that contract given the capability of the Internet to
do things better.
There is an argument that freedom requires anonymity. But that's not
actually true. For two reasons.
First, what freedom needs is the ability to engage in discourse without
fear of reprisal from those who have a different view. If we can't
engage in that discourse, there's no way for us, as a society, to fully
consider the issues at hand. Anonymity is one way to do that, to a
point. It certainly helps bring out contentious claims and counter
points. But for any of those divergent views to actually change the
system, you need relationships and credibility. So, while you might
want anonymity from an oppressive state, you actually rely on being
known by your fellow revolutionaries as someone they can trust. I want
to be able to discuss what matters to me among my friends without being
called to a congressional hearing about it, but I don't need to be
anonymous when talking with those friends. Far from it, I want to know
who they are and vice versa, because it's the relationship that makes me
feel safe exploring unconventional ideas.
Second, anonymity is never really possible. Mathematically, you are as
anonymous as the number of people you can be confused with. It is a
sliding scale of certainty that "you" are "you" to a mere estimate that
"you" are one of several billion people. We literally have professions
and degrees you can get for people trained in reducing those billions
into legally actionable certainty. Forensics and plain old detective
work can turn what might seem like an anonymous interaction on your
public library's web terminal to an eye-witness and evidentiary tale
that can get you convicted in court for what happened on that terminal.
For all practical purposes, anonymity is a function of the cost of
determining a correlatable identity. If it's worth it to find out who
that "anonymous" actor is, it can usually be done. And society has
consistently allowed gross breaches of our freedoms in pursuit of the
identity of various criminals. The conversation to be had is about the
price we are willing to pay in that pursuit and what burden of proof is
needed to move to the next stage. So while we can shape how much we'll
pay to resolve anonymity to identity, we can't actually assure
anonymity.
Instead, I think instead of anonymity, what we really want are two
things, both of which Lewis Hyde discusses rather eloquently in Common
as Air.
First, we want to be free from tyranny. That is, we want to avoid power
from one domain applied in another. We don't want our boss telling us
what we can do in our time off. We don't want the government telling us
how we can worship. We don't want our computer maker telling us what
software we can and cannot run. And we don't want anyone telling us what
we can and cannot do on other people's websites. Anonymity is one way
to avoid certain types of tyranny. But it also enables other types. How
much does it suck that the only time you can truly express yourself is
when you're anonymous? That's not the kind of world I want to live in.
Second, we want interstitial spaces where we, as a society, can engage
in discourse about the boundaries between one domain and another without
any particular domain having the upper hand. For example, we need
intelligent--not belligerent--debates about whether fair use is more
important than preventing unauthorized duplication.
One of our biggest problems is that the two primary interstitial spaces
of legal standing, the courts and the legislature, are dominated by
moneyed interests, namely corporations and the wealthy. Between
lobbyists and well-paid lawyers, it's very hard for the average person
to be heard in those fora. Again, anonymity can provide a means for
participating in discourse, but that's still less desirable than
speaking freely to our brothers, parents, neighbors, and bosses without
fear of reprisal... and have them know that we are that sibling, child,
neighbor or employee. A heartfelt argument means more when it comes
from someone you know, someone you get is a "normal" person.
So, while anonymity is an easy option as a rebuttal to the surveillance
state, I don't think it is actually what we want. Instead, we want to
be able to connect in contexts where our exposure is understood and
acceptable, where we know what we are getting into, where we can tell
the difference between an intimate chat with friends, and taking a stand
at a city council hearing. Being anonymous helps us avoid certain types
of tyranny, but it doesn't contribute to the fabric of a healthy
society.
Anonymity is a special case of privacy. And privacy is contextual. If we
can resolve the context management problem, we can solve them both.
-j
--
Joe Andrieu
SwitchBook Software
" target="_blank">
+1(805)705-8651
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.