|
AlejandroMercadoSecondPaper 2 - 15 Jan 2012 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | Myth or fact? Both the Internet and the World Wide Web (hereinafter jointly referred as the “Net”) constitute a powerful tool of freedom and expression: fact. Whether for the greater good of a selected few or the demise of the remaining ‘others’, the Net does constitute a powerful tool of freedom and expression. But if we were to strike the words “freedom” and “expression” out of that phrase, we would be left with just “a powerful tool”. And as a powerful tool, it can be used for good or evil. Some evils we can control, others we cannot. Or can we?
| |
>
> | Too indefinite for a
good opening. You've spent too many words not stating a thesis or
giving us a clear reason to keep reading. | | | Evils We Can Control?
| |
<
< | As previously stated, the Net is not without caveats. First off, it is now generally accepted that the way the Net is being commercially used constitutes a threat to privacy. Now, more than ever, the concept of privacy has been eroded to the point where it admits no precise definition. For quite sometime, for example, browser cookies have been used by companies, among other purposes, to monitor customer-browsing habits, to conduct target advertising and pinpoint consumer preferences; popular websites are now requiring users to use their real names, under the threat of being blocked, for so-called security purposes; GPS technology is now being used to monitor public movements; and instant messaging applications are, by default, transcribing their users’ conversations. Moreover, the manner in which certain types of technology are evolving, such as Image Processing Software, do not seem too promising or focused for safeguarding our privacy interests. | >
> | As previously stated, the Net is not without caveats. First off, it is now generally accepted that the way the Net is being commercially used constitutes a threat to privacy. Now, more than ever, the concept of privacy has been eroded to the point where it admits no precise definition. For quite sometime, for example, browser cookies have been used by companies, among other purposes, to monitor customer-browsing habits, to conduct target advertising and pinpoint consumer preferences;
This seems to me
overstated, for reasons I worked out at length in class. The cookie
is a technical approach to working around the "stateless" structure
of the Web. Because the cookie is saved on the browser side, its
presentation is under the user's control. How much state the user
wants to preserve is then up to her. What is really at stake is the
poor quality of the tools users are given to enforce their choices.
This is why free software browsers and other tools are so important:
the user's tools should not be framed by the profit motive of someone
else.
popular websites are now requiring users to use their real names, under the threat of being blocked, for so-called security purposes;
If this is a reference
to Facebook, it isn't recent. Facebook's policy has always been
based around surveillance of actual people, as they have been almost
candid enough to maintain.
GPS technology is now being used to monitor public movements;
Why not ubiquitous video
cameras. Too old skool for you?
and instant messaging applications are, by default, transcribing their users’ conversations.
I don't know what this means.
Moreover, the manner in which certain types of technology are evolving, such as Image Processing Software, do not seem too promising or focused for safeguarding our privacy interests.
Types of technology?
Why is that the subject? Isn't it the motives of the technology
developers that determine the degree of respect for privacy?
| | | Second, this eroding of privacy represents a potential chilling effect on expression. Individuals, especially those who have become dependent of online social networks, which come to feel that they cannot communicate or conduct themselves over the Net without leaving their digital footprint, might censor their online speech all together. Also, by not being able to knowingly protect or somewhat conceal their identity, users will certainly be more reluctant to freely read, “speak” and browse through the Internet without fear of repercussions. | |
<
< | A large part of the problem rests on the level of computer illiteracy in our society. We know how to use the tools, but do not understand how they operate. Most importantly, we do not know what is required to learn their operation. This can be seen translated as an example in the period of time it took society for becoming aware of the eroding of their privacy. And somehow, it feels like we have no choice. The general public perceives the terms and benefits of the Net akin to a contract of adhesion. | >
> | Only if people
understand what to be afraid of. Where the concern is state
oppressive violence, people may be inclined to face away from the
technology altogether, or to use it carefully and subversively.
Where the motive for the destruction of privacy is cloaked in
bullshit about commercial convenience, or even more is accompanied by
the exciting opportunity to spy on your friends and family, no such
chilling effect occurs. That's the lesson of the current
ecologically nearly irreversible fad for informing on everyone
through a kinder, gentler, global KGB.
A large part of the problem rests on the level of computer illiteracy in our society. We know how to use the tools, but do not understand how they operate.
No. "We" don't even
know how to use the tools. "We" know little more than the horse knows
about the buggy.
Most importantly, we do not know what is required to learn their operation. This can be seen translated as an example in the period of time it took society for becoming aware of the eroding of their privacy. And somehow, it feels like we have no choice. The general public perceives the terms and benefits of the Net akin to a contract of adhesion.
No, the general public
doesn't even know what "contract of adhesion" means. I think you
want to say that the general public takes the behavior of all
computers, including their own, as a mysterious fact of nature that
they cannot change. Eliminating the jargon will make your idea
clearer. | | | Another part of the problem rests on the amount and type of data that is in control of the companies that provide the services to which we are commercially tied to (e.g. cell phone carriers, search engines). Much of the data that these companies have in their possession could be used to identify the “who”, “when”, “where”, “what” and for “what purposes” of each individual customer. One of the most striking examples can be found in a cell phone history, which can be used to identify all of the whereabouts of its owner throughout its billing cycle. | |
<
< | Of course, the best way to solve this problem would be to educate the illiterates. But, in order to educate, people need to want to be educated. Understand the need for said education. Besides, a major obstacle is that the existing technology is not only easy to use, but also commercially controlled. Meaning that, in order to enjoy the benefits of e-commerce, users need to relinquish their personal information. Hence, this solution seems extremely difficult, if not impossible. | >
> | As I have explained, locating people who use cellphones is a trivial application, because peoples' physical movements are so exceedingly predictable. Nor is the really "striking" thing what happens because individual data flows are accessible. It's what happens when data is "mined," that is, the relation among data flows is rendered self-announcing. You could give a more sophisticated example here.
Of course, the best way to solve this problem would be to educate the illiterates.
No. That would help, of
course, but we don't have to be consequentialist about the value of
helping people to learn about their world, unless we also have to be
consequentialist in order to justify freedom and democracy to
ourselves. And no matter how much people know about the problem, it
won't do them any good unless the technical environment contains
alternatives from which solutions can be constructed. What will
solve the problem, therefore, is software that protects peoples'
freedom and privacy by default, rather than requiring them to know
everything about the engineering that would be required in order to
make software designed to hurt them stop doing so. So we need
software that supports freedom by design, and we need to make that
software in a way that will allow us both technically and
economically to embed that software in everything, and even cause
people who have no concern for freedom to help us embed that software
in everything for purely selfish reasons. Fortunately for humanity,
a few people perceived that need a generation ago, not only before
the problem was created but even before 99.99999% of humanity knew
that the technology causing the problem would ever come into
existence. We made free software that protects freedom, we created
the social, technical, and legal arrangements that would make it
possible to build and distribute without the resources regarded as
essential for "innovation" under capitalism, and we transformed the
technical environment of the Net, as it was being built, so that such
software would not only be always available, but so that it would be
the best and most productive environment in which to build more
software. Thus we built the internal contradictions from which this
particularly disgusting form of capitalism will eventually perish,
putting them inside the very equipment this disgusting system
requires in order to exist, embedding the revolution in favor of
freedom inside the materials of oppression.
You have had the opportunity to learn about that process at its
source. You have also experienced that even at the source, the
surrounding community is still so ignorant, so blinkered, so
maintained in its fat-dumb-and-happiness by the capitalists who mean
to continue to reallocate the world's wealth and power to themselves
by use of the technologies of unfreedom, that it neither understands
what is being done to it, nor who are the allies of freedom
constantly working, quite effectively, to maintain the solution they
will need when they at last, apparently too late, wake up to the
problem.
But, in order to educate, people need to want to be educated. Understand the need for said education. Besides, a major obstacle is that the existing technology is not only easy to use, but also commercially controlled. Meaning that, in order to enjoy the benefits of e-commerce, users need to relinquish their personal information. Hence, this solution seems extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Only if you don't look
at the solution we've already architected, implemented, and use all
the time. | | | Another solution rests in the development or adoption of existing “easy to use” technology/software that will allow the public to control who has access to their personal information. However, it seems that no technology can solve this problem altogether. Certainly, examples such as “Tor” software could allow for more secure chatting and browsing over the Net, but users cannot use the same if they want to engage in e-commerce. | |
>
> | False. Who told you that? | | | Finally, legal approaches such as creating a U.S. Privacy Commissioner to be in charge of overseeing the handling of individuals’ personal information by both the government and private sector could be adopted. Nonetheless, a Privacy Commissioner will be completely useless unless we resolve our privacy framework, which rests upon a patchwork of laws that have been enacted to address issues as they arise piecemeal.
| | |  | |
<
< | On the other hand, no matter how much the Net fosters innovation and serves as a tool of freedom and expression, we will never be able to prevent it from also being used by large corporations – e.g. Internet Service Providers – to advance their own interests against those of the public. For example, there is no realistic way to prevent companies from using their market power to continue to create hardware/software intended to distort our privacy interests. Unless individuals can build their own gadgets or learn how to hack them, iPhones, Kindles, and Playbooks will continue to be made and, because of their flashiness and the public’s computer illiteracy, they will continue to be bought by consumers. | >
> | On the other hand, no matter how much the Net fosters innovation and serves as a tool of freedom and expression, we will never be able to prevent it from also being used by large corporations – e.g. Internet Service Providers – to advance their own interests against those of the public. | | | | |
<
< | Furthermore, there is nothing to preclude network operators from their intent of moving bits of information imperfectly; or from discouraging technologies such as VoIP? to become a communications standard, unless they can ensure control over it. In other words, there is no way of preventing large corporations from slowing the innovative process from its greater potential to favor their economic interests. | >
> | Their interests are
advanced neither for nor against the interests of the public. Their
interests are legitimate, and are not only accommodated, but indeed
advanced, by our solutions as well as by their problems. Facebook
could not exist without free software, nor could Google. Verizon,
Deutsche Telekom, and the Great Firewall of China also cannot exist
and function without our parts.
For example, there is no realistic way to prevent companies from using their market power to continue to create hardware/software intended to distort our privacy interests. Unless individuals can build their own gadgets or learn how to hack them, iPhones, Kindles, and Playbooks will continue to be made and, because of their flashiness and the public’s computer illiteracy, they will continue to be bought by consumers.
Sure. But what do you
think is inside those systems? And why do you make free hardware
sound impossible, when it grows not only more possible but easier all
the time?
Furthermore, there is nothing to preclude network operators from their intent of moving bits of information imperfectly; or from discouraging technologies such as VoIP? to become a communications standard, unless they can ensure control over it.
That's not true.
There's plenty to prevent them, as well as plenty to aid them.
There's no certainty about their victory, anymore than there is about
ours. The position you are enunciating here, if true, would be a
reason for us to give up hope. But we know more about the struggle
we are engaged in than they do, and we understand the history they
are living through much better than they do as well. At the other
end of the twenty-first century we are far more likely to have won
than to have lost. The issue for you is which side you want to be
part of.
In other words, there is no way of preventing large corporations from slowing the innovative process from its greater potential to favor their economic interests.
Pshaw. We've been doing
it for a generation, very successfully, and we're just getting
started, | | | Conclusion
All good things have a downside. The Net is no exception. Out of those detrimental realities that surround it, some can be resolved others cannot. The battle for privacy is not insurmountable. But as long as there is e-commerce the desire for complete anonymity cannot be resolved. Finally, as long as economic interests run the Net, it will never operate at its full potential. | |
<
< |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. | >
> | Is this actually a
conclusion? What supports it? Why categorize the interests of
ownership as "economic" but not the interests of freedom? We're just
as "economic" as they are: we merely wish for a more egalitarian
material outcome than they do. |
|
|
AlejandroMercadoSecondPaper 1 - 26 Nov 2011 - Main.AlejandroMercado
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
Fending Off Goliath
-- By AlejandroMercado - 26 Nov 2011
Introduction
“The unknown always passes for the marvelous” –
Sherlock Holmes, The Red Haired League
Myth or fact? Both the Internet and the World Wide Web (hereinafter jointly referred as the “Net”) constitute a powerful tool of freedom and expression: fact. Whether for the greater good of a selected few or the demise of the remaining ‘others’, the Net does constitute a powerful tool of freedom and expression. But if we were to strike the words “freedom” and “expression” out of that phrase, we would be left with just “a powerful tool”. And as a powerful tool, it can be used for good or evil. Some evils we can control, others we cannot. Or can we?
Evils We Can Control?
As previously stated, the Net is not without caveats. First off, it is now generally accepted that the way the Net is being commercially used constitutes a threat to privacy. Now, more than ever, the concept of privacy has been eroded to the point where it admits no precise definition. For quite sometime, for example, browser cookies have been used by companies, among other purposes, to monitor customer-browsing habits, to conduct target advertising and pinpoint consumer preferences; popular websites are now requiring users to use their real names, under the threat of being blocked, for so-called security purposes; GPS technology is now being used to monitor public movements; and instant messaging applications are, by default, transcribing their users’ conversations. Moreover, the manner in which certain types of technology are evolving, such as Image Processing Software, do not seem too promising or focused for safeguarding our privacy interests.
Second, this eroding of privacy represents a potential chilling effect on expression. Individuals, especially those who have become dependent of online social networks, which come to feel that they cannot communicate or conduct themselves over the Net without leaving their digital footprint, might censor their online speech all together. Also, by not being able to knowingly protect or somewhat conceal their identity, users will certainly be more reluctant to freely read, “speak” and browse through the Internet without fear of repercussions.
A large part of the problem rests on the level of computer illiteracy in our society. We know how to use the tools, but do not understand how they operate. Most importantly, we do not know what is required to learn their operation. This can be seen translated as an example in the period of time it took society for becoming aware of the eroding of their privacy. And somehow, it feels like we have no choice. The general public perceives the terms and benefits of the Net akin to a contract of adhesion.
Another part of the problem rests on the amount and type of data that is in control of the companies that provide the services to which we are commercially tied to (e.g. cell phone carriers, search engines). Much of the data that these companies have in their possession could be used to identify the “who”, “when”, “where”, “what” and for “what purposes” of each individual customer. One of the most striking examples can be found in a cell phone history, which can be used to identify all of the whereabouts of its owner throughout its billing cycle.
Of course, the best way to solve this problem would be to educate the illiterates. But, in order to educate, people need to want to be educated. Understand the need for said education. Besides, a major obstacle is that the existing technology is not only easy to use, but also commercially controlled. Meaning that, in order to enjoy the benefits of e-commerce, users need to relinquish their personal information. Hence, this solution seems extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Another solution rests in the development or adoption of existing “easy to use” technology/software that will allow the public to control who has access to their personal information. However, it seems that no technology can solve this problem altogether. Certainly, examples such as “Tor” software could allow for more secure chatting and browsing over the Net, but users cannot use the same if they want to engage in e-commerce.
Finally, legal approaches such as creating a U.S. Privacy Commissioner to be in charge of overseeing the handling of individuals’ personal information by both the government and private sector could be adopted. Nonetheless, a Privacy Commissioner will be completely useless unless we resolve our privacy framework, which rests upon a patchwork of laws that have been enacted to address issues as they arise piecemeal.
Evils We Can't Control?
On the other hand, no matter how much the Net fosters innovation and serves as a tool of freedom and expression, we will never be able to prevent it from also being used by large corporations – e.g. Internet Service Providers – to advance their own interests against those of the public. For example, there is no realistic way to prevent companies from using their market power to continue to create hardware/software intended to distort our privacy interests. Unless individuals can build their own gadgets or learn how to hack them, iPhones, Kindles, and Playbooks will continue to be made and, because of their flashiness and the public’s computer illiteracy, they will continue to be bought by consumers.
Furthermore, there is nothing to preclude network operators from their intent of moving bits of information imperfectly; or from discouraging technologies such as VoIP? to become a communications standard, unless they can ensure control over it. In other words, there is no way of preventing large corporations from slowing the innovative process from its greater potential to favor their economic interests.
Conclusion
All good things have a downside. The Net is no exception. Out of those detrimental realities that surround it, some can be resolved others cannot. The battle for privacy is not insurmountable. But as long as there is e-commerce the desire for complete anonymity cannot be resolved. Finally, as long as economic interests run the Net, it will never operate at its full potential.
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|