Magic Spot Flowing

I got some offline feedback on my last entry, with the effect that I rethought a few things. Here are some of the new thoughts:

Anonymity. The way I defined this previously was “being out in public without being notable”. This isn’t a very good definition, because, as Gavin pointed out, anonymity actually has a more technical definition that’s important to preserve, namely: being in public without being known. So works of art can be anonymous, in that they are well-known but no one knows who made them (they are completely unsigned). Or a person can be anonymous by being in disguise or otherwise completely unrecognized. Or information can be made anonymous, “unconnected to an identity”, by purging it of identifying information, like aggregated web search data unconnected to IP address or other similar identifiers.

Gavin suggested that the concept I defined previously could be described as being “unnotable” or “unnoticed”. Perhaps a better word is needed, but having both concepts is certainly more useful.

Another concept that I didn’t define explicitly, but left under the umbrella of privacy, is pseudonymity. This is a very important concept in modern web communications since so much information these days is attached to usernames. When is a pseudonym truly unconnected to a person’s “real identity”? This can be a challenge to determine, and a lot of pseudonymous information is poorly protected because of subtle identifiers in the information or interconnection between pseudonymous information and information filed under a “real name”; it can also become an issue when pseudonym or username is used for multiple sites, services, or types of works. It’s often easier to find a person’s data on the web once you know one of their common usernames than it is when you know their name. Usernames are, by their nature as keys to a specific record, more unique than names.

I also am not that fond of my definition of notability. It doesn’t seem to me to require numbers, but only a certain level of significant interest. However, that’s pretty hard to describe and define.

Finally, Dave wrote me an extensive discussion of yet another concept relating to accessibility: risk.
Risk is what you have when information is accessible to some people, but not others, because there’s a risk of failure of the safeguards that prevent it from being accessible to everyone (loss or deliberate breakage), as well as a risk of legal decision that the safeguards must be removed (search warrants, subpoenas).

Dave sums his discussion up thus: “Heightened accessibility, even if it is well-understood under normal conditions, still creates the prospect of lowered privacy.”

This is, I think, one of the big deals about accessibility that makes people pitch a fit about sudden increases in it.

As a result of some long-ago and more recent conversations with smart friends of mine, I came up with some interesting thoughts about privacy.

I don’t fully understand the legal umbrella of privacy, but it seems to me that there are a few distinct concepts that it would be useful to introduce into quasi-legal/common-sense discussions of privacy, and potentially to the legal arena too, in the long run.

First, a brief rundown of the concepts, before we get into their interactions and complications.

Privacy. Things that are private are things that you do on private property not visible from a public space, or public spaces where you have “a reasonable expectation of privacy”, and that you don’t speak or publish about in publicly-accessible forums — or if you do, those forums are specifically unconnected to your “real identity”. Also, things are private which are defined by law to be private, but that’s less important here than the nontechnical definition.

Accessibility (or Ease of Access). Things that are accessible are things that are easy for the average person or user to find. This is not a great term because “accessible” also has a technical binary definition related to privacy: if information is not at all accessible, it is private. But bear with me for a while, and suggest a better word if you have one.

Notability. Things that are notable are things that a substantial percentage of people (in the whole population or some subgroup) is interested in knowing about.

Anonymity. Being out in public without being notable.

The complexities of online “privacy” often come up when something besides privacy is involved, namely accessibility or notability. In my old journal, I wrote an entry about Google Street View (and Facebook News Feed, to some extent) in which I used the terms “theoretical privacy” and “actual privacy” rather than using the word “accessibility”, although I did notice, on re-reading the comments, that I start to talk about information being “(easily) accessible”.

GSV and FNF are iconic examples of things that “raised privacy concerns” without actually doing anything to change whether information was private or not. All the information on GSV and FNF was always available (to anyone who set foot in a place, in the case of GSV, and to anyone who previously had access to the info, in the case of FNF). What they did do was make it incredibly easy to find things out that previously had required a lot of effort to find out: what a place looks like at ground level, and what your friends are doing on Facebook. So the information became accessible (in the sense defined above) where before it had been inaccessible.

Notability is implicated in most problems where accessibility becomes an issue. If information is not notable (no one is really interested in knowing it), it doesn’t matter if it is easily accessible or not: no one cares, either way. Dave sent me a link today (which spawned this whole thought process on my part) about a guy whose information suddenly became notable. The guy didn’t mind, but it gave him pause for thought, as I’m sure it would most of us.

In the FNF and GSV cases, nothing became differently notable, just differently (more easily) accessible. This is closer to a form of privacy loss, because it makes something notable easier to find, and if something notable is found, you have much easier access to it. BoingBoing readers had many things to say about it, some of them wondering if we need new laws, or a new area of law, to deal with accessibility of information, since it isn’t covered by traditional privacy law.

Personal conduct in public, combined with YouTube and other video-upload services, illustrates a different set of circumstances. Most of us who live in largish urban areas, most of the time we’re in public, are anonymous: out in public without anyone particularly caring who we are. We feel restricted in our activities by our visibility, but don’t need to worry very much about anyone caring what we’re up to, even if we’re eating cookies when we’re supposed to be on a diet, or smoking when we said we quit. The situation isn’t the same in smaller communities, of course. In small communities, it’s hard to be out in public without being known.

Even in larger communities, recording and uploading a person’s behavior to a video site like YouTube makes it more accessible, but doesn’t necessarily make it more notable (consider all the incredibly boring YouTube videos that no one watches). Likewise, a person’s behavior becoming an object of attention/controversy would make it more notable but not more accessible: you’d still have to actually find the person to see what they were doing. When you get the simultaneous combination of accessibility and notability, you get something like the recent BART shooting video + controversy or the Caltrain cyclist arrest. But another worrying situation is when something goes up earlier, and then later becomes notable (like the guy’s photos as linked above, or like Facebook photos of undergrads drinking which get them in trouble).

How do we live our lives in a world that is increasingly a participatory panopticon? How do we act in public? What do we publicize and what do we keep private when things could become far more accessible or notable in the future than we ever imagined?

Some time back, I wrote about the TSA’s policies on knitting needles. Not surprisingly, it isn’t just the TSA which seems to have trouble defining what or why the issue is with knitting needles.

On my way back from London yesterday, the guy at the Continental counter — not an airport screener — asked me if I had anything in my carryon which could be used as a weapon. I thought about it and said no with the possible exception of knitting needles, but the ones I was carrying were bamboo, dull-tipped, and had made it through US security on the way here (all true).

He said that nevertheless I should check them because they aren’t permitted. What really got to me about this is that he said that the airline permits them (also obviously true since I was previously allowed on board with them and they weren’t at any point interrogating me or any old ladies about the contents of our bags) but that security doesn’t, and the reason that security doesn’t is that they are trying to follow what the Americans tell them to do.

The first part of what he said turns out to be true, though I had no way of verifying that at the time except by either leaving the line and walking over to ask them or completing checkin and trying my luck. The Gatwick airport website specifically indicates knitting needles of all kinds as not to be packed in “hand luggage” (the British term for carryon luggage). But the second part is clearly untrue, and I really wish that people would not give bogus excuses like that for their stupid policies. I said rather crossly, but still politely, to him that this obviously had nothing to do with US airport security policy since the US has no such policy, and moved the knitting bag into my checked suitcase.

In Newark I moved it back to my carryon before customs and got absolutely no comment when I went through security again. Whatever excuse Gatwick airport (and it is just Gatwick and a few other airports — neither the government nor BAA which runs many British airports forbids knitting needles!) have for forbidding my knitting needles, it isn’t US security. But I must say, they don’t have an arbitrary policy — just a stupid one.

Useless nominalization – defeated!

I have to admit that I’m pleased about this on both pedantic and political grounds (the current phrasing is correct, and the current phrasing is more likely to assist in the measure’s defeat), but mostly what caught my eye is the judge referring to the desired change as “useless nominalization”. Nice phrase.

House Democrats have some vertebrae left in their spine, at least, having refused to rubber-stamp telecom immunity. Good for them, even if the whole issue of warrantless wiretapping in general is still a mess. If you’re less lazy than me, you could write to your House rep congratulating or reproving them, but I’m going to go rest now.

I’m still coughing over here, but less so, and whatever nasty little bug is causing my illness has now diversified into sinus crud, but I felt like cooking today (VeganYumYum‘s Hot and Sour Cabbage Soup — tasty, easy, and sinus-clearing!) and should be back at work tomorrow, so life is returning to normal.

Greenwald writes:

That has become Congress’ only role, its only power: to endorse what the President decrees. Like the sad, impotent Roman Senate which existed only to lend its imprimatur to the Emperor’s conduct, the Congress’ only choices are — as it did yesterday — to plead for “re-consideration,” and then, when it’s not forthcoming, either do nothing or endorse the President’s behavior.

Not only a highly evocative description and highly relevant to the latest nonsense on the FISA bill, but one of a falling empire — which is what our country is, in case you haven’t noticed lately. It’s extremely depressing, because instead of just stopping the empire-like behavior, we’re doing crazier and crazier things and managing them worse and worse.

I’m especially discouraged to learn that the other side is smearing the EFF, of all things, lumping them in with rich trial lawyers. Because a non-profit law firm protecting people’s rights is oh-so-lucrative…are they crazy? The EFF is a wonderful organization and personally and civically very dear to me. Which reminds me, where is my checkbook? Time to send them some money.

The man himself speaks.

Keep emailing or calling your Senators.

From Glenn Greenwald, after the Judiciary committee version (no immunity) was tabled:
The pro-immunity, pro-warrantless eavesdropping Democrats: Rockefeller, Pryor, Inouye, McCaskill, Landrieu, Salazar, Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Mikulski, Carper, Bayh, and Johnson. Neither Clinton nor Obama bothered to show up for any of this.

And they’re going to provide leadership to us in the next four years? Really?

If any of your Senators are the people listed above (or you once lived in that state, or you’re just looking for more people to email) then try these nitwit non-Democrats.

Greenwald also sums up why I’ve just completely lost my patience with these ‘Democrats’ in Washington.

“Democrats find themselves in the same corner they were in last summer: on the one hand their base demands they block expanded domestic spying powers for the Bush Administration; on the other, they can’t risk looking soft on terrorism, especially nine months before national elections. Senate majority leader Harry Reid is angling for another month’s extension of the PAA, but that would only give the Republicans a third bite at the apple in late February….”

Here we have a perfect expression of the most self-destructive Democratic disease which they seem unable to cure. More than anything, they fear looking “weak.” To avoid this, they “cave” and surrender and capitulate and stand for nothing. As a result, they are, as here, endlessly described in the media as “caving” and surrendering. As a result, they look (and are) weak. It’s a self-destructive cycle that has no end.

Until we elect some Democrats who don’t do this, I suppose. I swear, we need a litmus test of our own, only it’ll be based on the Constitution. “Sorry, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Feinstein — you can’t run for office as a Democrat if you don’t believe in the Fourth Amendment.”

Guys, it’s time for action on FISA again. NOW. TODAY. I was on blog silence last time this came up, but it’s time again. Start with Glenn Greenwald for a decent overview of the politics. There should be a link in there somewhere explaining the principles too, if you’re not already familiar with the fact that the NSA spied on Americans without warrants, and the telecoms companies (mostly) spinelessly caved and cooperated, despite the fact that it’s completely illegal. Now the telecoms want to be saved from their own idiocy and the NSA wants to keep wiretapping us without warrants. I say no way. Write to your Senators, and Senators Reid (pro-spying) and Dodd (willing to risk a ton of political capital and filibuster any bill with immunity provisions), as well as Sens. Obama and Clinton, who are doing fuck all to help Dodd here because they are more interested in holding office than in doing something with it.

Here’s my letter to Reid. I am more than a little pissed off at him. I resisted using the word “toady” in the letter, but only just.

Senator Reid,

[signed]