[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_
From: |
Matija Šuklje |
Subject: |
Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_ |
Date: |
Sat, 10 Apr 2010 20:34:05 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.12.4 (Linux/2.6.31-gentoo-r10; KDE/4.3.5; x86_64; ; ) |
Dne sobota 10. aprila 2010 ob 19:32:48 je Story Henry napisal(a):
> > Hellekin O. Wolf wrote:
> > *** Putting privacy and free speech in the same pot sounds to me like
> > a counter-revolutionary attack on both privacy and free speech. It
> > seems to say: you cannot have privacy if you have free speech, and you
> > cannot have free speech if you have privacy. I wonder when this
> > dichotomy appeared, but I relate it to the general trends in warfare
> > speech that says "Either you're with us, or against us" and the
> > marketing-fascist trend of pushing transparency at all price, "because
> > you don't have anything to hide."
I'm _very_ sorry if sounded like that. As I stated before, initially I
wrote the post to provoke a debate on that matter.
Personally I think both extremes that you mention are to be avoided and
one of the goals of this project should be exactly to enable a platform to
make the user in charge of their privacy — but to do that, we have to
define what his/her privacy *is*!
> One way I think one can better defend the issue is by looking at the
issue
> in terms of meaning. Free speech and privacy are in important respects
> issues of language and meaning. So if I get some time to develop this
in
> more detail, I would start from the theory of speech acts [0]. The
> meaning of what you say (and what you publish) is not determined just
by
> the content, but also by the attitude of the sayer, and who that
> sayer/publisher is.
>
> So you can say something seriously, or you can joke about it, or you can
> doubt it, .... Those are just a few of the very many different
attitudes
> one can have when saying something. Confusing them leads to stupid
things
> like the man who was recently arrested for a twitter joke [1].
>
> When people listen in to conversations not intended for them, they are
not
> listening in on a conversation they can necessarily understand. Or the
> other way around: if everyone has to have a conversation as if one
unknown
> huge and not necessarily very intelligent agent were listening, many
> speech acts that could take place, won't take place. At the very least
> this slows down the ability to think critically, and so the ability of
a
> society to respond intelligently to problems. Imagine for example that
we
> are developing a game to help people work through the consequences of
> social policies on drug handle, war, poverty, etc... Many things will
be
> said very realistically in such situations which a listener may not
> understand as being hypothetical. But furthermore it won't be at all
> effective, as those who really do have a destructive mission will use
> language that will seem innocuous.
>
> As a result a paranoid listener will end up suspecting everybody: there
is
> nothing else he can do. And very soon we are in the same situation as
that
> described by the film "The life of Others" [2] which described the
> situation in East Germany before the wall came down. What the film
shows
> very well, is how this type of setup is of course easy to corrupt, and
in
> fact ends up creating the resistance it was trying to stop. The problem
> now is that we have a lot more powerful tools to do the spying than the
> east germans had.
>
> Inversely if you say something in public you are then opening yourself
to
> the very rich criticism you can get for what you say, but also from the
> very great work by others you can build upon. This can be both painful,
> and of course very enriching, as we know in the free software movement.
I very much agree with you here!
> > Do you have a good example of a positive conceptual framework for
> > thinking about social software?
>
> It is not that difficult to get things going. What you need is at its
most
> basic:
>
> 1- ownership of your publishing infrastructure
> 2- ability to access control who sees what
>[...]
> On that you can then build a lot more, such as rules perhaps on how
you
> allow people to distribute content, and what they have to do when
> distributing it (eg: cite your name, if they don't change it, ...)
That would solve many problems, yeah.
Cheers,
Matija
--
gsm: +386 41 849 552
www: http://matija.suklje.name
xmpp: address@hidden
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, (continued)
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Ian Denhardt, 2010/04/06
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Jason Self, 2010/04/06
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Rob Myers, 2010/04/06
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Story Henry, 2010/04/06
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Matija Šuklje, 2010/04/07
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Story Henry, 2010/04/07
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Matija Šuklje, 2010/04/08
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Hellekin O. Wolf, 2010/04/10
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Rob Myers, 2010/04/10
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Story Henry, 2010/04/10
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_,
Matija Šuklje <=
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, elijah, 2010/04/10
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Story Henry, 2010/04/10
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Matija Šuklje, 2010/04/10
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Melvin Carvalho, 2010/04/10
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Ian Denhardt, 2010/04/06
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Odin Omdal Hørthe, 2010/04/06
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Rob Myers, 2010/04/06
- Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Story Henry, 2010/04/07
Re: [Social-discuss] Control own privacy, posted by _others_, Ted Smith, 2010/04/06