Privacy Attitudes

One of the problems faced by researchers working with privacy is the fundamental question of why people do not care about privacy? It is easy to see either from studies or by simply looking at peopleâ??s behaviour that privacy is not a big thing for many people.

Oh course if you were to ask the question: Is you privacy important to you? Then most people would reply that their privacy was important. But if we look at the way in which people act with their privacy then we get the real picture. There is a radical difference between the way in which people want to be perceived (i.e. privacy conscious) and the way in which they act.

What does this mean? Well some of the discrepancy between the peopleâ??s theoretical and real standpoints can be explained by the lack of knowledge and awareness of the privacy threats. So for example, it is difficult to blame people for being unconcerned with their privacy simply because they us gmail or similar services.

A similar argument can be made to cover those who have no choice but to use less private alternatives. But wait! before you begin to argue that there is always a choice not to use the technology at all, I want to point out being a Luddite is not an option for many people and neither is it for you, considering where you got a hold of this text.

Why is peopleâ??s perception of privacy a problem? Well if we argue the right to privacy (and I often do) then the fact that people do not care about privacy makes this a problem. Can there be a human right if it is unwanted? For a long time I used the smoker analogy.

Smokers want to be healthy but still do not quit smoking despite all the information available. This is not meant to be understood as smokers do not want to be healthy, nor does it invalidate their right to healthcare. The problem with privacy however is that either you have it or you donâ??t.

Recently Paul Saffo wrote about the online habits of the young be warning them that they will come to regret their openness and online presences:

Which is why I pity teens today, for in a few decades their sophomoric musings will deliver a vast embarrassment utterly unknown to earlier generations. It is not that their words are any sillier than earlier generations; rather teens today have had the misfortune of being the first generation to record their thoughts in cyberspace where those thoughts will remain perfectly preserved until some wag drags them out at a school reunion or the authorâ??s children discover the IM affections that passed between mom and dad.

Saffo’s post seems to come as a reaction to (or proof of concept) the peice by Emily Nussbaum in the New Yorker “Kids, the Internet, and the End of Privacy: The Greatest Generation Gap Since Rock and Roll“.

Basically people (many of them young – but by no means all) are putting their lives online – innermost thoughts, bad poetry, homespun politics, private erotica and everything else that was previously covered by privacy. Add to this the number of cameras and videos that surround us – almost one in every pocket. We have a situation where every embarassing situation is recorded and transmitted to the rest of the disinterested world. The material is also stored away for no reason to resurface at a later date – even though I think most of it will be lost on trashed computers long before the future.

So the concern is: children doing things today with technology will live to regret it later.  And it will be a lot worse than when “we” were young since there will be texts and photos around to prove it.

I disagree.

The mass of material produced today will sink into obscurity. Yes some material (potentially embarassing) will remain to be found. But this change will not create the scandal that such material cuases today. Finding an embarrasing image from the teenage past of a prominent figure of today is hardly newsworthy – but it is considered to be news. In twenty years it will not even be news.

The self publication of ones teenage life and angst will not create a generation of people neurotic about the fact that someone may remember them or their thoughts, it will create a generation of people who can say that they were teenagers in much the same way as all other teenages were.

What about privacy?

This is not the death of privacy. Privacy is a “floating” value. Ideas of what is, and what should be, private change in culture, time and space. The only shock that we are seeing here is the death of the privacy concept as it has been understood by the “others” or “outsiders” – in other words it is the attempt of those outside the group to dictate norms on those inside the group.

Cultural Relativism and Resistance

Itâ??s difficult to identify and define resistance but one basic feature (which is overlooked) is the fact that resistance can very rarely be unconscious. Resistance is a conscious act carried out for the purpose of resistance. This is usually not a problem since it is reasonably easy to see that those who resist have made a conscious decision to do so. The issue with conscious choice is usually discussed in situations where the courts believe that the act is criminal rather than activism.

But there is another side of the coin. Should resistance studies also advocate a normative approach? In other words should those studying resistance also advocate resistance? This question of the normative approach is actually not so unique. It stems from the discussion of cultural relativity. This discussion (simplified) is engaged in the argument whether a culture has the right to condemn or condone acts it finds abhorrent when these occur within another culture?

These thoughts are sparked off by a trip to India. Mumbai is an energetic city filled with young educated people looking for good, well-paid jobs â?? preferably with a multinational corporation. This in itself is not a problem. But within this modern culture they also manage to incorporate traditional values. In a discussion on marriage and relationships the young and educated all felt comfortable with traditional family life. This included, naturally, the role of the women as subservient to the man, the wife subservient to the mother-in-law etc.

India is a complex fascinating society. But it also challenges many of my values. In particular the family values and gender roles â?? but it also places demands on me. Should the Indians resist their traditional family roles? Or is my approach to family and frustration at the lack of resistance among them simply a western approach on steroids?

Should the resistance scholar advocate resistance? Is this a question of academic detachment or method?

Are torturers evil?

It is very difficult to break out of some of one’s gut instincts. Since I was raised in the west, spoon-fed Hollywoodisms from my youngest days and all in the shadow of the cold war east-west mentality it is difficult to really get past some of the “facts of life”.

One such fact is that only evil people torture. Evil torturers fall into different categories such as (1) medieval (e.g. Spanish inquisition), foreign despot (e.g. Idi Amin), (3) total raving nutter (e.g. Hitler). Now despite the fact that I know that these simplifications are not true. Works by people such as Hannah Arendt (Eichamnn in Jerusalem) and Stanley Milgram (Obedience to Authority Study) show that acts of evil are conducted without much passion and by ordinary people.

Reports of torture being carried out by ordinary people systematically appear – and I am shocked. In particular since the organisation carrying them out is bringing democracy and attempting to win the hearts and minds of the people.

Why am I shocked? If I know that people are capable of evil? The only explanation I can think of right now is the lame idea of them and us. Stated simply evil people are them, we are good even though sometimes in error. How depressing that in the face of all the evidence I still cannot get beyond this gut reaction that they are evil while we are good.

Oh and don’t try to explain the whole thing away by speaking of a few bad apples at the Abu Ghraib prison. That simplification does not work. See for example an editorial in the New York Times (Only the Jailers are Safe, 20 December 2006, via Battleangel)

Donald Vance, a 29-year-old Navy veteran from Chicago, was a whistle-blower who prompted the raid by tipping off the F.B.I. to suspicious activity at the company where he worked, including possible weapons trafficking. He was arrested and held for 97 days â?? shackled and blindfolded, prevented from sleeping by blaring music and round-the-clock lights. In other words, he was subjected to the same mistreatment that thousands of non-Americans have been subjected to since the 2003 invasion.

The culture of cruelty (i.e. the acceptance or tolerance for evil deeds among organisations and in society) is spreading and the more we hear the more we accept. We become (as a society) de-sensitized and tolerant to suffering.

What is the point of fighting for democracy, rights and freedom if the methods used are cruel, inhuman and against democracy, rights and freedom? If we win this fight (against whom?) is it a victory worth having? Or will we like King Pyrrhus declare, after beating the Romans at Asculum (279 BCE) declare that a victory at such a cost is not worth having?

Snow!

Another trip to Stockholm. This time to meet with people from UR (utbildningsradion) public service. It was a good meeting and an interesting discussion on how public service television in Sweden can use Creative Commons licensing. After the meeting I had some time to kill so I walked around Stockholm and it started to snow. Finally! So far December has been dismally warm and wet so a little snow makes it feel more like Christmas, even if we will not get a white Christmas in Göteborg.

So now that I have seen snow I feel more disposed to the season – which is good considering I shall be buying the tree tomorrow… Everything else is already all in place (almost). Christmas in Sweden is pretty traditional: tree, presents and too much food. I am looking forward to it.

Resistance Fashion

Resistance to fashion is a topic that occasionally appears. Such resistance can take the form of animal rights activists protesting against the fur trade (e.g. Coalition to abolish the fur trade), it can take the form of protests against the use of anorectic models (e.g. the Spanish Association in Defense of Attention for Anorexia and Bulimia has managed to obtain the world’s first ban on overly thin models at a top-level fashion show in Madrid), or it can deal with protests against the conditions of workers in the textile trade (the most famous example must be Naomi Kleinâ??s work No Logo)

But what about the fashion of resistance? This is can be seen both as a reflection on what is fashionable to resist at any given time and as the actual fashion statement of the resister. The former is a fascinating subject since the world attention is fickle. The focus of popular attention varies even if the reason for resistance may remain â?? maybe a book here for someone to edit? (nudge, nudge).

However, it is the latter which is the focus of this post. Fashion and style can in themselves be both a form and a symbol of resistance. Styles of dress such as punk and hiphop are seen as resistance to the norm â?? punk went even further since its purpose was to provoke.

But even in the less extreme resistance has a fashion. Styles which identify, unite and exclude. Occasionally these styles establish themselves in the mainstream and there ability to provoke/resist are almost lost. One such controversial symbol is the image of Che Geuvara. On 5th of March 1960 Alberto â??Kordaâ?? Gutierrez took two pictures of Che Guevara. In 1967 the Italian publisher Giangiacomo Feltrinelli received two copies of the famous print at no cost.

Che by Korda

Feltrinelli started making posters from the prints with the notice â??Copyright Feltrinelliâ?? down in the corner. The image was on itâ??s way to become an international icon â?? it has been transformed, transplanted, transmitted and transfigured all over the world. Korda never received a penny. For one reason only – Cuba had not signed the Berne Convention. Fidel Castro described the protection of intellectual property as imperialistic â??bullshitâ??.

Since then the image has gone from being a symbol of resistance and revolution to being a fashion statement. Today the image has achieved iconic status and is (ab)used on everything from posters to carpets. The image has even had an exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. The question therefore, as symbolized, by the Che icon is: How does an iconic symbol of resistance spread to a mass audience without becoming pop-culture and lacking in the symbolic value which was the original purpose? Or is resistance fashion a paradox since once it becomes a fashion it loses its resistance quality?

Tomorrow itâ??s back on the rails again. I am off to Stockholm to meet family and then to do some work early on Monday. The three-hour trip to Stockholm is becoming a very common occurrence lately but I donâ??t mind I enjoy train travel. Also the train has power outlets at all seats and wifi. All this means that I can surf while traveling at 200 km/hour.

On Monday I shall meet with people from Solidaritetshuset (Solidarity House) to discuss how the FSFE can help with their plans for holding seminars and training courses in Free Software and developing an open archive for their material.

The Mountain Lake

Yesterday I held a public lecture in a local suburb of Göteborg, a place called the Mountain Lake. In English the name is totally exotic and idyllic. In Swedish the place is called Bergsjön (literally the mountain lake). Bergsjön is not a place with idyllic connotations but rather one thinks of a problem suburb to the northeast of Göteborg.

Built in the 1960s. Bergsjön is actually a part of Göteborg which lies close to nature, with parks, and yes, a lake. The area is 8 km outside the city center with good public transportation. Almost all the street names have something to do with outer space (for example Galileo Street and Comet Road). At the same time the area is also described as a failing area marked by social segregation, high unemployment and a large (yet diverse) immigrant population.

Bergsjön came to be built during the so-called million program which is the common name for the large scale housing project intended to solve the housing crisis of the 1950s and 1960s in Sweden. The goal was to build one million apartments in Sweden during 1965-1974. It is worth remembering that the population of Sweden is today 9 million.

The architectural ideal of the day was strongly focused on a few key ideas such as commuting, intense central planning, functionalism and a return to nature (or rather a desire to leave the narrow confines of the small stone cities). These ideas, coupled with narrow economic margins, formed the way in which these satellite cities were designed, built and populated. Today one fourth of the population of Sweden lives in a house built in this program. Despite the ideals and economic constraints, in the end, only one fourth of the houses of the million project have more than six floors.

Bergsjön

Many of the complaints against the projects do not concern themselves with the standard of living or the building materials and techniques used. The problem has been seen as a social problem. By building large-scale projects also involves the movement of people. These people have little or no common background connected with the place. Therefore social cohesion becomes difficult from the start.

In addition to this these spaces have been populated with a high number of new immigrants in addition to people with social problems. Thus the areas have been marked with high unemployment. This leads to high social costs and low council taxes which creates a negative spiral.

Social cohesion is on the rise. The first â??officialâ?? notice of this development came from linguists who began to notice a common language being formed and developed in these areas. The language is marked with a high level of borrowed terms from many different parts of the world. Once this minor dialect became more popular it also brought with it a growing awareness of the cultural developments within these areas.

Despite this there remain serious issues connected to the buildings of the million program. Mikael Askergren suggests that they should not be seen as social living spaces but rather:

â??Why do people have such problems loving the concrete architecture of Sweden’s structuralist residential suburbs of the 1960s and 1970s? Most people seem to agree that it is impossible to live a decent life there. But it should be possible to learn to love the architecture of these suburbs as monumentalist artworks; as sculpture. The future of the suburbs of the 1960s and 1970s is not to be lived in, but (much like the castles, palaces, and other monumentalist artworks of ancient times) to be emptied, to be restored to their original splendour, and then to become the subject of tourism.â?? â??Concrete Tourismâ?? by Mikael Askergren, Plaza Magazine, 5-2002.

Whatever happens these areas constitute the real fringe of Swedish language and cultural development. Away from the mainstream they may be the place from where new culture may be introduced into the mainstream.

However, none of this will solve the social issues connected with the larges sites of the million program. Politicians have largely ignored the topic of social improvement since they naively believe that reducing unemployment through different schemes (carrots and/or sticks) will even fix problems of social seclusion and segregation.

Poisoning Hearts and Minds

You must have seen the books or heard the complaints about the US trying to figure out why they are so disliked (not only in Iraq). The US believed that they were liberators and were surprised how quickly they lost their liberation status. The operation to win the heats and minds of the people of Iraq has not worked and many wonder why.

But reading about the abuses caused by the military makes it easy to understand why the situation is going so badly. OK, so itâ??s a few bad apples you might argue. But unfortunately the few bad apples theory is wrong.

In a recent video posted to YouTube (watch it here) you can watch a scene where soldiers on a truck make children run for a bottle of water.  The scene is being filmed by one of the soldiers on the truck. Both the cameraman and the soldier holding the water are laughing and commenting on how far the children will run for water. Itâ??s a great joke for them.

The soldiers conduct, while not illegal was most definitely immoral and seemingly oblivious to the reality that these children actually live in, a reality that was largely caused by them.

It also yet another severe contradiction to our so called image as “liberators” of the middle east.

The mainstream media has yet to pick up on the story though the Pentagon is investigating the videos and the evidence is in the videos the soldiers posted themselves online that anyone can see, for the time being.

Not only did the soldiers involved behave in an unacceptable manner they thought their conduct was so acceptable and so humorous that they posted it online for the entire world to see.

(Dreams of Liberty)

OK so you still want to claim that it’s a few bad apples. No it is not. The soldiers thought the scene was so funny and that their prank would be appreciated by so many that they posted it on YouTube themselves. This is not a case of people doing something wrong and attempting to hide it.

The poison that is being spread in the minds of these children will not wash away easily. It makes you wonder what their feelings towards the west will be in thirty years from now.

Walking on the wild side

If I was in Singapore I would be facing a prison sentence for doing what I am doing now. (Explanation). The hotel has free wifi for its guests and the receptionist gave me the codes but I chose the wrong (?) wireless and the neighbors let me in.  Many swedes leave their wifi networks open and I must say that I have a hard time figuring why this should be wrong. Additionally I also have a hard time figuring out why people in cities who have open networks
should be annoyed that others surf on their infrastructure.

If you don’t want to let others surf the close the network. But unless you experience serious lag due to all you neighbors surfing via your net then why bother?

Actually allowing neighbors to surf your wifi may be in violation of the service agreement between you and your broadband provider. But lets not go there. Just let me mangle Blanche’s line in Tennessee Williams’ “A Streetcar Named Desire”: I must say I am grateful for the kindness of strangers.*

* Real line should be: “Whoever you are, I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.” but somehow this does not really apply to wifi…

Best non-fiction book

Wait a moment…

You can’t just vote the best non-fiction book. Lots of people will be upset, annoyed, miffed and feel generally left out. For my part I feel ignored since I missed the whole event.

The Royal Institution in London have voted Primo Levi’s memoir of life as a Jew in Mussolini’s Italy, named “The Periodic Table” the best non-fiction book ever written.

The shortlist

Primo Levi The Periodic Table
Konrad Lorenz King Solomon’s Ring
Tom Stoppard Arcadia
Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene

Other nominations

James Watson The Double Helix
Bertolt Brecht The Life of Galileo
Peter Medawar Pluto’s Republic
Charles Darwin Voyage of the Beagle
Stephen Pinker The Blank Slate
Oliver Sacks A Leg to Stand On

(via Guardian Online)