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.

Sweden to criminalise DoS attacks

It does not come as a surprise to read (in Swedish here) that Sweden is on it’s way to criminalise denial of service attacks. This is unsurprising since it is simply another step in the obvious direction of EU harmonisation following the framework decision on attacks against information systems. The latter framework decision is part of a general scheme to fight against terrorism and organised crime within the information society.

The problem is that criminalising DoS attacks in this way makes all DoS attacks illegal. Even if an attack is carried out in the form of political protest, in other words, not terrorism, not organised crime. For example, in a case settled in 2006 where the Frankfurt Appelate Court found the groups â??Libertadâ?? and â??Kein Mensch ist illegalâ?? (No Human is Illegal) had carried out a legitimate form of political protest when they organised 13000 people in an online blockade (With a script- client- based distributed denial of service attack) of the airline Lufthansa. The protest was against the companies part in the deportation of asylum seekers (for more see links below).

When states now criminalise the act of DoS they also make sure that this tool cannot be used as a form of political protest. Therefore the regulators go far beyond their intention and scope of preventing terrorism and organised crime.

A more paranoid person may suspect that the regulator is using the label of terrorism to create rules which limit our ability to use technology in political communications… Read more about the “unintended” negative consequences for democracy, which occur when regulators attempt to control technology in my thesis: Disruptive Technology.

Decision by the Frankfurt Appellate Court (in German only, 22.05.2006)
http://www.libertad.de/service/downloads/pdf/olg220506.pdf

Statement by Libertad on the ruling (in German only, 1.06.2006)
http://www.libertad.de/inhalt/projekte/depclass/verfahren/libpe010606.shtml

In German (1.06.2006)
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/73755
In English (2.06.2006)
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/73827

Updating to Ella

Every time word press releases and update I go through a period of tense anticipation. Will I be able to update my software without breaking the whole thing. So when I saw in January that WordPress had released WordPress 2.1 â??Ellaâ??, named for jazz vocalist Ella Fitzgerald I was a bit tense. But everything went well with a few minor changes that needed to be made to the theme.

But it wasn’t until I tried to actually write a new post that I realised that something was seriously wrong. Ella supports a new tabbed editor which enables switching between WYSIWYG and code editing while writing a post. Unfortunately not only was there no tabs but my whole toolbar had disappeared. I eventually resolved this by deleting and re-installing the /wp-includes/js/tinymce/ folder and doing a hard refresh. Hey Presto! there was my toolbar. But my problems were not over.

Right now I have a toolbar but attempting to add a link fails since the popup window that appears has no button to press on. Hitting return does nothing either. This is all very frustrating. Oh well if you don’t know what to do you can always fill your time by upgrading software…

Update! problem solved. The loss of the cancel/insert buttons that prevented me from inserting links without going to the html editor was solved by changing my java settings in Firefox, clearing the cache and then restarting. So now everything looks fixed again (until I find the next little bug).

Selling University

Umeå Center for Interaction Technology (UCIT) have moved beyond the boring ads for education. Not content with advertising in the local paper the UCIT have created movies and posted them on YouTube. This is so much more fun than ordinary advertising done by universities.

One movie is a play on the great film “The Usual Suspects” and is called “The Usual Systemvetare” (bonus points for the No Rights Reserved sign at the end) and the second is a parody of the MTV show Cribs called “DMP Cribs“.

This is so much more fun than reading a formal ad in the local paper. Definitely a university that knows its own subject matter.

Swedish Embassy on Second Life

The days here are long so there is not much time for extra reading but in todayâ??s edition of the Times of India there is an article about Sweden. Naturally (?) since Sweden is the exotic over here, so the reason why we rate an article is the strangeness factor.

Sweden has announced that they will establish an embassy in the virtual environment â??Second Lifeâ??. Reading the article closer it is not really the Swedish Foreign Office that will create an embassy but rather the Swedish Institute which is involved in marketing Sweden to the world. They have a good tourist site with lots of information about, and experiences of Sweden.

Someone has managed to sell in this idea to his/her boss but it does feel kind of sad that the Swedish marketing arm is attempting to waste time and energy marketing a physical country in a virtual environment. This is the kind of project that gets everyone excited but with hindsight nobody wants to admit they liked the idea.

Everything is different

In India everything is different. It’s exciting, challenging and a bit frustrating. But very interesting. The main annoyance right now is the flaky Internet connection which seems not to be so bad – but very temperamental…

Emerging Patterns

I cannot believe it! The &%#â?¬&%â?¬#&%â?¬#&%â?¬ web has been down since Friday. Once again proving that the technical support seems to be close to useless. Thus far in January the web has been down 20% of the time. Do we pay this people? If so – WHY? I would probably have a better level of service with blogger but what &%&#â?¬ would I do with my non-blog stuff.

Sorry about venting my frustration like this but I am incapable of understanding what the technical bods seem to be thinking about when they turn of the web before going off home for the weekend.

BAH!

Databases and international protest

At an informal meeting of European Union ministers of justice and ministers of the interior Wolfgang Schäuble proposed

…that the Prüm Treaty be transposed into the legal framework of the EU. The treaty, which was signed by Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria and Spain in the town of Prüm in Germany in March 2006 provides for enhanced cross-border cooperation of the police and judicial authorities, especially with regard to combating terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal migration. The purpose of the treaty is not only to facilitate prosecution, but also to aid the crime prevention efforts of the authorities. (Heise Online – I added the bold)

So what? It sounds good, almost boring.

The whole point of this is to create a network of national databases and increase the exchange of information. Those who sign the treaty will give each other access to their DNA and fingerprint data.

Pointing to this “added value provided by the treaty” Mr. Schäuble spoke out in favor of adopting the system throughout Europe: “Our aim is to create a modern police information network for more effective crime control throughout Europe,” he said. Apart from allowing for cross-border police raids and patrols the treaty permits “the authorities to exchange information on traveling violent offenders, such as hooligans, in the context of major events (for example football matches, European Council meetings or other international summits) in order to prevent criminal acts.” (Heise Online – I added the bold)

So even though the database is originally for the prevention of “combating terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal migration” the database will also be used in preventing protesters in traveling to other countries. This is particularly interesting since the political level is now supra-national but the protesters will not be allowed to be.

Finally online again!

The #%&â?¬ system has been down for the second time in a week. I think that any place that calls itself an IT university should be able to do much, much, much better. It’s not that I expect constant perfection but it would be nice if the level of access to our website was improved significantly.

BSD license question

Brendan Scott of Open Source Law has written and posted an interesting article on Groklaw. The article posits that this is a broad misconception about the freedoms granted by the BSD license. In particular that code licensed under the BSD is not re-licensable (after modifications to the code) under “closed source” licenses as commonly believed (article in pdf).

From the arguments presented four consequences may be drawn

(a) the BSD appears to require that modifications be distributed only under the terms of the BSD, and that this requirement therefore cascades down to subsequent generations of code;

(b) the license does not appear to permit the relicensing of BSD code under the terms of any other license, at least in so far as any restrictions in other licenses would seem not to be binding;

(c) there may be some scope for arguing that the term â??modificationâ?? to the code is restricted or limited in some fashion. However, as the license only permits redistribution of â??modificationsâ?? the BSD does not permit the redistribution of any derivative work which is not a modification;

(d) the BSD does not have a requirement for the distribution of source code. It is not clear whether this means there is a deficiency in the Open Source Definition.