Showing posts with label the politics of information. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the politics of information. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

The Implacable Iron Fist of Google

Yesterday, after a nice walk in the autumn woods, I came home and found several emails and Twitter notices from friends that my blogs were gone. I checked the addresses and this is what I received:

"This blog is no longer accessible. The name is unavailable for new accounts."

WTF?!?!

After following the breadcrumb trail left for me by Blogger, I got to a page that informed me:

"There has been suspicious activity related to this account. To confirm you are the account holder, Google must send you either a text message or a voice message with a code you must enter..."

After I entered a phone number and got the Confirm Code, my blogs were immediately accessible again.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *


Google pretends to be helpful

For the past two weeks, every time I logged in to post on my blogs I've had an interrupt page from Google, stating that "for my convenience should I lose my passwords" it would be handy to have a phone number to use as another confirmation. There's also been a link in that page that said "skip this step" so of course I did; my password is very strong, nonverbal and would be pretty hard to break unless under a sustained and targeted attack. No robo-sniffer or password dictionary cracker is going to get it.

With Google suggesting it would be a good idea and also offering me a link to skip this step, it's implied that this is not a required condition of using Google products (in this case my blogs on Blogger, unfortunately snapped up by Google recently).


The real deal

This morning's research session was dedicated to what Google calls "Two-step Verification Process" which was launched in mid-February and is just getting around to all your Google accounts.

"Over the next few days you should see a link on your Google Account Settings page that allows you to enabled 2-step verification. This new feature adds an extra layer of security to your Google account by requiring a special passcode in addition to your normal password."

Google Adds 2-Factor Security to Gmail, Apps [Krebs]

Here's a big blah-blah page from Google about "two-step verification"

"2-step verification helps protect a user’s account from unauthorized access should someone manage to obtain their password. Even if a password is cracked, guessed, or otherwise stolen, an attacker can’t sign in without access to the user’s verification codes, which only the user can obtain via their own mobile phone. Requirements: a mobile phone that can receive the verification code via text message or phone call, or an Android, BlackBerry, or iPhone. These devices use the Google Authenticator mobile app to generate the verification code. "

"You enable 2-step verification for your domain in your Google Apps control panel. The user enrolls in 2-step verification... Note: You can’t force your users to use 2-step verification, they must opt-in themselves."

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Real security

I've talked before about secure passwords: 16-character non-word, alphanumeric+special characters passwords kept on a single password-protected file on your computer/usb key and using copy/paste for logins, or using something like Passkey to hold your passwords.

I've also spoken about the "security measure" of "secret questions" - giving an associated (in your mind) answer to such questions as "What was your childhood pet's name?" in light of social networking and the fact that once something is posted to the net, it's out there forever (using tools like the Wayback Machine). So I recommend choosing your question (if this alternative is offered) or using an answer that is completely unrelated to the questions but associated in your mind with the question:


Q. What was your childhood pet's name? A. Squanomish
Q. Where were you born? A. inmymotherswomb
Q. What was your favorite sport? A. escapingbullies

Combine those with the ASCII and spelling variants: Squ@nomiish, inmeyem0therzw0mb, ezkapeingbullieyes and you have a second layer of security, not easily guessed.

And the final simple rule: never use the same password for more than one service.

So the password:
6D9F1$%&3[invisible space/ascii character Alt + 255]15~>#b+

is going to be pretty hard to crack by an automated dictionary-cracker. Combined with the type of answer to the above typical "security questions" and the best-practice of never using the same password for more than one service, your account is going to be much more secure than someone using the password "Fluffy" for all their accounts.

The fact is that, like a house, you can never be completely secure, but you can make it very difficult for a burglar to break in. Given that option most burglars, especially the random, doorknob-turning kind, will go elsewhere to much easier targets. Like a house, if you are the specific target of a dedicated cracker, nothing is going to stop them, but such cases are a lot rarer than you think. I mean, unless you're a multi-billion-dollar CEO, an attorney in a messy divorce case or a bank, who is going to specifically target you?

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Google Two-Step

It's obvious by now that all this blah-blah about "enrolling" and "allowing" and "opt-in" is plain bullshit. So is the supposed "security" offered.

The 30-day browser cookie set by users that click the "Remember verification for this computer" checkbox means that if your computer is stolen, the thief can still access your account without having to provide the second step of verification, and likely not even the password if your computer was just sleeping and browser already open.

You'll have to repeat this process every 30 days, meaning Google's going to require a constant correlation between your username and your phone number. Change numbers? You're going to have to go through hoops to restore access to your accounts. Change computers between laptop, desktop, netbook or tablet? Delete all cookies on browser close to get rid of trackers, spies and supercookies? Same deal. Google wants to know where you are and what phone number you are using every 30 days.



Go ahead; try to opt-out, sucker

From more than a dozen posts explaining how to "turn off two-step verification" from both Google and many bloggers, you get this information:

Q.16) How can I turn off 2-step verification on my Google Account
A.16) You can turnoff 2-step verification, by going to Google Accounts –> Using 2-step verification –> click on Turn off 2-step verification…


Here's the separate section on "how to turn off two-step verification"

Another article telling you how to turn off two-step verification


"In order to turn off two-step verification, visit this page or log in to your Google account and go to Settings >> Account Recovery Options >> Recovering your password. That page will tell you you can "add more information to your account to increase your account-recovery options."

Both ways will take you to this:

click the picture for the Big Picture


Notice that if you have not "opted-in" or "enrolled" or "allowed" this process previously, you will still have to fork over a phone number, receive a verification code and enroll in the program in order to reach the settings page where you can turn off the process, which will happen every 30 days.

Remind you of Facebook much? It should. There's no way to opt-out currently without first opting-in, and all Google's fanboy press and mealy-mouthing about "opting-in" or "enrolling" or "allowing" are straight-out lies. The interrupt-page I was receiving for the previous two weeks whenever I logged in offering to be "helpful" and offering me a link to "skip this step" was a smokescreen.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

FSCK Google


Am I alarmed by this? I certainly am. I am alarmed by Google pretending this is an opt-in service, repeating that idea in various words and meaning absolutely the opposite.

fsck: a Unix-based system utility for checking the consistency of a file system. Generally, fsck is run automatically at boot time when the operating system detects that a file system is in an inconsistent state. [fsck is analogous to the Windows utility chkdsk]

I am alarmed by Google's persistent and consistent efforts to delete anonymity from the net; to consolidate its holdings and bring them into line with its stated mission of becoming an "Identity Provider"; Google's connection to OpenID and the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace [PDF link to whitehouse paper], which Google calls the Kantara Initiative (shades of the D.H.A.R.M.A. Initiative!).

I'm not the only one.

Identity Crisis: The Delusion of NSTIC

Real Names: Google+, Government & The Identity Ecosystem

Google & NSTIC Leading the March to Digital Totalitarianism?

Botgirl's curated “Nymwars News and Commentary” site

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

After yesterday's little adventure and today's research, I am accelerating my efforts to completely remove myself from the Google ecosystem by using viable alternatives to every single product Google offers. I do not like liars and Google has proven to be no better than Facebook in regarding me as a slab of meat to be bought and sold for their profit, telling press about "optional" services that are in fact compulsory now.

Google has now proven to me that they are in fact dead-set on "doing evil."

Google must have forgotten everything it knew about the net; I can think of a dozen ways to get around this type of forced identification and access off the top of my head and during the coming weeks I will be researching even more ways to keep my electronic privacy protected.

What you do is up to you.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

[double-posted at Netpolitik]

66:75:63:6b:20:47:6f:6f:67:6c:65

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Friday, November 4, 2011

New post @Netpolitik: Internet Under Fire

Many bills are approaching Congress to limit, invade or otherwise break the internets that you love.


* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Netpolitik Post: OccupyWallStreet and the Internet

If you read my blog and you love the internet and what it can do, including virtual worlds, please read this post and find out how ACTA and NSTIC, as well as pending legislation, will cripple or reduce the internet that you love.

OccupyWallStreet and the Internet
Why it matters to everyone

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Monday, September 19, 2011

Watching Social Media - Occupy Wall Street

two new posts @Netpolitik, both dealing with the 'OccupyWallStreet' operation going on in NY at Wall Street since Sept. 17th.



Taking Wall Street by Twitter

This first is very messy, "real-time" blogging post; grabbing tweets as the situation unfolded and attempting to stay with the stream. Lots of conflicting information about what was happening and some observations about the 'media grey-out' happening domestically when foreign media (notably Russian, Egyptian and Spanish) were putting front-page or lead stories up. Lots of great tweets reproduced.



Taking Wall Street by Twitter - Day 3 - News

This post is a bit more coherent, summarising some of the issues, fact-checking on stuff like Twitter censoring hashtags, Yahoo email killing mail sent with the hasgtag or link to OccupyWallStreet.org (videos of this happening) and Facebook deleting user's wall and post items in the same manner (video of this happening)

There's a lot of links to both independent (blog) media and mainstream media collected over the last 3 days as information starts to get out.




Definitely Netpolitik material; it's not all cheerleading but it is a fascinating look into using social media to "organize" a protest, how information and disinformation can cross swords and how mainstream media can be routed around by the network.

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

All Your Nyms Are Belong To Us


In A. D. 2011 war was beginning.


Netizen: What happened.

Nym: Somebody set us up the bomb.

Netizen: We get signal.

Blogger: What!

Nym: Main screen turn on.

Netizen: It's you!!

GOOGLE: How are you gentlemen.

GOOGLE: All your nyms are belong to us.
GOOGLE: You are your way to destruction.

Nym: What you say!!

GOOGLE: You have no chance to survive make your time.
GOOGLE: Ha ha ha ha . . . .

Netizen: Blogger!!

Blogger: Take off every "Nym"!!
Blogger: You know what you doing.
Blogger: Move 'Nym'

Blogger: For great justice.

[larger version of the above frame on Flickr]

Monday, August 15, 2011

State of Mind at SLCC & Silly Videos

I was very surprised to have Inara Pey tweet me last Saturday and tell me I should listen to Rik Panganiban (SL: Rik Riel), Community Manager at the Non-Profit Commons give his keynote speech "We Built This City: Creating a Better World" at the Second Life Community Convention (SLCC). I had missed the speeches in realtime and figured I'd get around to watching them later, but I called up Rik's recorded video stream. Here's the teaser:

"Rik Panganiban will give a rousing opening keynote, highlighting some of the coolest applications of Second Life toward bettering the human condition and saving the planet. He will also address some of the current and upcoming challenges facing the "public good" sector in virtual worlds."

I was very pleased to see him feature my installation "State of Mind: The Politics of Information" in his presentation, calling it "a really powerful use of satire and dark humor to talk about government surveillance and privacy issues."


Mostly Rik spoke about the privacy and identity issues State engages (which is understandable as they are currently on everyone's mind lately). The installation is very info-dense and takes several hours to encompass all the hidden and interlocking themes (not to mention the carry-away Documents Briefcase).

I am glad not only for myself but for the Four Bridges Project & sims, particularly millay Freschi, Trill Zapatero and Coyote Longfall for their continued support of this installation in Second Life. It was very difficult to do and continues to occupy time and effort, as these issues are only growing. He also mentioned Loup Erin's "Television Rules The Nation," which Loup was kind enough to let me feature in the installation because of the way the theme of the piece dovetailed with the message of State of Mind.

You can read a bit about the installation here, on my new blog Netpolitik and at the Four Bridges site although I really need to do a thorough post on it someday.

Thanks Rik; I am proud to contribute not only to my own enjoyment of Second Life but to the dialogue and debate surrounding the very dark issues State of Mind seeks to engage.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


Silly Videos

Ok, still playing with my flycam and editor but I did two silly videos (that may be yanked off You Tube, because WMG (Warner Music Group) thinks they own Wagner and Pomp & Circumstance -_-).

Anyways, here's the one that's a tribute to StS (Santeri Ojala)'s brilliant shreds and the new art form of shredding-

weaselFEAR - Bunny Bologna (an animal shred)

Ride of the Avatars (with Trill Zapatero as Da Pony)

and my tribute to Wizard Gynoid being unsuspended from Google+

Wizard Gynoid - Heroine of the Nymwars

enjoy (before GoogleTube yanks them)

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

New Blog - NetPolitik

I am separating my work Netpolitik/The Politics of Information from this blog: it will be accessible at Netpolitik - http://netpolitiks.blogspot.com.

The older articles here will remain, but also be copied over to that blog for ease of use.

I hope to see interested persons there; I welcome comments, feedback and debate on these issues.


Saturday, August 6, 2011

NetPolitik: A Primer - Introduction

"This is truly a transformative event on the global scene - namely that for the first time in human history - for the first time in all of human history - almost all of mankind is politically awake - activated; politically conscious and interactive." - Zbigniew Brzezinski



"The Net's made up of billions of mice... working parallel all at the same time, all trained to touch the right plate, to register On or Off... human microcomponents inputting data, calling it up, changing the patterns over and over... They'd never imagine the real reach of the supersystem they were a part of... human brains were limited function, but they were cheap, flexible, reliable equipment... and when they were linked together into a network, with superseed access fusing them into a whole, those puny, slow-moving human-sized intelligences became something more..." - Joan D. Vinge, Catspaw, 1988

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

The controversy and debate over the Google+ "real names" policy, aka Nymwars, has emerged into the general public's awareness over the past few weeks and I cannot be more thrilled. The issues of identity, transparency, marketing, monitoring, data farming and security have exploded into the mainstream media and are being talked about, debated and discussed openly and with great vigor. I have waited half my life for this moment.


6e * 65 * 74 * 77 * 6f * 72 * 6b



Logging In To The Future

When I first logged on to the Nets circa 1983, I was very young; younger than most of my contemporaries (unlike today). I was part of a new society, and like any smart young person, I wanted to know the rules and reasons; the social codes of conduct of my new society. I wanted to know them because I wanted to be part of the community.


My training in anthropology/sociology as well as my extensive studies on symbolism, societal rituals and underlying structural assumptions made me aware of this society from an outsider's (anthropologist's) perspective. It was an elite, true; based mostly on technical knowledge and accessibility. But it was also an egalitarian and purely-democratic elite; you could elect yourself to this elite with only application and study. This was exactly the opposite of most hierarchical societal structures, which is why it was an exciting field; this was something new in human relations. You didn't have to be born into the right family or have the right connections (except for a modem). You could be as good as your intelligence, study and practice could make you. You could learn almost anything about the technology you wanted to, using the resources of that very technology [bootstrapping].



The Technical Self Becomes Political


So I began to spend an increasingly huge amount of time on the nets, eager to explore a field that was brand-new in my time; a huge opportunity for any student. Cyberpunk and cypherpunk were engaging in speculation and debate over issues of artificial intelligence, datamining, accountability and pervasive presence all triggered or inspired by the new technology explosion. People like John Perry Barlow were discussing the political ramifications of software and communications, spurred on by Operation Sundevil and the infamous raid on Steve Jackson Games. Also in the news was the Morris Worm, which became the first conviction under the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. [for a great read of the political underpinnings to much of today's internet law, read Bruce Sterling's The Hacker Crackdown: Law and Disorder on the Electronic Frontier - Bruce has generously made this seminal book freely-downloadable at that link]


In my quest to understand both the tech and the society I had found, I thought, read and wrote about both technical issues (such as how to get that yummy fuschia HTML text) and... politics. I could not avoid politics; it had started to intrude on the technical net world. From my readings of cybertheorists like Donna Haraway (A Manifesto For Cyborgs, 1985) and Sherry Turkle (The Second Self, 1984), my very-extensive collection of cyber/cypherpunk and the current newspaper headlines and BBS forums, I became aware of the politics of information.

6e * 65 * 74 * 77 * 6f * 72 * 6b



Environmental Variables


Just as today most of us are very aware of the currents, fads, trends and common issues affecting our online presence and access to information, my world in those days was very informed by the speculation and debate surrounding the intrusion of government and corporations into what had mostly been a private playground and workspace of the technical crowd. While I was straining my poor little artist-brain to understand the equipment necessary to get online and join this society, I could not overlook the political ramifications of these intrusions (at that time, Operation Sundevil was as hot and widely-discussed an event as Nymwars).


As a socio-anthropologist I had to become conversant with the human aspects of this new technology; the affect on the societal structure, dialogue, language and behaviour. Any true study of a society must encompass the political and power hierarchies of the tribal unit; the significance of ritual, codes, religion and authority on societal structure is exactly what the field is about.



Watching The Network Grow

The reason I found all this tremendously exciting [outside the pure technical wizardry] was that I was in the right place at the right time to observe the primal foundations of a new societal structure. I could not help but relate the growth of the physical network and its effect on the members of its' society to the structures of agrarian, hunter-gatherer and industrial societies and the effect of their brand of technology on their social structures [see the effects of the cotton gin on US politics for example, or Henry Ford's sponsorship of the assembly line model or his labor philosophy]



I found that many of the early common net discussions, without an established or rigid hierarchy, would eventually respond in a self-policing manner to trolls, crackers and other "disturbers of the Commons." Sure, there were micro-hierarchies; some based purely on authoritative knowledge (Richard Stallman, Vint Cerf, Bruce Sterling) and some based on control (sysops, forum moderators, IRC channel controllers). But now, rather than one person or group being in complete control of the debate by controlling and channeling access to information, opinion and discussion as was previously the model of most human societal structure since the beginning of history, suddenly there were channels that could not be controlled. The debate could not be shut down from one central source; indeed, the structure of the politics mirrored the structure of the network; designed to be self-routing, to circumvent obstructions and restrictions and to carry the signal forward by reconfiguring the route.



Tourist or Traveler?

The Net was inventing its own codes of conduct, based on a new democratic model of access to information and open public channels. Far from being the "lawless Wild West" that the mainstream press continues to trumpet as a model, I saw it more akin to a tourist town: at times invaded by hordes of gum-chewing, photo-snapping masses of "day trippers" using the technology without a fundamental knowledge of the structure or history of the town.

[Many tourists are notorious for paying little heed to the local character, customs or ethical social structures of the towns they invade. But the way to truly know a society or culture is not to snap a photo and go away after getting drunk in a local bar and pissing on the town square's beautiful garden, where many locals come to rest, to admire, to meet-and-greet and interact]


The way to understand the rich culture of a society is to participate in it; to observe, to think and speculate; to interact and engage the locals and to listen to a different model than the one you carry around in your head. If you go to Paris and eat all of your meals in the Paris McDonalds, or you go to Hawai'i and spend all your time in the Hilton, you are only imposing your own long-held models of society and culture. You're masturbating in a mirror and thinking you are learning. All you are seeing is a pretty backdrop of scenery; you might as well have stayed home, spared the expense and spent your time looking at pretty pictures in travel magazines.


A traveler, on the other hand, goes to places to experience them as they are; as a different physical and socio-political environment. A tourist comes to skim a surface; a traveler (or socio-anthropologist) comes because they wish to participate in a different reality.



On The Dig Site

I became aware of the tremendous potential of the networking model as a state/phase transition from the linear, heirarchically-dominated model that has held sway over human discourse and politics for hundreds of years. I began to view my studies through the framework of similar sociological observations made about the impact of technology on societal structure - the assembly line, the cotton gin, the recurve bows of the Mongols, the printing press. Each of these technological inventions had a tremendous impact on the structure and behaviour of the societies that adopted them. Society adapted to the technology; in turn, the technology created new structures in that society.


I was on the ground floor observing the invention and formation of a new societal model based on the structures of a new technology. Hot dog! This was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and I was completely smitten, jazzed and overwhelmed with gratitude to What Powers May Be for the chance to participate in this paradigm-changing event as a serious student and member.

I studied everything - my own computer, the programs I used, the structures of the net from a technical perspective (what exactly is TCP? IP? How do they work? What's ICMP? Why should I know about it?) based on the need to configure my computer to interact with BBS systems, telnet-reachable systems and game servers. Because I wanted to play in this environment, I had to understand my environment to a greater or lesser degree in order to accomplish what I wanted to do.

6e * 65 * 74 * 77 * 6f * 72 * 6b



Portrait of the Artist As A Young Hacker


One of my observations was that having to think in terms of interconnected complex layers of multiple subsystems was analogous to what I did as an artist: juggle shifting layers of symbolic abstraction to synthesize an end/aim/purpose/communication. The net is a huge Magic Mirror, feeding back what is put into it in the same way a network or program produces results depending on how the data are obtained, cross-indexed and referenced. The artist functions in a similar way by self-ordering the quest for meaning, assembling data (elements), defining the desired end/function and producing a work of art. Cybernetic models were applicable to both processes.


This was a complete revelation to me; as a lazy right-brain/intuitive Generalist, I was forced to strictly discipline myself. To operate my own computer I had to understand my computer; how it worked, the subsystems inside it, the software to configure it and the theory of how it functioned in a networked environment. To say that I had many more tearful nights of frustration than the average "natural" geek is an understatement [maths != me]. I persevered for several reasons: I knew I was a lazy right-brain Dreamer type and I thought computers could at least give me some structure to exercise and expand my left-brain. I had the motivation to do so for both artistic and sociological reasons. I started to see what the concept of networking was truly about.


I made myself learn to build computers because it was cheaper, but it also required me to learn about disk drives, throughput, memory buses, sideband processes, concurrency, latency, power requirements and balancing all that off in a superior system that did what I wanted it to do (and cost me less than systems less efficient, powerful and streamlined than mine) . Understanding the complex system of a computer and observing the even more complex structures of a local network, a wide-area network and the giant metanetwork that was the result of all the minor networks linked to it expanded my mind in many directions.


I saw the art of it; the beauty and symmetry of it; I saw the logic of it; I saw how the processes linked together in a model almost biological in its ability to configure, reconfigure and self-adjust along cybernetic feedback lines. I was living and absorbing network theory and realizing it dovetailed with my socio-anthropological studies, which were in turn based on my desire to understand my craft from the roots of civilization to the present - art as a communication of human experience.

Is it any wonder I have spent half my life exploring this fontier?

6e * 65 * 74 * 77 * 6f * 72 * 6b



An Artist's Perspective

As I have watched the network grow and the impact of that on communication between larger groups of people than has ever been possible before, I have also watched the invasion and exploitation of that network and this new thing by the forces of both government and corporations.


I have watched as these new forces inpacted on the system which I had been studying, in the same way I would observe the effects of a new program or process introduced into my computer or a new element introduced to a socio-political matrix ["Look Ma! The Wheel!!!"]. They are an integral variable of force and vector in the program and in the structures of both the network and society. They affect the group/tribe's consciousness and their myths, stories and minds; they are as significant as the invasion of Britain by the forces of Julius Caesar.


This is my real avocation as an artist; beyond creating "stuffs" to market or expand my ego/presence in the world, I wish to/am born to/can't help but listen to the ghosts of my people; to their dreams and daydreams, their deepest hopes and most fearful demons, to their experience of humanity through a calm afternoon in a field of flowers to a raging storm aboard a ship at sea; from the feelings of aloneness and existential angst to the bright flame that is family and community.


As an artist and socio-anthropologist, a student of the system and the Net, I have objections and reservations to altering the basic and fundamental structures of the network or a society by outside forces, particularly for their own profit with no understanding or concern for the structures they are exploiting. I object to inefficient structures in the network because they are not best practices for the network. It is a politik informed as much by network structure and aesthetics as by political theory.

6e * 65 * 74 * 77 * 6f * 72 * 6b



Power Struggle


I have seen progress in computing and technology retarded on many fronts over the last 15 years. I have watched as the political forces of government and business have gibbered in fear when they finally realized what we meant when we labeled it "the Information Revolution." I have watched, as Brzezinski [quoted above] says, the formation of what I can only consider the emergence of Electronic Democracy - the voice and political awareness of many more people than previously imagined suddenly able to discourse between themselves, outside approved "channels" and the ability for them to provide instant feedback to decisions generated from within their respective communities.

And I have seen something else; how for moments at a time, despite inter-tribal differences and rivalries, the entire Net will sometimes come up with a world-wide consensus on some issues or become aware/discuss/interact as a whole with some issues (as we are seeing now with the Nymwars debate). And that is a completely new phenomenon, as Brzezinski says. Very exciting.


Unfortunately, this political behaviour/awareness is at a huge variance with the hierarchical power-control model of many societies. The attempt to treat a network or bandwidth as "limited" is a false model; we cannot propagate rare earth minerals in the same way we can propagate networks [add capacity]. The network is not a limited resource.


A network also functions best when it is open; from tribal structure to the internet, the free exchange of ideas and information is the best possible model for a society and for a system. This is at cross-purposes to the people who wish to be the gatekeepers of resources in order to control the chain of supply-and-demand. It is also at cross-purposes to the interests of many State actors, who wish to control their populace and the channels of political expression free from ideology. It's no different from the forces of Business and Church being united in their efforts to control the printing press and the ability of people to read and write for their separate purposes.

6e * 65 * 74 * 77 * 6f * 72 * 6b



The Politics of Information


I have also seen how the twin forces of State and Business have run parallel in their efforts to "reign in," control and force the network and its citizens into historical, hierarchical models in order to maintain ideological and economic hegemony.

I won't use the term "conspiracy" here; let's instead call it colluding or perhaps "trending". For varying reasons but working towards the same aims, both Business and State have sensed the threat of the Nets to their old models of control. They are viewing the network, with its multilayered levels of cybernetic feedback mechanisms, as a linear, mechanical process. This is a mistake; both the computer and the network demonstrate the synergistic effect of many logical steps creating a process that is larger than those steps, just as a collection of colored pigments, canvas and brush can result in a painting that produces an effect on human consciousness far beyond its mere physical components.


The computer is not a linear machine; it is a machine that can make itself into many types of machines; a meta-machine. The Net is not linear. The network/program has technical hierarchies, true; but they are based mostly on the best/most efficient solution to a local problem. The Net was designed from the ground up to have the intelligence to reroute its own structure in imitation of the human brain. The Net was designed to allow access from many ports over many different protocols. The Net is even more revolutionary than the linear printing press in its ability to feedback virtually instantly from more input sources than a book could possibly have.

6e * 65 * 74 * 77 * 6f * 72 * 6b



As a technologist, things that affect the throughput or efficiency of communication [bad programs] are undesireable. Resource hogs [rogue programs, bad allocation requests] are something to be tracked and fixed... or killed. A corporation's ability to destroy part of the functionality of a device I have legally purchased [Sony] is a technical problem, to be fixed or routed around. A State's ability to compel me to put all my personal informations in the hands of corporations to buy and sell with no regard to basic security practices [Sony hack, BofA hack, ad infinitum] or any requirement or responsibility in the handling of that data is a severe flaw in system integrity.


As an artist, I realize that I have been privileged to be so fundamentally involved in the growth of this medium. I have lived on the Net and taken part in it's tribal and societal rituals and knowledge for over a quarter of a century. I have learned the Stories and Myths firsthand; I have seen and participated in some of the Great Battles and the rise and fall of business empires. I have read its Declarations of Independence, I have been at many of its Waterloos, its Wounded Knees, its Gettysbergs, its Continental Congresses.


I find that many in the newer generation of netizens do not know how politics invaded the net or do not know where to start on examining these political forces that are causing it damage, just as many people are unaware of a virus in their system while it is wreaking havok on their data structures. They do not know the context of previous bills and events involving the Nets to place something like H.R. 1981 - (PCFIPA of 2011) in perspective as a dangerous and underhanded political maneuver. They don't know that while corporations try to marginalize techs by tarring them all "hackers," those very companies are hacking you to track you and shovel ads down your throat even if you elect to delete their spyware.


I think people make better decisions when they are informed of all sides of the debates and issues. Despite the mainstream media's silence/downplaying/ignorance of our history and politics, the current issues that are affecting the growth and accessibility of the Nets and information access have a rich history of thought, speculation and action. Today's netizens can benefit from knowing this history so that they may continue to enjoy and experience this amazing environment in the future. The nets are interactive; get involved.

6e * 65 * 74 * 77 * 6f * 72 * 6b


This series of posts are all tagged netpolitik and/or the politics of information for easy search on this blog. They will be my non-linear personal experience and knowledge, cross-referenced with external links where applicable. Yes, they are long and dense; no, they are not casual blog posting. Don't eat them all at once or approach them linearly - hope around, hyperlink; taste bits. Follow the White Rabbit.



I hope these posts will form an information-nexus for further investigation into these observations from a digital socio-anthropologist and artist. I also hope they will inform the newer generation of netizens with the history, the structure and the amazing possibilities of the network model and environment and awaken them to the efforts of these system hackers [political forces/viruses] to infiltrate and suborn the natural flow and functioning of the network.


I hope people will feel a sense of pride in the history of the Nets and a desire to become active participants in their community. I hope they will be spurred on to research these thoughts and opinions and make up their own minds and write about it, discuss it and communicate it. I hope they will realize what an awesome privilege and responsibility it is to be part of the World Net and how, if they wish to enjoy their home and lands, they must be informed of the underlying forces and stressors on the structure of this techno-body politic in order to take an active and informed voice in the debate over the future of the Nets.


And I hope above all for the emergence of a truly Electronic Democracy; a new model of human relations and interaction. We surely need one.

6e * 65 * 74 * 77 * 6f * 72 * 6b




Monday, July 18, 2011

NetPolitik: A Primer - CH1 - TCA

Prelude and raison d'être

Responding to a volume of tweets and comments on some of my recent posts swirling around the Google+/#plusgate controversy regarding pseudonyms and mindful of remarks by botgirl questi and soror Nishi as to "some of us don't know this history," I am starting a series of posts that will revolve around the political landscape and battles for the control of this medium (the Internet, particularly the Web). I will be tagging these posts with 'netpolitik' although they are supported by my previous posts tagged "The Politics of Information" which can be searched on this blog using that tag.

These posts will contain many links to information in support of my position, hopefully being a resource and starting point for people to inform themselves on these issues and understand what is behind certain legislation, attitudes and memes regarding the use and abuse of the internet by corporate interests.


I am sure I will get a slew of TL:DR replies or comments about these posts. I am torn between writing small capsule paragraphs in today's micro-byte infostyle and providing an informational nexus and index. My position is that if you don't know the history and political context of the development of the Internet, you're going to be either blithely ignorant of the moves that Facebook, Google and other companies are making and the extent of collusion between government and the media conglomerates in the accessibility of information available on the nets, or you are going to get your butt caught in a slamming door because you aren't watching, and your future "internet" will be merely a one-way broadcast medium to push product at you, keep track of you and rifle through your personal information for the benefit of corporations - just a new television, run by soap companies.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Thesis

The internet and the world-wide web are the modern equivalent of the printing press in terms of dynamic impact on the way society accesses and distributes information. Just as there were battles for control over the printing press because of its ability to permanently alter the structure of society and make available for wide distribution the thoughts and opinions of the common man, outside the Church and State's control, so there are now battles to contain and control the Internet. These battles have been ongoing and continue to accelerate as the power of this new medium of mass communication begins to show its strengths and weaknesses.

The separate vectors of this assault and campaign of control led by the forces of Corporate and Congress can be traced in the history of the creation and expansion of the internet.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


BACKGROUND

This section/post will give some background to my later posts; terms, issues and focus.


The Web- A Short History

[Wikipedia - World Wide Web]
[Internet Society - A Brief History of the Internet]

Sir Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau had published the formal proposal to build a "Hypertext project" in 1990, working off Berners-Lee's original proposal in March 1989 for a system of marrying Hypertext to the then-existing Internet to create the WorldWideWeb [W3].

On August 6, 1991, Berners-Lee posted a short summary of the World Wide Web project on the alt.hypertext newsgroup marking the debut of the Web as a publicly available service on the internet.

ViolaWWW for Unix was the most frequenly used browser for the WWW until April, 1993 when the Mosaic browser was introduced [and yes, it was made possible by funding from the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 (HPCA), initiated by Senator Al Gore, which is why you hear all the jokes about Gore inventing the internet, although he never actually said nor claimed it]. 1993 also saw the release of several other browsers into wide use, including Cello, Arena and Lynx. Slipknot, released in 1994, was also very popular and there were at least a half-dozen other browsers sharing market space.

The World Wide Web Consortium [W3C] was formed in October, 1994 at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology by Berners-Lee when he left the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN). The W3C was to be an international standards organization for the development and distribution of code standards for the W3 (world wide web). Netscape Navigator 0.5.6, a browser using large parts of the Mosaic code, was released at this time.



The Browser Wars

[Wikipedia - Browser Wars]

In mid-1995 the new World Wide Web had begun to penetrate the awareness of the general public. Netscape Navigator was the most widely-used browser at that time, beating out most of the others by virtue of its ease of use, integrated office suite functions (email, calendaring, HTML editor, etc) and its continuing expansion of functions, benefiting from its close relationship with the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, the original developers for the Mosaic codebase.

Many companies had licensed the Mosaic code for their own browsers. All the browsers at that time had agreed to adopt the standards and code regulations of the 3WC to ensure interoperability and the functional standards that made the web work.

Enter Microsoft. Although MS had released Internet Explorer 1.0 in August 1995 as part of the Windows 95 Plus Pack, it did not see wide distribution, as this was a monetized reworking of the Mosaic code and only available as a paid expansion pack for Windows 95. In November 1995, MS released Internet Explorer 2.0 as a free download.

At this time, Netscape Navigator and the rest of the Mosaic-based browsers were free for personal use, only charging for company and corporate licenses. Internet Explorer lagged behind Netscape and many of the other browsers in functionality and expansion ability; a problem MS will not be able to overcome until the release of Internet Explorer 4.0 in 1997.

The Browser Wars will play a part in later chapters of this material.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 [TCA]


Signed into law on February 8, 1996 by then-President Bill Clinton, this bill purported to foster competition among companies sharing the underlying infrastructure of networked technologies. Buried in that legislation was an amendment - Title V - The Communications Decency Act of 1996 [CDA] - which proposed to "regulate pornographic material on the Internet". This amendment is the precursor to the Child Online Protection Act [COPA] of 1998; the Children's Internet Protection Act [CIPA] of 2000 and the current pending PROTECT IP Act as well as scores of bills passed in the intervening 15 years, using the specter of pornography (later switched to child pornography), terrorism and fear to push through legislation that favors media cartels and the government's interest in strangling the free flow of information.

[Section 230 of the CDA added protection for online service providers and users from actions against them based on the content of third parties, stating in part that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider". Effectively, this section immunizes both ISPs and Internet users from liability for torts committed by others using their website or online forum, even if the provider fails to take action after receiving actual notice of the harmful or offensive content. We'll return to this important proviso later.]



Promises, promises

The TCA was actually a deregulation of the 1975 FCC cross-ownership rules put in place to limit media concentration and monopolies in the radio and television space, preventing companies from denying accessibility of airspace and broadcast space to other companies through the conglomeration and consolidation of media and denial of the common carrier infrastructure built with US tax dollars as the telegraph and later telephone copper wiring.


The TCA was supposed to foster competition, fairly distribute the use of infrastructure paid for by the public and allow for the collection of a levy handed to the telcos to upgrade and improve the national backbone and fiber-optic cables, requiring "fiber to the curb" by 2006. The Bell companies — SBC, Verizon, BellSouth and Qwest, claimed that they would step up to the plate and rewire homes, schools, libraries, government agencies, businesses and hospitals, with a fiber (and coax) wire capable of at least 45 Mbps in both directions, and could handle 500+ channels... if they received financial incentives. This wiring was to be done in rich and poor neighborhoods, in rural, urban and suburban areas equally and would be open to ALL competitors, not a closed-in network or deployed only where the phone company desired.

[This was not DSL, which travels over the old copper wiring and did not require new regulations. This is not Verizon's FIOS or SBC’s Lightspeed fiber optics, which are slower, can't handle 500 channels, are not open to competition, and are not being deployed equitably. This was NOT fiber somewhere in the network ether or only on the intranets of the telcos but directly to homes. The FCC now defines broadband as 200 kilobytes per second in one direction — 225 times slower than what was promised in 1992]

In exchange for building these networks, the Bell companies ALL received changes in state laws that handed them excessive profits, tax savings, and other perks to be used in building these networks. It is estimated that $300 billion dollars in excess profits and tax deductions has been collected for this purpose.



(not) Built on lies

But there was a problem with this - the networks couldn't be built at the time the commitments were made. TELE-TV and Americast, the Bell companies' fiber optic front groups, spent about $1 billion and were designed to make America believe these deployments were real in order to pass the TCA.

Instead of spending the money on these promised networks, the Bell companies used the money to enter long distance markets, roll out wireless and inferior ADSL services: customers paid for a fiber optic wire and got ADSL over the old copper wiring with old and failing routers, switches and exchanges. Network capacity was lied about and the network was oversold.

[Verizon and SBC are rolling out new fiber optic services but want the laws changed again. These services are crippled, closed networks. FIOS’s top speed is only 35% of the Asian standard, and yet it cost $199 vs $40 for 100 Mbps in many European countries]


What the TCA really was about was deregulation and an open invitation to telcos, media conglomerates and lobbyists to swoop into the vacuum left by the breakup of ATT on antitrust grounds in 1982-1984. On the promises of the telcos, the FCC succumbed to lobbyist cash and sold out the protected common carrier infrastructure to corporations to use as they saw fit.


*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

The Net Speaks Back

Written in outraged response to government's intrusion on the development of the internet through the passage of the TCA, John Perry Barlow, an early and influential voice on the web, published the Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace on Feb. 8, 1996. Although anthemic and polemic, Barlow's opinion was shared by many of the top technicals, theorists and legal scholars of that time, who saw in the TCA and the embedded CDA the beginnings of censorship and control over the channels of communication the net was opening. They also saw the first attempts by corporations to use Congress and lobbyists to shape the net for the convenience and profit of the entrenched entertainment industry, who had already begun consolidating companies and muscling out new businesses built around the net with bagsful of cash to attorneys, congressmen and the FCC.


Barlow was not alone in his perception that something underhanded was going on. Articles began appearing online and in print media pointing to something rotten in all this quickly-moving legislation:


The Telecommunications Act of 1996:A Commentary on What Is Really Going on Here

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 - Mauer School of Law


Will The New Telecommunications Act Promote Monopoly? Yes, It Will


Digital Robber Barons?

... and countless others. Search "Telecommunications Act of 1996" for more information and some awareness that these rats were smelled early by many respectable journalists and newspapers.


Those few who protested and claimed the Act would lead to mass media consolidations were surprised by how quickly that consolidation happened. Within just a few years, radio stations, over the air TV stations, cable TV stations and telephone companies were eaten up by the larger, richer companies in a feeding frenzy that has resulted in the limited, false "choices" we are forced into today. Rather than "encouraging competition," the TCA allowed consolidation of the media and control of all information received by people to a small group of sources, all of them incestuously feeding content to their own networks in a war for eyeballs (and click-throughs).

Yes, we were called "paranoid" then too. Read some of those papers and ask yourself how many of those warnings and prophecies have now proven to be a very prescient foresight of the media landscape today.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


The TCA still generates an tremendous amount of analysis and debate, being the foundation of the collaboration of media conglomerates with the FCC and Congress which affects us currently. The TCA not only opened the door for the abuses of duopoly/false choice that we have now but is the root of all the other internet regulatory bills and legislation passed in the last 15 years in style, tone, deceptiveness and false or broken promises. Far from being history, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 affects everything you do online today.


Some Further Reading on the TCA:

1997-2002

False Premises, False Promises: A Quantitative History of Ownership Consolidation in the Radio Industry


Lessons from 1996 Telecommunications Act: Deregulation Before Meaningful Competition Spells Consumer Disaster [Consumer Reports]


Fallout from the 1996 Telecommunications Act [PDF file - Common Cause]


Moyers on America . The Internet @ Risk . Resources . Timeline


Com101- Intro to Mass Communication: Media Economics [Cabrini College]


A Little Analytical Honesty Please...



Monday, July 11, 2011

G+ and Beyond - What's Your Target?

Being Prepared like a good Girl Scout

So, so; Google+ is now making noises and hopping on the "no pseudo names" train.

What I have been doing for the last few hours is downloading all my mail from Gmail to make sure I have all my friends' addresses. You know you can do this right? And that you can set up your email program (you DO use one yes?) through POP3 or IMAP to fetch your mail at intervals and remove it from Google's servers? I hope you do; it's a very valuable ability. It's also easy with any number of email programs like Thunderbird or a dozen others.

I never liked the idea of my mail hanging out on someone else's servers, subject to disk crashes, catastrophes or availability of other persons. I have always downloaded my email off a provider's servers... because I was schooled this way for many good reasons. Some of those reasons are becoming more apparent every day...

I've also made sure that anything Google-connected is downloaded, like my You Tube videos, and am researching other hosting providers. I've also downloaded and archived this blog. If Google decides that I am not a valuable person, then I will take my value elsewhere. They, like FaceBook, would like you to believe they are the only ones you can use for these services. I think... if they make a few more moves like these, they will quickly find out how arrogant and myopic that view is.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

I just wish to explore one simple question: why, exactly, is my "real name" important?

Miso Susanowa has a growing profile on the net. That name is used to browse Google (which carries ads); to look at web sites with information I am interested in (which serve ads); to comment and post on various blogs (which carry ads); to view news (which carries ads); to view You Tube (which carries ads)... you get the idea.

So, here's a profile attached to "Miso Susanowa." It knows where I go; it knows what I look at and what I click. It knows what my interests are.

Isn't that the purpose of the stated rationalizations for this kind of prying? So I can be served targeted ads by marketeers? So my profile can be sold to other marketeers so they can target me with their ads and sell more stuff? So... what's the problem here? They're reaching me. They're targeting me. They have my eyes and interest. They have a bead on me. I will buy just as much of their stuff as Miso Susanowa as I will as Ms. X.


What is my Real Name anyway?


Let's be open and stop pussyfooting; to the government and to the IRS and various other institutions, I am not Ms. X at all. I am a number. A number associated with a name put on a birth certificate. A name I can legally change (and plan to do so). A name that is not a permanent etching, unlike, say, a Social Security Number, which I cannot change, even if I change my "real name." I can change my "real name" with less effort than I can change my bank account or credit card numbers.

These numbers that follow us around are what Vernor Vinge refered to in his seminal cyberpunk novella "True Names". Don't kid yourself; to Facebook or Google, you aren't a name! You are a number in a database that is attached to a name. You have no "real name"; you have a System Name. To a programmer, "Miso Susanowa" is a meaningless assemblage. It is tagged with a coded number which is your True Name to that system. You aren't anybody at all. You have various flags attached to your number, one of which may be your "real name." But your "real name" is not magic, nor holy... nor really of any significance to a machine.


Snooping on Google's "real names"

Here's a little example: try pinging [directions for Windows here] www.google.com in a window. Here's what I get:
Reply from 74.125.225.50

That is the 'real name' of 'www.google.com'. In fact, that's only the IP address of the name 'www.google.com', the front-facing public nameserver; just one 'true name'. Do you know "Google" has about 2000 or so 'real names'? Like its' Public DNS, which actually has two 'true names': 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 [and this is nice to know if you have filtered DNS from Comcast or Verizon or ATT or anyone- yoiu can use Google's public DNS to skip all the inter-service tossing/ad spam]. So... what's 'Google' then? It's a pseudonymous name for a whole bunch of virtual things.



So, to me, the stated rationalizations and reasons for this creeping movement to "real name up" everyone have a hollow ring. If all they want is my eyeballs to sell me stuff, they have them. I don't change names, especially ones I have invested a great deal of time and effort on over several years, in establishing a basis of trust and accountability to my community. I stand by my name; it is a good name and I have put a lot of effort into promoting it... just like 'Google' did.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

An Open Statement to FB, Google+ and anyone else concerned:

I have, over the course of 25+ years online, promoted you; I have brought you eyeballs and purchases through my exploration and recommendation of technical products and issues. I am trusted on the basis of my knowledge, my willingness to discuss technical issues and the incredible amounts of time I put in on field-testing and disseminating your offerings.

I recommended people switch from AltaVista to Google when A-V became mired in the same pathetic crap you seek to push (but with more teeth now). I can honestly say that every single client machine I have ever worked on for the last 10 years I have provided with both a desktop icon to quickly reach Google, reset their "home page" to Google and made sure Internet Explorer or someone else can't hijack it. You don't think that kind of exposure, recommendation or PR is valuable just because I use a different name?


I have switched people from Microsoft products to Linux and OpenOffice (and now that that got polluted, LibreOffice); I have switched them off Photoshop; I have vehemently switched them off Norton products as being shoddy, havok-wreaking products. I have shown them why dumping Adobe's Reader software for much better PDF readers is a lot better for them. I have switched their purchases from Well-Known-Brand-Name laptops (which were crap) to reliable and well-built laptops; I have recommended nVidia over ATI (until nVidia succumbed to some bright-boy MBA's cost-cutting measures).

I have brought you thousands of dollars in trade on my recommendations. I have denied thousands of dollars to companies who's products, service or aims are questionable to the consumer. Under various names.

If you wish to toss all that real purchasing power away on some wet-behind-the-ears baby MBA or bean counter's smoke-and-mirrors idea of how to farm all of my talent, goodwill and reputation just to make a bump in a quarterly... you go right ahead. I'll watch you sink into the tar pits that took all the other tiny-brained dinosaurs while I cheerfully recommend much better alternatives. You have been warned.

[By the way, Google; how's your competition going with duckduckgo or Blekko? Remind you of anything? Reminds me of when everyone started dumping A-V for Google when their search engine became bloated with self-important crap, spammed links, ad-choked boggy pages...]

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


Names Have Power

I have three names I can "conjure" by on the net. One you see before you. The other two had their time and place. But if you took all the posts created by those three names over 25 years, you'd find a consistent person behind those names. My views and positions have not changed that much in all of that time. You'd know you were reading the same person.

I do not sit down to "craft a false identity;" I speak through an idea; a presentation of myself. That self is consistent. I do not do this for nefarious, illegal or criminal reasons. I do not do it to deceive.


You have my words, my thoughts, my opinions, my dreams, my critiques and my indulgences. You can assemble a pretty good portrait of a human being from those posts. You can see the continuity and the existence of the me I choose to make public.

I can see no reason that makes sense to me on why all that needs to be linked, cross-indexed and tabulated with a governmentally-approved name and number unless it is the desire of some people to know every single thought, action, (bowel) movement or interest of mine at all times.

This is called totalitarianism and I will not conscience it, nor would the men who suffered and died not only for this country's freedoms but for the freedom of men and women everywhere in many times and places. I don't care what you label it; isn't that what this is all about, labels?

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

This is the Information Revolution: we move outside the established channels because they no longer serve us; we seek our own communities and establish our presence and our reputations by our words and actions; we speak amongst ourselves and we use the tools of a free press to do it, uncontrollable by gatekeepers and sluice-gate operators who seek to stem the flow of community under the guise of commerce. This is the true meaning of "information just wants to be free"; not free as in 'free beer' but free as in 'free to move between people.'

And that scares the Gatekeepers shitless. And now you know why what's happening is happening.

Saturday, July 9, 2011

Data Aggregation vs. Stalking: Tough Call

There's this guy you know.

He follows you around all over town. He goes into the bars and dance clubs and tells all the creepy guys who are offering you drinks, cocaine and other dubious lures to get you to go home with them your "real" name and address, because all you gave to those guys is a first name you invented (Trixie from Poughkeepsie) to keep you safe from predators.

He roots through your trash to gather receipts like A.J. Weberman rooting through Dylan's trash, assembling a profile on what you read, your Tampax purchases, ATM receipts, frequency of bowel movements.

He lurks beneath your windows, trying to catch a glimpse of you naked in the shower, or relaxing by the fire. He collects your discarded clothing. He even saves your used Kleenexes.

He badgers your friends, wife or husband for more information. He keeps track of your bank deposits, what movies you watch, what records you listen to. He analyses everything you write for "clues" to your "inner nature."

He does this as some professed "I love you!" thing. He makes up logical reasons for such behaviour and self-justifies it. He explains he just "wants you to be safe" and "he's looking out for you" and "it's all harmless anyway."

In physical life, we call such people stalkers. They are creepy. We are even warned about them over and over by "the authorities." There's laws against this sort of behaviour.

So... what's the difference between aggressive data aggregation and stalking? Tough call...

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Identity and Transparency: The politics of information

In physical life, I go out for a walk. I stop at the bank. The bank knows certain things about me; my accounts, my Social Security number, my phone number (one of them), etc. They don't know what breakfast cereal I like; they don't know my health history; they don't know my preferred news sources.

I leave the bank and go to the bookstore. They might know my credit card number (unless I pay in cash). They might have one of my phone numbers if I give it to them. They might keep a list of the books I've bought (if I filled in their "customer survey"). They don't know my bank account number or Social Security number. They don't know a lot about me; I mean... it's only a bookstore. They might not even know my "legal name."


I leave the bookstore and go to the coffee shop. Those people don't know anything more than (perhaps) I like sugar twists, I like double milk for my coffee and I usually come in at a certain time (providing the same person is on shift at the same time daily). They don't know any of the preceeding information. Why do they need it, when all I want is coffee and a doughnut?


No one thinks this is unusual. No one thinks I am "hiding" anything. No one thinks such behaviour is "shifty" or "suspicious." No one thinks I am "concealing my identity behind a first- name-only relationship."

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


Why should I provide an X-ray and proctoscopic detailed report on everything I do in my life to, basically, shopkeepers? Because that's what a lot of this internet jazz is about, isn't it? A bunch of shopkeeps, who want me to buy stuff. Just... store clerks. Yet they want information I do not give to my bank or my doctor all at one time, let alone some random store owner like K-Mart or the local deli.

It's been shown hundreds of times that these people, who really have no business in my business, are unable to secure their information. Unlike many, I actually investigate and study these breeches of information. Like most who do, the figures are clear: more than 3/4 of these breeches are inside jobs and sheer negligence, as they always have been. Sony got "hacked" not for monetary gain but to demonstrate their failure to meet the requirements of data handling and security to which they are legally responsible.

So, it is somehow "suspicious" of me to be wary of turning over sensitive data, which has no bearing on my purchasing some widget from a store, to people who have shown time and again their inability to protect such information? Don't give me that jazz about "hackers" or I will have to inundate you with links to statistics and charts on the last 100 high-profile data losses. Google them yourself. As an old professor of mine used to say, "do your own homework."

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." This seems to be the huge mantra being pushed these days. It is used as a justification to require me to submit to a data examination that would put an IRS audit or OB-GYN exam to shame. This is a classic straw man argument.

Am I "hiding" when I don't tell the bookstore my SSN? Hiding when I don't tell the bank I like Cocoa Crispies? Hiding when I don't tell the coffee shop what I bought yesterday and what medicines I am taking? Sounds ridiculous when you put it that way, yes?

And this vaunted transparency does not work both ways. It is a one-way mirror, which is not transparency at all. When police installed cameras in all their squad cars, they did it with great hoopla. Yet now... those cameras are being quietly removed. Why? Because they showed things the police don't want shown or subpoenaed. Malls can film me; I can't film in a mall. I can't take photos of public buildings, yet those buildings can train cameras on me.

The TSA can stick their fingers in my genitals but I cannot take a photo of them doing it without the threat of my camera being confiscated, my name put on a "hassle list" and the chance of a nice cosy interrogation in some small room. I can't film a cop tasering someone, even if I am standing well out of the "area of conflict."

The proponents of this one-way transparency crap use "violation of civil rights" as a cover for denying the filming of a public servant (police) doing the job I trust them to do and pay for with my taxes. They throw up unnecessary roadblocks and delays to deny information requests they are legally required to answer. In fact, they do everything they can to hide information from me.


So who is it that has "nothing to hide, nothing to fear"? Who is it that wants to stick alien probes into me and suck out and coordinate every single scrap of data I produce in my entire life, and yet will not let me access public information under legal requests? Who is it that fears cameras and accountability? Who is it that pushes "transparency" on me under the cover of fear-mongering (terrorism, 'think of the children') and yet fears transparency on the other side?


*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


I have nothing to hide. But I refuse to get naked and allow the jellied finger to probe me simply because I want to talk or shop. Just because "it's the internet!!!" doesn't make common sense nor common practice suddenly "strange" or "suspicious."

It's a lot more suspicious to me, this push towards "total accountability" and "total transparency" on my part when I can't get the same from public agencies that use my money for funding. When my bank makes me jump through hoops to get my money but has a website "hackable" simply by reading the URL (which is a complete failure on their IT team's design; this "hack" has been known since pre-web days).

When I do not have to hack to get your info; there are many companies that will simply sell me your info in bulk. Don't believe me? Do some quick research. Yep, they'll sell me everything you filled in on their little forms (banks, insurance agencies, you name it) in bulk, for pennies a name.

The only reason that makes sense to me about this "call to transparency" and "accountability" is a bunch of shopkeeps that want to buy and sell me as a commodity. The information they glean from me is not for my benefit; it's for them.

Oh, and there might be one other reason: there are laws pertaining to the gathering of intelligence by the State and the Government. However... when the State and the Government are merely buying information from these companies... they're just another customer. It's only business. See how slick that is? A nice way to route around such unpleasantness as the laws and Constitutions that are held up to us as guidelines.

Transparency? Sure! Quit hiding the backroom negotiations and text of the P.R.O.T.E.C.T.I.P. Act! Stop hiding the deals to turn a public utility (the data transmission lines we paid for) into a private enterprise. Stop seizing domain names without a warrant which I can access. Show me the budget breakdown for the TSA. Quit hiding the medical reports about backscanner radiation exposure levels...

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

This is not "transparency;" this is an interrogation in a room with one-way glass.