Re: [GNU/consensus] [RFC][SH] User Data Manifesto

[hellekin (GNU Consensus)]

On 01/04/2013 01:51 PM, Frank Karlitschek wrote:
> 
> Here my feedback to you feedback:
>
*** Hello Frank, and welcome. Let's call it feedforth, so we don't turn
our backs to each other. Words remain the principal protocol for human
society, and we'd better enrich it, than not.

>>>    1. Own the data
>>>    The data that someone directly or indirectly creates belongs to the
>>>    person who created it.
>>>
>>> The words "own" and "belong" will give people the wrong idea.
>>> Meanwhile, "data" is too general.
>
*** The understanding of freedom is yet to be shared, and for some,
ownership and freedom are two distinct and antagonist concepts.

Ownership draws a separation between an actor, a possession, and the
other. By definition, ownership refers to a freedom-of-separation, that
is championed by the very same currents that your manifesto seems to be
willing to address. Reading that first point, although I can understand
the meaning you want to attach to it, I interpret it as a defensive
position: "It is mine, keep your hands off it!"

Data can be understood as the raw material in the social construction of
one's own memory, among other things ; but the data itself is nothing
without understanding, and sharing it, to refine what it holds as raw
material, ready for being carved into meaning, feeling, etc. The "data"
is but a point of origin, and each interaction enriches it and refines
its matter, so that it can evolve into information, and knowledge, art
and technology, craft and culture, good food and parties, etc.

Gregory Bateson would define infomation as "a difference that makes a
difference". In that acception, information is itself a subjective
concept. Considering how our perception work, it makes sense to not see
information as a physical property--or as identity, but an ongoing
process, the tool that shapes ourselves, as we carve data into something
meaningful to our kind.

Moreover, declaring that someone creates, and owns that creation, is to
ignore the infinite influence of others' previous creations on
ourselves, etc. it's all turtles, all the way down.

As I understand it, your first point is about asserting a right to
participate in the public space, and at the same time, protect our
legitimate need for intimacy and autonomy.

> This is about holiday pictures, microblogging messages, blog posts, personal 
> documents, emails and so on.
>
*** No: this is about your capacity to proceed on the Internet, like you
would proceed in your living-room. The raw material that you're citing
has nothing to do with leisure, and everything to do with your personal
history. When you're an old person surrounded by great-grand-children,
you will see that the accumulation of all these little things you're
mentioning make your autobiography. That is your family album, except
now, instead of taking the dust in some old book, it's all over the
Internet, and it's not in your possession.

> 
>>>
>>>    2. Know where the data is stored
>>>    Everybody should be able to know: where their personal data is
>>>    physically stored, how long, on which server, in what country, and what
>>>    laws apply.
>>
>
*** That is a practical argument. But is it that practical? What you're
saying here, in the subtext, is that you don't want your intimacy to be
violated. Violence is the abuse of force. And to counter violence, you
need force. As far as we are now, moving fast toward a society of
control, you can bet your force is in your social network, and by that,
I mean the people you love, and who love you.

I agree that physical security of one's production is an asset to defend
your freedom, but look at Bittorrent, or the Tor network: who cares
where it is, as long as you can ensure it's available to yourself, and
the people you want to share it with?

Are you really convinced that knowing your social networking activity
sits in Utah or in India makes a difference to you? To people in war
zones, yes.

>>>    3. Choose the storage location
>>>    Everybody should always be able to migrate their personal data to a
>>>    different provider, server or their own machine at any time without
>>>    being locked in to a specific vendor.
>>
>
*** I remember a comment by a well-known blogger, who was using a gratis
commercial service to store his sources, in the form of RSS feeds. Over
the years, he had accumulated thousands of sources, and was using that
convenient service to share it with others. One day, he decided to move
on, and could indeed "export his data". He could download an OPML file
and put it somewhere else. But he didn't do so. Instead, he contemplated
the vast amount of links he had built over the years, and concluded that
moving the data would not bring all that dense connectivity along with
it. So, what is the data here? Do you really think you can migrate the
"data" away from its surroundings?

> if every user would have a personal server.
>
*** That is realistic, and in a much shorter term than you envision.

> so people store their data on server that are owned and run by other people.
> And this is not necessary a problem if the principles of this document
are respected.
>
*** Yes! That is a question of ethics. And it certainly works for some
people who are lucky enough to know some hacker to take care of their
infrastructure. But that is not scalable, yet. The lack of resources on
one side, and of understanding of the importance of the topic on
another, make it a hard task to complete. We're all trying here to
unlock a bonus that is not just about data, and not just about
computing. Those are our means.

It's an omni-directional endeavor to bend the route of our civilization
in a way that will transform society. I consider the GNU/consensus
project an attractor of global dynamics, to quote Francis Heylighen, and
each Stakeholder an autonomous agent of change. In order for such a
complex system to evolve into a self-organizing system that will provoke
a global effect, we need to focus on ambitious goals. And my ambition is
that we can reach a global consensus of these goals by raising the bar
of the discussion beyond the obvious, and with such ambitious goals in
mind, work together, each in our own smaller social networks, to bring a
more cooperative civilization.

> Data is encrypted, can be migrated, ...
>
*** Please see above: *some* data can be migrated, and most of it
proceeds from another, intertwined, omni-directional, transdisciplinary,
metamorphic individuation. That means the choices made to build that
data, shape it. Don't get me wrong: I'm a daily user of strong
cryptography. But sometimes I think about the future archeologists who
will contemplate our encrypted lives like we contemplate Cro-Magnon.
Hopefully by then, cryptography will not be necessary anymore.

> 
>>>
>>>    5. Choose the conditions
>>>    If someone chooses to share their own data, then the owner of the data
>>>    selects the sharing license and conditions.
>>>
>>> "Owner of the data" has the same problems as in the first item.
>>>
>>>    6. Invulnerability of data
>>>    Everybody should be able to protect their own data against surveillance
>>>    and to federate their own data for backups to prevent data loss or for
>>>    any other reason.
>>>
>>> "Invulnerability" is too strong.  Nobody can achieve that.
> 
> This is impossible to achieve. The idea is that this is a principal where we 
> should aim for but probably can't be reached.
>
*** Soyons desinvoltes, demandons l'impossible. (Let's be nonchalant,
and demand the impossible!)
>
> Do you like the general direction of this document?
>
*** I appreciate your initiative, and I think you should be bolder, and
not assume a position of defense, because the billion of Facebook users
barely feel threatened. We want to build a system, that will render the
old one obsolete.

> It would be awesome to promote this together with the FSF or make it >
a FSF project if you are interested.
> What do you think?
>
*** I can't speak for the FSF nor for the GNU project, but you're very
welcome to the GNU/consensus.

Thank you for the inspiration, and for your attention,

==
hk

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature