privacy | SysNet

כללי אצבע למניעת חרדה

האם יש מידה מסויימת של היסטריה ופרנויה במקרה של מעיין דק וצומת ספרים? גם יונתן קלינגר וגם אבנר פינצ'וק חושבים שלא. הם צודקים, אך הדיון, לדעתי מופנה מהר מדי לכוון השימוש בזיהוי ביומטרי ולא לסוגית איסוף המידע וסוגית האמון.

אם נביט במערכות נוכחות, עצם קיומם מצביע על בעית אמון בין עובד למעביד. האם לא די, בכל מקרה של תשלום המבוסס על שעות עבודה להגיש פיסת נייר או גיליון אלקטרוני בסוף היום, השבוע או החודש? למרבית מקומות בעבודה המשתמשים במערכת נוכחות יש גם אפשרות לקלט ידני, עבור עובד שהתחיל או סיים את יום העבודה במקום בו אין גישה לשעון נוכחות או במקרה של תקלה. מקומות העבודה עברו מכרטיסיות נייר לכרטיסים מגנטים משיקולים של נוחיות ויעילות. מרבית מקומות העבודה עברו למערכות ביומטריות מאותם שיקולים, פשוט משום שיש אלמט של חיסכון הנובע מעלות הכרטיסים המגנטיים. שיקול האמון בעובד לא בא לידי ביטוי, שכן, כפי שציינתי קודם עצם קיום שעון הנוכחות מצביע על בעית אמון.

בהנתן כי מערכות זיהוי ביומטריות אינן מושלמות בפני עצמן, הן עדיין פשרה, ולא בהכרח הגרועה ביותר. הבא נבחון מספר חלופות וההשלכות שלהן:

האינטרנט זה אמריקה

רוח משונה נושבת בארה"ב. הסנט מסמיך את הנשיא לנתק את האינטרנט וצוות הבטחון הלאומי יוזם מערכת זהות לאומית. דומה כי האמריקנים הם קרתניים לא פחות מאיתנו.

האינטרנט קמה במקורה להתמודד בדיוק עם הסכנה של כשל בנקודה מרכזית. הסכנה בזמן פיתוח האינטרנט הייתה של טילים או מפציצים סובייטים, כעת עליה להתמודד עם ממשלת ארצות הברית. מערכת הזהות הלאומית גם היא חסרת ערך, כאשר לא מעט מהפשיעה הקיברנטית נובעת מתוך הסחר הבין לאומי. האם מהיום נצטרך ויזה רק כדי לקנות ב-eBay?

Open Data, Open Process

Governments love data. Nothing new about this. Data collected for financial reasoning (at the time) is a very helpful tools for today's historians.

Now, however, we don't seem to want to wait 900-2,400 years for this data. This want of open data, can have unwelcome consequences, warn both Danah Boyd and Lawrence Lessig. While both are not opposed to transparency and open data, both quote examples where they feel individuals privacy and freedom might be compromised by exposure, due to bad openness policies. Both also note that the influx of data can be manipulated to provide misleading interpretations of the data.

I think this is an incomplete view of the benefits of open data. The value of open data is not only in the raw data researching tools such as gapminder or Worlfram Alpha, or for storing it in the internet archives for future historians. Access to this data also allows us to question the processes and policies leading to the collection and use of this data.

Facebook: Too early, too late

Facebook has announced it's new privacy settings today. It is too early to say what (if any) impact this will have. It is also too late for Facebook to be trusted. From what I hear, I don't yet see a basic change in Facebooks understanding of peoples view of privacy. I also think that the assumption that people are willing to relinquish their privacy just to get a free or convenient service is incorrect. Look at the Buzz fiasco: in a nutshell, Google connected a service which contained private information (gmail) with a public service (buzz).

For many, Facebook was a service for private information. Sharing was for group of select people. One of the issues was that people with 4,000 so-called friends are not the same as people with 40 friends. For the former Facebook was the same as Buzz or Twitter - a megaphone; for the latter, facebook was the same as gmail or hotmail - a telephone. Expectations and usage were highly different.

Facebook confusion

Now I am really confused:

The sad thing is that I think all of those point to Facebook becoming a spam infested wilderness. It is also sad that the downfall of Facebook will end up being a clash with another corporation, and not due to user response and actions. This is not what was hoped for.

A geeks dilemma

Facebook is taking more and more liberties with it's users data. Robert Scoble believes it has reached a point of no return, while Jeff Jarvis (forever the optimist) believes that there is still hope. I don't think many understand what Facebook is doing. There are excellent articles on how to try and control your own settings, but even those will not save you from friends who have more laxed privacy settings.

The simplest example: if you "like" John Doe's photo or status then anyone who can see your likes will see that photo of status, even if John Doe's settings where to share this with his friends.

This gets worse when Facebook provides more and more tools for external sites to interact with the user profile. Unlike tools like Google Analytics, which will record the IP address which you are using, those tools will interact with your information. If you are currently logged in to Facebook, this has the potential of recording all your activities to you, especially with Facebook tendency to opt you in to any service which makes you actions more public.

American, do you speak it?

I think Jeff Jarvis has answered his own question. It is the users who should be in control of their identity, and by being in control of their identity they not only control what they want to make public, but also what degree of publicity they allow on their private data.

In order to control identity, some sort of authentication is required. Identity and Security are the bases of privacy. In order to control my privacy, I, and only I, should have access to my data and with whom I want to share it. Security and Identity management, however, are complex. I have more then 60 accounts, from mail, social network tools and sites, banks and services. About half of those account relate to my public identity. Not everyone has the means to establish their own OpenID and Oauth servers and services. It is obvious that Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple and twitter are all more then happy to take this role for us. While we can make a case that entrepreneurs might need a IT expertise, can we make the same case for the consumer? If we see the future as one in which the entrepreneurs and the consumer can switch roles, or even be the same, then yes, I think we should.

IT's back, with vengeance

As an IT manager, whenever I am faced with a new cool technology I am faced with a dilemma.
On personal level am always tempted to deploy it and see how it fans out. I am, after all, something of a geek. I am also outspoken and something of an exhibitionist.
On a managerial level I almost automatically call on the help desk to put on their flak jackets and helmets, arm the sysadmins with smoke and tear gas canisters, turn to the boffins and proclaim:
Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God Save the King!
IT is primarily the art of provisioning. Finding the technology that provides additional value to your business, and implementing it in the least disruptive way. Data and processes are assets we need to both protect and utilize. Social networking, Instant messaging, blogging and other means of communication may enhance a business, but may also put it in risk. This is the business perspective of IT.
There is also a human element. The technology divide has not decreased due to Internet. People can do much more with our computers, but they do not necessarily understand the implication more then they did before. If any thing, shining new interfaces hide mode complex issues then those that existed before. Web 2.0 adds even more complexities.
Web 2.0 tools can enable people to be more entrepreneurial, even in a corporate environment. As those tools are abandonment, and most are freely (or cheaply available), it seems almost inexcusable not to use them. But not all business or business users are entrepreneurial in the Web 2.0 way of thinking, for some, the overhead of learning and managing new technologies can actually reduce their productivity.

Look ma, no evil

Google has announced, that due to attacks on it's server from China, it will "...review the feasibility of our business operations in China".

From clients to users to commodities

Imagine, if you will, Sir Richard Branson coming out with the following statement: "Planes crash, it's the gravity, live with it". I wonder how the stock of Virgin Atlantic would look like the day after. You see, planes do crash, but they are not suppose to. This is why an investigation takes place when one does crash.