Hello Michael - I agree, the national security complex (NSC) should
be an important contributor to achieving the Ontolog mission; in
fact, our success might help the NSC travel a much
less-controversial road than the one they're on, so my strong hope
is that this effort is *welcomed* by all actors in the NSC.
Here's how I'd like to see this play out.
If an OPO (Ontolog Privacy Ontology) were created by which one
specifies privacy expectations, and such is automagically
transmitted in our digital communications, then there's a basic
mechanism for establishing accountability, the bedrock notion of our
social systems. As I see it, the problem is that there is no
mechanism per se for people to state their privacy expectations
about generic communications or about any specific communication or
about any specific part of that communication or about any specific
metadata relating to that communication (eg the keyboard was the
input device for the communication). As noted, aspirational ToS
agreements are simply distractions meant for the stupids, so surely
we agree they cannot be relied upon to drive accountability and
enforcement.
With a privacy infrastructure of this nature in place, FISA
authorizations can then cause a specific person's privacy profile
(so to speak) to be filtered in a manner that requires recipients to
echo communications with that person to the NSC. In this way, NSC no
longer has need to saddle every damn router on the Internet and
collect every damn GET/PUSH and do their best to break every damn
encryption simply because they have no capacity otherwise to capture
all communications of that person. This kind of scheme might address
the core problem as I see it: absent an OPO deeply embedded in
communication protocols, FISA courts et al have no option BUT to
give non-specific, blanket authorization to the NSC -- this is what
breaks the 4th Amendment, which demands absolute specificity for
search & seizure. To me it's crystal clear in the current
environment the obverse proposition presented to the FISA is clearly
quixotic: to end their practices in their totality. Yes I know the
implication is that anonymity is lost -- forever -- not privacy, as
some claim. Which doesn't bother me in the slightest, because I sure
as hell don't want unlicensed cars on the road, unlicensed doctors
treating me, nor anonymous hackers communicating with me. (note:
when I swear, I'm just being passionate!)
Now having said all that, I'll note my deep skepticism that
searching communications or metadata for "patterns" of behavior
(Sowa, this is the work of a psychometrician you speak of) is a
fruitful activity at all, holding aside its cost of disregard for
the 4th Amendment. But that's another topic. Bottom line is that
an OPO is essential to "re-normalizing" the NSC/Citizen working
relationship. If someone else (the W3?) is moving in this regard,
great, we as a group need to be heavily invested in their success
physically technically and politically.
Finally on the eve of MLK holiday I remind everyone that:
There is a great deal of difference between
non-resistance and non-violent resistance. Non-resistance
leaves you in a state of stagnant passivity and deadening
complacency. Whereas non-violent resistance means you resist
in a very strong and determined manner. [Martin
Luthor Kin and Malcom X Debate]
On 1/17/2014 2:16 PM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
Hello John,
I second that. National security very likely currently is the biggest adopter
of RDF and related technologies. I can hardly imagine that this will stay so
forever so I do not have a problem with those technologies.
There should be many ways for the general public to profit from that work
without harming security or even the profits of the companies involved.
Maybe adoption of these technologies would be more widespread if people
were not reluctant to talk of the successful use cases in national security?
Unless they are totally evil, of course ;-)
Regards,
Michael Brunnbauer
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:06:41AM -0800, John McClure wrote:
As a followup thought, I'd like to share an expectation I've had for the
year or so since I joined this list, one unclear can ever materialize. I
have no doubt representatives of the National Security community are on
this list (rightly and appreciatively so) and, knowing personally about
the levels of funding drenching that community for the past dozen years,
I wanted to be aware of the 'give back' that community would now provide
to open citizenry, its direct investors and clearly its most primary
stakeholders. So I want to ask in a general way, what ontologies /have
/been developed by this community, what can be shared, with us? Anything
about privacy (asked with no tongue in cheek)?
Even more pointedly is that the National Institute for Standards &
Technology should have an inventory of the ontologies (being) developed
in-house to all government agencies. Why do I sense this level of
information, integration and facilitation, is simply absent from the
work here?
This site is beginning to seem a bit like a charade to me. (/charade:
/an absurd pretense intended to create a pleasant or respectable
appearance). I'd rather that not be the case for many many reasons.
Thanks for any response/jmc
On 1/17/2014 10:21 AM, John McClure wrote:
On 1/17/2014 9:42 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
All isn't over, I am pretty confident about that, as long as humans
are involved. Folks just need to wake up!
So true and I think an effective contribution would be to create an
Ontolog-branded ontology for Privacy.
I'm hearing people talk about two different kinds of Privacy. One
concerns information NOT communicated to another -- implanted bugs and
a personal journal are mentioned -- for which there is a presumptive
expectation of non-disclosure byf its owner. This type of privacy out
of scope on this forum in my opinion, as valid and important as it
most definitely is, because otherwise we may walk into a cul-de-sac
that turns people here off. More fruitful would be to develop a
mechanism that promotes _transparency and accountability_ when data
owners' stated privacy expectations are not met by those with whom the
data owner has communicated the protected information.
An ontology for representing those expectations seems appropriately
calibrated to the mission of Ontolog.net. One that can be referenced
within this text:
_Facebook Term of Service_ (emphasis added)
"*You own all of the content and information you post* on
Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your
privacy <https://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=privacy> and
application settings
<https://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=applications>.
In addition: For content that is covered by intellectual property
rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give
us the following permission, subject to your privacy
<https://www.facebook.com/privacy/> and application settings
<https://www.facebook.com/settings/?tab=applications>: you grant
us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free,
worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in
connection with Facebook (IP License).
The present situation is like the dawn of telephony -- we're all
talking on a party-line, with zero expectation of privacy, now it's
time to create an SS7 protocol for the Internet, if you will. In the
meantime, I'll leave hardware matters to others who have more sway
than the soapbox we have here.
/jmc
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
|
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01)
|