W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > October 2010

Re: Is Privacy Dead ? A helpful hint.

From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 11:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <174502.28571.qm@web112608.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
To: Chris Beer <chris@e-beer.net.au>
Cc: W3C Egov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Hi Chris, You are supposed to feel a sickie coming on before the weekend.  Next time read the directions :o)  In any case, I hope you are feeling better.

(answers below)
--- On Sat, 10/9/10, Chris Beer <chris@e-beer.net.au> wrote:

Thought 1) - putting some notes on those links (such as the Australian one) on how to use them and what they are designed to show (in plain English remembering that your audience on list is International and not necessarily tech savvy  would be an advantage :)
===
For all the theory and calculation, the goal is very simple.  Once you've made a time global identifier, you enjoy two advantages:
1) The little people at the bottom are free to change the three letter codes to something easy to remember and use.  The higher levels will still relate the time to the entity name.
2) Since anybody can calculate the time identifier for all levels, there is no Governing/Reference Authority necessary.  Subsets, like the EU are easy to handle.

I don't speak Australian, but I'd be glad to insert any text you think illuminating :o)
===
2) ...A report released at a "Coordinated Time" does not reflect the habits of human communities trying to reach
a consensus. Until everyone has seen a "fact", it's News.

OK - so let's take that as a premise for below - it's simple and relatively self evident, however it should be noted that a) a fact is a fact regardless of whether consensus is reached. Not "seeing" it, or for that fact, believing or accepting it, in no way stops it from being a fact. Case in point - some guy once proved using the awesome power of science that the Earth circled the Sun, and not the other way around.
I would venture to say that what you are really saying is that a piece of  raw data (we'll give it a datatype of say "Rumor") cannot be substantiated into a datatype of "News" until after a period of T=T+n seconds. Cr (Correllation of the rumor) = 0 (never substantiated) or 1 (substantiated), and if Cr = 1, the number of occurrences of Cr over T increases exponentially as the number of viewers/potential reporters/ observable locations increase.  Or something like that.
While information travels at the speed of light, *consensus*
has a fixed path exactly 24 Hours + 1 Second long.  That
means, if you issue a report at time T, exactly 24 Hours + 1
Seconds later the whole world has seen it and a consensus
can form.
===
Let me pause there ... 24 hours is a "distance" forth, and 1 second (or so) is a "distance" back.  When the distance back and forth is unequal Relativity does not apply.  A better analogy is an Election Day. Voting starts weeks in advance (absentee ballots), continues through Election Day and stops at one second before Midnight the next day.  "Early Returns" and other devices to create excitement are just Show Biz, they don't change the result :o)
===
No - you could only say that at 24 Hours + 1 second there is the potential for the whole world to have seen it. You're assuming equal access to communications and equal desire to seek out any given piece of information.
===
I could say "potential" but then people would confuse me with Einstein (they probably will anyway, <sigh>).  E=mc^2 only works if the derivative of c^2 is 2c meaning the "distance" forth and back are equal - sort of - it's a series of terms (harmonics) from 12 hours + 1/2 second and up, I'm just picking the one that means something to me.  Given the modest result required, and the Election Day analogy (with which an aspirant to Governance should identify), I don't think much more need be said about the calculation details.  When William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) was successfully able to predict ocean tides (very important if you "Rule the Seas"), he found a harmonic at a "fortnight" he couldn't explain looking at the moon, but the math told him was there.  His tide calculation machine included the two week period.  I'm intentionally not learning from the mistake he almost made.   
===
  Meta Data does not travel "through the
grapevine",
No - but some will ALWAYS travel WITH information, and without it, information will lose trust and provenance. Case in point - the "creator" or "author" and the "date" metadata fields".
 although "normal data" does - when a report is
issued in Washington, London sees it as News 4 hours later
and sees it as Meta Data 24 Hours + 1 Second after arrival.
But that cannot hold true if your premise that information travels at the speed of light does. London gets the report at the time of release, and receives the metadata attached to the report at the same time.
===
You are correct, if that is what I was saying ... I'm talking about a Rumor forth, and a Consensus (or vote tabulation) back.  Although the path is the same length, the apparent speed is different.  Constant speed leads to uncoordinated time.  If you are a Diplomat you make a value judgment to sort it out: It is more important what London thinks than what Berlin thinks, etc.  If you are a Government Statistician, you release a fact, say tomato consumption, then wait 24 hours for the people in Victoria to complain that the people in New South Wales are eating too many tomatoes.  If you are a politician in Victoria you probably scream immediately, but if you want me (USA) to agree with you then wait 24 hours because I want to hear what my niece in Kosovo thinks.  And so it goes. 
===
Now - for extra credit, how does the discussion relate to e-government in plain English terms? (And don't take it as anything but gentle encouragement :) I've seen similar discussions on metadata come out of e-gov metadata conference sessions, and it is of particular interest and application to defence, intelligence and law enforcement communities in that sense.
===
I don't think I really deserve any extra credit.  I'll be the first one to admit that if you lived on a square planet with a 28.7 hour day I couldn't be of much help :o)

Metadata is of interest to defense, intelligence and law enforcement because their interest is about individuals.  The need Global Position, Latitude and Longitude amounting to directions on a battlefield.

Metadata as facts, statistics, do not require a Global Position. They are true everywhere, always.  You can replace a entity name with a country code, and replace a country code, with a time code.

Ordinary citizens in their everyday lives do not need Global Position either, they need Local Position - directions to a Barber Shop.

The only case where a GPS equipped device needs to "phone home" - disclose your position, depends on who is asking.  There is no legitimate business need for this feature *outside* of the defense, intelligence and law enforcement "Industries", and Personal Privacy Policy become overly contentious when this line is crossed.

Civil Government does not need this feature, and there are two user friendliness advantages to admitting that (at the beginning).

Just a suggestion for Policy Wonks :o)




      
Received on Sunday, 10 October 2010 18:39:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 10 October 2010 18:39:01 GMT