Re: Is Privacy Dead ? A helpful hint.

Michael was kind enough to remind me of my deficitness in responding
to earlier posts.
Thank you, Mike.
I remember that I was mentioning Freebase.
Freebase is the brainchild of Stefano Mazzochi, original creator of
Apache Cocoon, and who worked at MIT Library in developing DSpace.
He's big on data visualization.
http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/
His big thing at least what I've seen has been in the area of
metadata, but in the area of allowing users to define the ways in
which information is described. And in the reckoning of the various
ways in which metadata or info could be defined by different persons
or entities.
(I'm trying to put a whole lot into a short description here.)
Freebase is basically I guess a free public space where individuals
can determine the terms used to describe information in an an area
they are interested in, and then contribute this info to the overall
public base. Kind of like a google for metadata, I imagine you could
describe it...
Here is their main page, though I know there were earlier videos.
http://wiki.freebase.com/wiki/What_is_Freebase%3F
They have now merged with Google, so it seems they created a new video
and this may have altered their course somewhat, I don't know.
The thing that interests me, is knowing Stefano's history, whether
Freebase or something similar could be used for government or official
types of data.
>From what I've seen so far they have talked about areas, though I'm
sure these are only examples, of people's interpretations of movie
listings on imdb, public entertainment types of things like that, etc.
And they also have this upcoming technology which seems very
promising, Gridworks, which purports to take grid type files and
incorporate them into Freebase rather readily?
I see also since the merger with google they have changed the mailing
list address and name of that idea to google-refine:
http://code.google.com/p/google-refine/?redir=1
Still checking on that.
Will get to your invention rant soon, Michael.
Good week, all.
Dan

On 10/10/10, Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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 Tuesday, 19 October 2010 09:57:48 UTC