The mysterious case of Ms. Carrie Prejean

[kandrathe]

I keep seeing this idea pop up different places, but what does it mean? The internet was originally zoned with top level domains (com, gov, edu, org), but that's largely ignored and everyone wants .com now. Also, what would something like the Lurker Lounge be? Games, politics, social networking, pr0n (at least till the mods remove it)?

Your questions reveals one of the issues. The .suffix nomenclature defines only a very limited characteristic of the web content.

To view a document you have to have a program that can interpret it, so the format has to be well known. If the format is well known you can create programs that ignore pieces of it, or overwrite them how ever you choose. DRM pushers run into this problem all the time. Anything enforced at the software level on a machine you have full access to is meaningless. The only option would be hardware enforcement (only because its more expensive to bypass), but that's not feasible unless someone plans on forcing new computers on everyone.

One need not fully protect content technically, but you would only need to be able to tell if the copy of content was authorized or not. We are talking about content now that resides on the .net, and not say a rip of a CD or DVD onto portable media. It is entirely possible to determine plagiarism of electronic copies of media even where the authorship information has been removed. I've written animation and compression algorithms based upon that principle, in fact, where you compare patterns within an image to other similar patterns in another image. You can pretty quickly deduce which percentage of the image is congruent, even when clipped or distorted. Once you've identified an illegal copy, you can proceed with legal protection against the .net host of the person holding the illegal copy.

But you are correct concerning portable media. I'm not sure what can be done other than discourage its free distribution with some RIAA skull cracking to make examples of the worst offenders.

[kandrathe]

What kinda crazy libertarian anarchist type are you, anyway?

I guess one that continually questions his own rationale. I don't think the issue is so black and white here. It's not free, or a police state. I'm not even sure I'd want the government involved. Wouldn't it be nice if hosting sites policed themselves before government felt they had to step in? Some places, like China, can't abide a smidgen of freedom, and thus make unholy deals with the likes of Google. I'm not looking for anything like that.

I think we are smart enough to figure out an organizational structure more complex than that of a heap. You should be able to tell your browser "I don't prefer to go to that part of town", and both the internet sites and your browser should obey your preferences. It means that domains need to provide and abide by a set of rules enforced by the hosts, and possibly something like the Internic but international in scope. Ultimately, the Internet's routing software would need to filter against those domains in suspension by this international governing group.

Again, I have nothing draconian in mind here. Just something a little more ordered and maintainable. Otherwise, a population who is tired of stepping into land mines will end up petitioning the authorities for action against them. We may not like what an internet looks like when designed by Congressional mandate.

[kandrathe]

Afterthought: Neat from your link how Brandeis' opinion in Olmstead has become the scourge of movement conservatism, as the basis for Miranda, Roe, and Griswold, all widely hated judgments. Once you establish something so fundamental as a constitutional right to privacy, the implications are staggering.

Yes. For me... Chilling. :) They may have been hated at the time, however, are they all still hated?

Regarding Griswold v. Connecticut, it is hard to believe anyone in this age who wouldn't find that contraceptive use as a private matter. The only possible concern that I could see that the government might have would be in safety, as they would in any other consumer product.

Also, I'm not sure what "conservative" today is against Miranda... It should be noted that while Brandeis is referenced in some of those cases, they mostly reference the language of the personal privacy precedence. For example, in Miranda v. Arizona, they cite the reference to "Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means . . . would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face." Olmstead v. United States Which, as a statement, leads me again to ponder again our recent conversation about the use of torture.

In Roe v. Wade, they reference Olmstead in reference to the nature of government's invasion into reproductive privacy. I respect that position as well. In my own personal position on abortion, I try to consider the Constitutional rights of the unborn citizen or soon to be citizen. As has been chronicled in the recent news accounts of the parents seeking to withhold the cancer treatment from their child, parental rights only go so far when child welfare is at stake.

[Jester]

Live free or die, man! Live and let live! Where'd those "fundamental American values" go? The ones you can't break even under the most extreme circumstances? What's the point in having principles if you don't stand for them?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Live free or die, man! Live and let live! Where'd those "fundamental American values" go? The ones you can't break even under the most extreme circumstances? What's the point in having principles if you don't stand for them?

"Live and let live" are not just empty words that mean you may do whatever you like. "Let Live" includes the notions that you need to respect what I might consider my life, my property, and "the pursuit of happiness" in a free society. Thus, society itself is an accommodation of the "self interest" to the communal good, whereas we can agree to a minimal set of ground rules which protect me, my property, and to as much as is possible my well being.

For example, are your various records at medical, dental, credit, employers, or the government, your property, or theirs? I would argue that you and that entity have an agreement to share information for the duration of your contract with them, whereby you have the right to protect your private information. Meaning, they cannot disclose it without your permission.

[Delc]

I think we are smart enough to figure out an organizational structure more complex than that of a heap. You should be able to tell your browser "I don't prefer to go to that part of town", and both the internet sites and your browser should obey your preferences.

Internet explorer has a content filter, I have no idea how well it works. There is probably an addon for Firefox that does the same thing. There's also a variety of applications to filter content at the router, or at the computer. Are you just looking for a centralized international ratings board to power these filters? Because that would be an epic failure. Simply based on what is acceptable to show on television I see no hope of a creating a unified rating system. Then there is the problem of 'unrated' sites. Do you filter them by default or let them through? What if they are unrated because they can't afford to be rated?

[kandrathe]

Restricting our access to only government approved internal material is not, in my opinion, a good step for us to take.

I think your vision of what I meant is drastically different than what I envision.

Right. How do you plan to do that? Uninvent them? Besides, who are you protecting? Us, the common people? No one gives much of a damn what we do, no one is interested enough to spy on us. Sure, if we do something spectacularly stupid in public chances are that it will end up on YouTube. So what? A hundred years ago it would have ended up in the rumor mill. No big change. Then, as now, it was smart not to be stupid. Or, at least, not to be stupid in public.

Wire tapping a phone, for example, we can agree should not be a warrant-less event. I'm not calling for anything like a ban on the means, just an understanding of what is a violation of privacy, which could be considered illegal and the basis for civil or criminal action against the violator.

The reason zoning works is that the zones are separated by space, by distance. Separating them by a mouse click seems pretty inane. Besides, the original intention was to do something exactly like that, thus the .net, .org, .com, .gov, etc., part of domain names. The failure was that nobody was there to enforce it. As always, anarchy only works when everyone follows the rules. Trouble is, you have to be intelligent enough to know the rules. After the September that never ended, and with the opening of the net to AoL, the average intelligence dropped to where the anarchy became lawlessness. Unfortunately, the net is like the world, there is no central authority and what little authority there is is toothless.

I mostly address this in my post to Delc. I agree that there needs to be a loose international governance organization, which sets some minimal rules and has the means to enforce them.

Do this, and about the middle of next week there will be no Lurker Lounge, no Wiki, no free anything. All that will be left will be pay sites, for only pay sites will be able to cover the legal expenses. So, even if this were doable (and in an international medium as fluid as the net, I doubt it is) it is a poor idea.

Again, there might a level of responsibility between nothing and oppressive interference to the level of shutting down the internet as we know it.

First, think about what a document is at the most basic level. ...

Also, I think I answered most of this for Delc. My recent work for colleges and universities was enlightening. All student papers are required to be submitted electronically, and they are automatically scanned against a huge internet library of other papers and sources for plagiarism. It is an interesting technology, because the entire source is not stored, just its uniquely generated digital hash and the source title.

Privacy is a nicety we all like, but it is only a necessity for those having something to hide.

Mostly, because even if I don't have something to hide, hiding is my civil prerogative and I should have some say in how "I" am used.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Wire tapping a phone, for example, we can agree should not be a warrant-less event.

I do not need a warrant to wire tap your phone. I can eavesdrop on your wireless phone, your VoIP system, your land lines, whatever. I might be breaking some laws in some of these cases (mostly having to do with trespass), although the only one I'm familiar with covers what I do with the information, but not how I go about getting it. You see, you are mixing what government can do and what individuals can do. Your original subject was not about government intrusion, but about media and individual intrusion -- two very different things.

I'm not calling for anything like a ban on the means, just an understanding of what is a violation of privacy, which could be considered illegal and the basis for civil or criminal action against the violator.

Privacy protection for public actions is what you are arguing for. Sorry, but that seems quixotic. You are already protected in your house, on your property, and so forth by laws covering trespass, etc.

I agree that there needs to be a loose international governance organization, which sets some minimal rules and has the means to enforce them.

My rules or yours? Yours when you were a young single guy or yours now that you'd like society's help in raising your kids? The rules based on Christian morality, or those of a more enlightened group? And in a world where we cannot even agree that rapist and murderers should be available for justice across borders, you expect some agreement and enforcement on Internet privacy violations? Extradition for some kid that photoshops your head onto some porn star's body?

My recent work for colleges and universities was enlightening. All student papers are required to be submitted electronically, and they are automatically scanned against a huge internet library of other papers and sources for plagiarism. It is an interesting technology, because the entire source is not stored, just its uniquely generated digital hash and the source title.

Right. So what? You originally said " am also hopeful that new document technology will enable the permanent embedding of authorship (i.e. electronic signature on steroids) to all electronic documents which would allow anyone to easily determine the original source and intent of electronic content.". Then you go on to show that there is technology available to determine when a document's source is other than claimed. But these are two different issues. The ability to determine if a document is plagiarized does not give you the ability to determine who generated the original -- it could very well be that most prolific of authors, Mr. Anon.

Mostly, because even if I don't have something to hide, hiding is my civil prerogative and I should have some say in how "I" am used.

You have some protection from invasion of privacy by the government. You do not have the same protection from the media. And you most certainly don't have any protection from cell phone cameras (not to mention traffic cams, ATM cams, etc.) when you are out in public. That's sort of the definition of 'public', you know -- pretty much the opposite of 'private'.

--Pete

[Jester]

"Live and let live" are not just empty words that mean you may do whatever you like. "Let Live" includes the notions that you need to respect what I might consider my life, my property, and "the pursuit of happiness" in a free society. Thus, society itself is an accommodation of the "self interest" to the communal good, whereas we can agree to a minimal set of ground rules which protect me, my property, and to as much as is possible my well being.

Sure, although I doubt you actually believe in protecting your "well being" "as much as is possible". But all this is perfectly compatible with a free internet.

For example, are your various records at medical, dental, credit, employers, or the government, your property, or theirs? I would argue that you and that entity have an agreement to share information for the duration of your contract with them, whereby you have the right to protect your private information. Meaning, they cannot disclose it without your permission.

Of course. But that's a set of protections that has nothing to do with the internet, fundamentally. If I go to the doctor, and tell him about my recurrent problems with gonorrhea, and he then shares that information with the world, then that's a breach of my privacy. But he could do that with a low-tech file folder, or just by word of mouth.

On a side note, it's actually it's kind of disturbing what you can learn about Americans once they're dead. I was at a cliometrics seminar where a historian was presenting a gigantic database project to figure out the statistical effects of all sorts of life factors. He knew just about every relevant personal fact about a truly staggering number of people: medical histories, cause of death, divorces, income, family, employment, you name it. But that's only dead people.

-Jester

[ShadowHM]

Right. How do you plan to do that? Uninvent them? Besides, who are you protecting? Us, the common people? No one gives much of a damn what we do, no one is interested enough to spy on us. Sure, if we do something spectacularly stupid in public chances are that it will end up on YouTube. So what? A hundred years ago it would have ended up in the rumor mill. No big change. Then, as now, it was smart not to be stupid. Or, at least, not to be stupid in public.

I think you are mistaken, Pete. Yes, there are those who do want to spy on us, the 'common man'. They are our potential employers. They are the people whose children we will interact with when we volunteer for a community organization. They are our immediate neighbours. And yes, sadly, they are interested enough to spy on us. And notwithstanding any ability to avoid public stupidity, there now is a very good chance that private stupidity will also end up on youtube. You may well be of an age now when even private stupidity is a thing of the past, but the rest of us are not likely in that category. :P

And I have no problem living in a glass house -- I'm not perfect, but I'm not ashamed of my imperfections, either. Privacy is a nicety we all like, but it is only a necessity for those having something to hide.

--Pete

A nice sentiment and good for you for harbouring it. But you damn well don't need to know or see any of my business anyway. I am not ashamed of my imperfections but I still see no need to display them for the likes of you or anyone else. Privacy may not be my right, but I intend to protect it as if it were. :)

[Chesspiece_face]

If I go to the doctor, and tell him about my recurrent problems with gonorrhea, and he then shares that information with the world, then that's a breach of my privacy. But he could do that with a low-tech file folder, or just by word of mouth.
-Jester

STD's are probably not the best item to support your argument. The information that doctors are, not only allowed to release regarding them, but on some levels required to release are different than general medical conditions.

[Jester]

STD's are probably not the best item to support your argument. The information that doctors are, not only allowed to release regarding them, but on some levels required to release are different than general medical conditions.

Edit: whoops, you are correct.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I would consider capturing some information regarding the nature of the site a vast improvement, considering that currently when you register a domain there is no information other than business and technical contact information required.

There are identity proofs required to register a .gov and a .edu domain, but nothing disclosing the sites purpose for a .com, .org, .net, or .biz

Like I said, its just of heap of domains which is totally unorganized or categorized. You couldn't possible figure out anything about any site without actually visiting the site, and crawling though the content.

In real life when I'm shopping with my wife, or children for hardware I don't accidentally suddenly find myself in the lingerie shop (or worse).

And, my experience with content filters (implementing in places that are mandated to be filtered by law) are that they are only roughly capable of figuring out content. It would be much better if sites could be filtered at the domain level, rather than having to actually transfer the content to test it. Some that I've used have a room full of content surfers who go through sites by ip address and categorize the sites content, but they don't get to all of them. Also, you need to petition to get sites white listed again. For example, I remember one odd one; for some reason, a "Hello Kitty" site was flagged as porn.

[kandrathe]

Actually, no, I was not really thinking about me, or you at all. I was actually thinking still about the original topic, that of the public slander of Ms. Prejean. I'm sure she is concerned about the continuing revelations by various prurient scandal rags that are now intent to disclose the full discourse of her parents messy divorce when she was a child.

As I read Brandeis' arguments and thought of her case, I think she has truly been victimized by various media outlets (whose lawyers are familiar with slander and libel suits), and obviously by some photographers who have sold her image outside of the original contract, and without her permission. What he wrote about newspapers, and photographs in that 1890 Harvard Law opinion rang true as if he had written it yesterday.

In this case, the internet is just another media outlet, and digital images are the copyrighted material which she owns but have been illegally used as if they were in the public domain. If modeling is her career, then her image is what she owns, markets, and has the right to control. Those people who are slandering, or libeling her are trying to destroy her, and her livelihood. So, this is about property rights, and her right to privacy. The question for a court to decide is whether she has given up her expectation of privacy rights by participating in the public spectacle of the Miss USA pageant. I would hope that Donald Trump, and his lawyers would see, that the muckrakers like Perez Hilton, or the Enquirer are damaging his assets as well. But, I fear that it may be the case that Mr. Trump will use her now for the cheap publicity, then toss her away when it is financially expeditious. That is probably not unusual for actresses, or models anyway.

[Jester]

Free speech is built on the graves of Grub Street Hacks. Trashy tabloid journalism is sacred to free speech, and the muckrakers that produce it are its priests.

No one has the right to be Charles Foster Kane, to own the media narrative about themselves. It's a messy game. That's why it's freedom.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Free speech is built on the graves of Grub Street Hacks. Trashy tabloid journalism is sacred to free speech, and the muckrakers that produce it are its priests. No one has the right to be Charles Foster Kane, to own the media narrative about themselves. It's a messy game. That's why it's freedom.

Right, but I'm not asking for a ban on scandal rags or any curb to free speech. I'm applying the principles of the 4th amendment, and the common law principles of copyright or trademark protections, and of people to not be slandered or libeled.

I'm suggesting that sensitive private information be kept from the public domain by law, and that those publishing private information into the public domain without the owners consent can be held liable for the losses incurred by people who are damaged.

And, to get back to the original thought I had posting about the viciousness of tearing down certain people, especially ones who seem to be moral, and represent "traditional values". Have you heard of Saul Alinsky? It seems to me that the media tactic of tearing down anyone with "traditional values" is in keeping with Alinsky's philosophy.

[Thenryb]

As to the Prejean-Palin connection check out this link:http://www.borowitzreport.com/

[--Pete]

hi,

As to the Prejean-Palin connection check out this link:http://www.borowitzreport.com/

Thank you, that was perfect. :lol:

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

I think you are mistaken, Pete.

Wouldn't surprise me, happens all the time -- but I only admit it to my cats.:)

Yes, there are those who do want to spy on us, the 'common man'. They are our potential employers. They are the people whose children we will interact with when we volunteer for a community organization. They are our immediate neighbours. And yes, sadly, they are interested enough to spy on us.

True. But nothing new there at all. Busybodies and gossip have been around forever, and no amount of privacy laws would ever make much of a dent in it. And, while it may not be as innocuous as I make it sound, neither is it as intrusive as some would have you believe. I've been used as a reference by many over the years and can remember only one time actually being contacted. And that was for a top secret security clearance.

So, right or wrong, I believe that most people are sufficiently preoccupied with living their own life to take much effort or interest in the lives of others.

And notwithstanding any ability to avoid public stupidity, there now is a very good chance that private stupidity will also end up on youtube.

I think that we have different definitions of 'public' and 'private'. 'Private', to me, means alone or in the company of people I trust. If my "private stupidity will also end up on youtube", then that means I've been betrayed by someone I trusted -- not impossible, but so far it's happened only once.

You may well be of an age now when even private stupidity is a thing of the past, but the rest of us are not likely in that category. :P

Ouch :(

A nice sentiment and good for you for harbouring it. But you damn well don't need to know or see any of my business anyway. I am not ashamed of my imperfections but I still see no need to display them for the likes of you or anyone else.

Ah, but since I'm not curious, it wouldn't take much to keep them from me. But how far are you willing to go to keep them from those who are?

Privacy may not be my right, but I intend to protect it as if it were. :)

You have the right to protect your privacy as much as you can. I keep my curtains closed, I shred any paper that has personal information before recycling it, I don't discuss my medical or financial details in public. But I don't feel that the freedom of the media has to be curtailed to protect my privacy, which is, I think, the essence of this discussion; how much freedom is each of us willing to sacrifice for the illusion of protection.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

In real life when I'm shopping with my wife, or children for hardware I don't accidentally suddenly find myself in the lingerie shop (or worse).

Again with the lingerie. You got a phobia?:)

Kidding aside, it is the nature of the beast. The separation in space in real life is not mirrored on the web. So while it may be a few hundred feet and a three minute walk from the doorknobs to the brassieres in your local Fred Meyer, it could be just a second and a click on your computer.

. . . content filters . . .

Two eyes and a brain works for me. Of course, I don't have kids at home whom I've got to 'protect'.

For example, I remember one odd one; for some reason, a "Hello Kitty" site was flagged as porn.

Yeah, strange things happen. During an office BS session having to do with the draft, drinking, voting, etc., the age of consent came up. So I Googled it. Got about a brazilian hits, almost all porn sites, all with the "If you're (usually written 'your') under the age of consent blah blah blah".

As far as I know, the only machine capable of accurately filtering sites is squishy and weights about three pounds. Who pays for this?

--Pete