the burden of twitter

Steven Levy has written an essay for Wired about the guilt that one can feel for not participating enough in ones social network. Following tweets but not twittering, not blogging often enough, or not updating ones Facebook status. It's a brief but interesting read on privacy and a weird sense of duty to keep those public lines of communication open.

Nicholas Carr has posted a very interesting reaction to Levy's essay.

There's an arrogance to sharing the details of one's life in public with strangers - it's the arrogance of power, the assumption that such details somehow deserve to be broadly aired. And as for the people, those strangers, on the receiving end of the disclosures, they suffer, through their desire to hear the details, to hungrily listen in, a kind of debasement. At the risk of going too far, I'd argue that there's a certain sadomasochistic quality to the exchange (it's a variation on the exchange that takes place between celebrity and fan). And I'm pretty sure that Levy's remorse comes from his realization, conscious or not, that he is, in a very subtle but nonetheless real way, displaying an undeserved and unappetizing arrogance while also contributing to the debasement of others.

This seems a bit strong to me, but not entirely off base. Arrogance of power? Debasement? Sadomasochistic? OK, that may be true for some who participate in social networking, just the same as for some participants in a real life communities. There is something a bit egotistical in assuming that others will follow your tweets/blog/delicious tags/flickr set/facebook. There is something a bit creepy that, if you don't require approval, complete strangers read your tweets where you might be discussing where you are at any given time. I like to think that most use social networking to actually keep in touch, not to obsessively stalk one another.

There's that public sharing expectations thing again. I know, I think about this a lot. People I do not know read my blog, see many (but not all) of my flickr images, and join my delicious network to see most (but again, not all) of my bookmarks. I have made a conscious decision to share these things. I had to struggle with getting over the creepiness factor. It was well over a decade ago that a woman from China, upon being introduced to me at a conference reception, exclaimed "Oh! I know who you are -- you have an interest in folk art and you like armadillos!" She had come across my personal web page (remember those?) while researching the conference speakers.

There's no turning back. There's only self-selecting your level of exposure.

presidential records and donation reform

On January 7, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives approved H.R. 35, the "Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2009," and H.R. 36, the "Presidential Library Donation Reform Act of 2009." These were chosen by the House leadership as the first pieces of substantive legislation passed in 2009 as a symbol of government transparency.

The Presidential Records Act Amendments restores meaningful public access to presidential records by nullifying a 2001 Bush executive order, and the Presidential Library Donation Reform Act requires the disclosure of big donors to presidential libraries. The Senate still has to pass its versions of the bills before they can go to soon-to-be-President Obama to be signed, which he has apparently indicated that he would.

The National Coalition for History provides a good overview of the Records Reform Act. The House Speaker's site provides an overview of both.

court rules that hash analysis is a fourth amendment search

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania has issued an opinion in the case United States v. Crist that a hash value analysis in a criminal investigation counts as a Fourth Amendment "search." Read a synopsis at ars technica.

ambient awareness

This week's New York Times Magazine has a piece by Clive Thompson that explores issues around ambient awareness and privacy. Facebook, twitter, flickr, dopplr, and texting and blogging more generally. Is it narcissistic to broadcast your status using awareness tools? Are these tools to improve connectedness in a more mobile and global human ecology -- the ultimate tools for building and maintaining relationships?

This is the paradox of ambient awareness. Each little update — each individual bit of social information — is insignificant on its own, even supremely mundane. But taken together, over time, the little snippets coalesce into a surprisingly sophisticated portrait of your friends’ and family members’ lives, like thousands of dots making a pointillist painting. This was never before possible, because in the real world, no friend would bother to call you up and detail the sandwiches she was eating. The ambient information becomes like “a type of E.S.P.,” as Haley described it to me, an invisible dimension floating over everyday life.
...
And when they do socialize face to face, it feels oddly as if they’ve never actually been apart. They don’t need to ask, “So, what have you been up to?” because they already know. Instead, they’ll begin discussing something that one of the friends Twittered that afternoon, as if picking up a conversation in the middle.

An interesting section focuses on the so-called "Dunbar Number" -- just how many people can you be "friends" with, anyway? According to anthropologist Robin Dunbar, about 150. Can you max out on social connectedness? Not really, since many of one's ambient connections are weak ties, not close, intimate friends. But weak ties are just an important part of social and professional networks.

I find it useful to check in on my Facebook account and see the status newsfeeds of my friends and colleagues. I have also personally met all but a handful, and I believe that they are controlling their feeds and filtering what they write in their status that maintains their chosen levels of privacy. I keep my status updated. I blog, and I know and expect that people who have never met me read it. But is the ability to follow personal newsfeeds and tweets of people you will never know a creepy invasion of privacy, making it too easy to develop parasocial relationships? Or is it all just part of ubiquitous ambient awareness where participation is increasingly not optional?

I originally refused to blog or join Facebook because I thought it was vain to assume that anyone wanted to know what I was thinking or doing, and that I'd be giving up my privacy. OK, I have given up some of my privacy, but I've also made new connections I might never have otherwise, re-established relationships that had gone dormant, and built stronger ties with geographically disparate friends. While I'm not willing to give up my privacy for a free cup of coffee, I am willing to give up some privacy to to that.

review of OpenID

My interest in OpenID has recently been piqued, so I am definitely looking forward to the outcome of a JISC OpenID review:

"The primary aim of the project is to produce a report which will allow busy decision-makers to understand OpenID’s security properties well enough, quickly enough, to apply it safely and avoid its potential security pitfalls, based on first establishing by means of a survey a sound understanding of how such decision-makers are likely to proceed in the absence of such guidance. The secondary aims are to develop bridging software that will allow OpenIDs from any source to be used as identities within the production UK (SAML) federation, creating opportunities for early adopters to experiment. We will also demonstrate a library-type service modified to make use of such identities."

life on the internet

I was chatting with someone earlier today about identity and privacy, and how I'm thinking a lot about them these days.

In the process of buying the place we are moving to, I was asked for a photocopy of my driver's license. OK, that's not an uncommon request during a financial transaction conducted over email and fax. Then I was asked for a photocopy of my social security card. My what? Why? I couldn't actually find my social security card (note to self -- get a replacement card), so, in lieu of that, I had to sign a release form allowing my lender to confirm my identity with social security. And they needed a photocopy of my passport, too, if I wouldn't mind.

Bruce opened a new business banking account last year, and he was also asked to show his social security card in order to open the account.

Where is the fine line between confirmation of identify (albeit in the face of rampant identity fraud) and privacy?

I saw this posting on ReadWriteWeb about whether hiring officials should look at candidate's social bookmark profiles during the hiring process. That post referenced a Business Week debate on the topic. One of the more interesting things mentioned in passing in the argument against was that identities can be spoofed online, so how does an employer know if they're even looking at a real profile for that person?

Identity and privacy are completely intertwined online.

Circling back to the conversation I was having earlier, we were talking about how much of our lives are archived online -- a dumb message that I posted to a listserv in the mid 1990s is still likely out there in an archive, waiting for someone to wade through hundreds of pages of search results. My personal web page from 1996 is probably in the Wayback Machine. What about now? Is my Facebook profile personal or professional when it includes my movie and music likes but also supports great communication with my close professional colleagues around the world ? My LinkedIn connections include a few close friends from decades past that I have recently reconnected with through that service.

How much do we need to worry about managing our online identities? Either a lot or not at all, and I'm not sure which it is yet.

Google responds to privacy questions

Via Stephen's Lighthouse, a posting at search engine land on Google's response to 24 questions about privacy issues submitted by US Representative Joe Barton. A PDF of Google's response is provided.

public personae

When I joined Facebook earlier this week I had every intention of keeping my activity to a minimum. No picture. No personal details. Minimal professional details. No groups. Why would I share my personal life online? That's personal, that's private!

Then folks started pointing out to me that I was being silly. My email address and information about my job is all over our Library's web site. Presentations that I've given are online everywhere. Old email listserv postings are available through list archives. I use flickr, and while some images are kept restricted to friends and family, most aren't (but with a Creative Commons license). My LibraryThing catalog is public. I have this blog.

Basically, I was told to get over it. I already have a public persona, even if it's not one that interests more than a few close friends and colleagues and folks interested in arcane digital library topics.

But, but, what about privacy? I know better than to share too much about myself online. I have friends who have been the subject of identity theft. One hears cautionary (but possible apocryphal) tales every day about middle schoolers getting stalked online through their MySpace pages. How did my life get so public? Gradually, without my even consciously noticing it. There's no going back.