tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33273315.post8349167360056364149..comments2023-07-16T04:38:04.407-05:00Comments on Spinuzzi: ForgettingClay Spinuzzihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13356273383001825508noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33273315.post-85710786041259289712007-05-15T05:58:00.000-05:002007-05-15T05:58:00.000-05:00Hmm. All right, thanks again for your comments and...Hmm. All right, thanks again for your comments and the time you have spent in clarifying the discussion.Clay Spinuzzihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13356273383001825508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33273315.post-91549380326520928822007-05-14T17:40:00.000-05:002007-05-14T17:40:00.000-05:00Sure. Let me respond to the three dimensions you s...Sure. Let me respond to the three dimensions you suggest:<BR/><BR/>(1) Legally, it is straigt foward: when users agree to have their records kept for a long period of time then that is fine. I assume that this would be part of the terms of some of persistent identity agreements. I would still suggest that data have expiry dates, even if they are far into the future rather than having none at all, but that is detail.<BR/><BR/>(2) On the softwrae end, the implementatio is relatively staright foward given that the main operating systems we use today are all quite capable of working with a plethora of file meta-data; expiry date would just be another small addition to the meta-data zoo. (And to clean out, in principle all that one would have to do is run a simple cron job or equivalent say once a day.)<BR/><BR/>(3) Socially, my sense is that you see culture as too much the pre-determined result of the artificats that surround us and their possibilities, yet you seem to underestimate the fact that these artifacts insofar as they are driven by software are extremely plastic, and can be formed many different ways. Different software behavior may prompt different uses.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, I do not propose that we need perfect or almost perfect enforcement. Shifting the default back is good enough. <BR/><BR/>And yes, forgetting may be a blunt instrument; but it always has been.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>VMSAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04864446256746728036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33273315.post-65632790947041357442007-05-13T15:45:00.000-05:002007-05-13T15:45:00.000-05:00Thanks for the comment. As you inferred, I relied ...Thanks for the comment. As you inferred, I relied on Ars Technica's gloss to characterize the paper. I have now read the paper through.<BR/><BR/>Could you be more specific about the confusion you see in my post, though? I certainly think your proposal is less intrusive than omnibus legislation, but I still think the proposal to make forgetting the default is too blunt an instrument. <BR/><BR/>In the paper, you argue:<BR/><BR/><I>I propose that we shift the default when storing personal information back to where it has <BR/>been for millennia, from remembering forever to forgetting over time. I suggest that we <BR/>achieve this reversal with a combination of law and software. The primary role of law in my <BR/>proposal is to mandate that those who create software that collects and stores data build into <BR/>their code not only the ability to forget with time, but make such forgetting the default. The <BR/>technical principle is similarly simple: Data is associated with meta-data that defines how <BR/>long the underlying personal information ought to be stored. Once data has reached its <BR/>expiry date, it will be deleted automatically by software, by Lessig’s West Coast Code. </I><BR/><BR/>Certainly the proposal is simple, but it is also quite sweeping. <BR/><BR/>On the legal end, it would face multiple requests for exemptions from services whose whole point is to obviate forgetting (ex: Microsoft's MyLifeBits project, Dandelife, iStalkr, and other sites whose whole aim is to provide a comprehensive, durable record of individuals' lives). Because it is sweeping, it will also face severe enforcement issues, requiring a large investment in people and equipment, if it is to have any teeth. <BR/><BR/>On the software end, this simple proposal requires a remediation effort on the scale of the Y2K efforts of 1999. Associating timestamps with information will be easy for many segments, but nontrivial for others. Certainly the human oversight of "forgetting" would be nontrivial at first, though it would be primarily automated over time. <BR/><BR/>Lastly, on the social end, the effort strikes me as trying to ungrind the hamburger. Phenomena such as lifestreaming, blogs, and social photo and music sharing are often valued because of, not despite, the permanent record. They represent the ongoing construction of the individual's identity, a textual construction that is motivated in part by the increasing distribution of work, civic, and leisure lives across spatial and temporal boundaries. Again, this phenomenon's extreme edge is represented by projects such as MyLifeBits, but there's plenty of more moderate users who expect their data to exist in perpetuity. <BR/><BR/>Bottom line, I appreciate the clarification, but I still don't believe this proposal constitutes a workable policy.Clay Spinuzzihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13356273383001825508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33273315.post-69714996298615762692007-05-12T22:19:00.000-05:002007-05-12T22:19:00.000-05:00I appreciate your comment on my proposal. I'd like...I appreciate your comment on my proposal. I'd like to encourage to read the paper, though, before critiquing it from what you have read second hand. It my clear up some of the confusion reflected in your comment.<BR/><BR/>Kidn regards,<BR/><BR/>VMSVMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03697905238210498884noreply@blogger.com