Jump to content

Are you a 'Data Absolutist' ?


Recommended Posts

Well overwhelming a discussion with facts that are only tangentially related to the discussion is not a helpful debating tactic. The only way I can follow a discussion on a climate related topic is to leave waldo on ignore. The parts of his posts that are actually relevant to the discussion are usually quoted by others.

Nonetheless, he gets a response.

I have different take. Most people don't have the time to develop new analyses of the raw data and are happy to leave that effort to the funded researchers. Open data is important because it allows people to come in and check the claims made by published papers. It will be harder for researchers to fudge the numbers if their raw is available for anyone to look at.

I would also like to see all scientific papers referenced by governments made public.

i.e. if a government depart references a paper in a policy/research document then the original paper must be made publicly available. Also all data that was used to produce the results described in that paper must be publically available unless there are legitimate privacy concerns.

Yes, and the thing that will make these things work is that they will be ignored by 'most people'. Those who are interested in such things should form a community around the information - whether that happens naturally or with some help from government or major stakeholders. It's a much more efficient model than the overkill and distraction prone MSM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Personally identifiable information wouldn't be collected? Well that's great in theory, but it's quite easy to deduce who people are from particular pieces of information that are not personally identifiable on their own. Also you limit what can be researched and what can be said about society if you limit what can be collected. We need to know who people are to know who we are talking about with our data.

Yes, well, as I indicated we're talking about a fundamental and impossible-to-imagine shift in values here so "great in theory" is good enough.

It's like you're listening to Lennon's "Imagine" and asking "No possessions ? What would the locksmiths do ?" In other words, the idea is so unimaginable that deconstructing it, in a practical way, is kind of ridiculous.

I don't mean to be insulting here - I'm just talking at a meta level. A world without secrets, without possessions... we can't apply today's values to our questioning there, hence my assessment of the nonsensical nature of the questions.

Here's another example - take a look at the sci-fi films of the 50s... did they imagine the future correctly ? Hardly ever, of course. Now -> when they DID get the technology of the future right, did they ever get the social aspects right ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The default should be that the data is accessible

Why should that be the default? Do you want all of your personal information made public? Can I read your emails? Can I look at your tax filings? Can I read your medical reports from your doctor? Hell, can I look at your census forms? People don't want their information to be public, but some realize that information has to be gathered so that informed decisions about governance can be made. I have absolutely no idea why you believe everyone's sensitive information should be made public nor how you expect to convince people that this is a great idea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, well, as I indicated we're talking about a fundamental and impossible-to-imagine shift in values here

So what's the purpose here? You just want us to contemplate what it would be like if we had no privacy? Maybe I'm not understanding your point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clouds are as secure as mainframes, meaning, if connected to the Internet grid, it can and will be attacked. That is already a daily occurrence that many data centers have to handle.

This is also why the StatCan RDCs that I mentioned in a post above are not connected to the internet at all. They also confiscate your cellphones when you go there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should that be the default? Do you want all of your personal information made public? Can I read your emails? Can I look at your tax filings? Can I read your medical reports from your doctor? Hell, can I look at your census forms? People don't want their information to be public, but some realize that information has to be gathered so that informed decisions about governance can be made.

Because the people of Canada own the data, not the government.

As I pointed out, the PII thing isn't what we're talking about.

I have absolutely no idea why you believe everyone's sensitive information should be made public nor how you expect to convince people that this is a great idea.

No, I don't think that.

The 'absolutist' position is untenable, but if I continue to get a reaction like this then maybe I should continue to talk about that.

(this seems to be the most response to an OGP article I have posted, in such a short time)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what's the purpose here? You just want us to contemplate what it would be like if we had no privacy? Maybe I'm not understanding your point.

I find it interesting - and apparently others find it so as well - that an 'absolutist' position has emerged, especially because there is quite a mainstream movement called OGP that isn't even getting traction.

But, as I said above, maybe the lack-of-traction is the reason that others are becoming absolutists.

I'm driven to write a Data Absolutist's manifesto here... I wonder if it would go viral.

Basically, it would attribute all of the ills and costs to privacy that it could, and recommend zero privacy, zero secrecy and complete openness.

It would be tongue in cheek, but as an ideation exercise... Imagine the freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the people of Canada own the data, not the government.

The people of Canada don't own the data. They fund government operations through their taxes. But that does not give them ownership over everything the government does. Said differently, do we own the military and therefore can access all their files any time we want? There are very good reasons for keeping certain information confidential. This idea that paying taxes means you're buying ownership is a very short-sighted one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people of Canada don't own the data. They fund government operations through their taxes. But that does not give them ownership over everything the government does.

At an elemental level, it does mean that.

We have countries as aggregations of human populations, and those people have rights and collective ownership of things like land, infrastructure, and so on. It doesn't mean that you can demand to walk into any government office, but at a basic level - this land is your land, this land is my land.

Said differently, do we own the military and therefore can access all their files any time we want?

Are we speaking practically ? Are we speaking from an absolutist position ?

I've explained that such things are not practical already - that we will have personal privacy and government secrecy in the near term but you keep bringing it up. You're a good chap, so I'll put on my devilishly avocative absolutist GOLD tin foil) hat:

[absolutist MH]

The costs of protecting information from others are akin to having each of us pay good money to protect us from each other. That includes personal information such as medical information and so on.

Why should we perpetuate secrecy when it's to our collective detriment ?

[/absolutist MH]

There are very good reasons for keeping certain information confidential. This idea that paying taxes means you're buying ownership is a very short-sighted one.

[absolutist MH]

There are NO good reason for keeping information confidential. Those who control the information use it for their own ends.

If private individuals wish to pay to keep their information secret, then they can do so - but if they want to share it with a public institution then - much as happens when you use facebook or Google - you sign your privacy away. And why not ?

Hiding information is, after all, a form of deception. If you don't want people to know you're gay, you're dying, you're in debt, then it's because you wish to misrepresent yourself to society. Why not be yourself and force others to recognize the truth ?

[/absolutist MH]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waldo, for example, gets a lot of attention on MLW precisely because of his use of facts. If you compare to other posters, even pro-climate change posters, who don't use facts at all they don't get nearly the same response.

Well overwhelming a discussion with facts that are only tangentially related to the discussion is not a helpful debating tactic. The only way I can follow a discussion on a climate related topic is to leave waldo on ignore. The parts of his posts that are actually relevant to the discussion are usually quoted by others.

don't be so bitter, get over it... given your longstanding inability to rise to challenges put to your unsupported/unsubstantiated claims that you bring forward from your favoured "post-modern" fake-skeptic/denier blog world, I appreciate your reluctance to engage directly.

Open data is important because it allows people to come in and check the claims made by published papers. It will be harder for researchers to fudge the numbers if their raw data is available for anyone to look at.

another of your grand conspiracy themes... this one predicated upon accepting journals regularly publish without supporting SI.

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even your reasonable take on things seems to be impossible to implement, currently. Even asking government to make apps with OUR data seems difficult.

If we no longer have meaningful influence over our government, then maybe we should be storming government buildings like they did in the Ukraine. The problem isnt that the government is willing, its that this generation of Canadians are lazy apathetic cowards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we no longer have meaningful influence over our government, then maybe we should be storming government buildings like they did in the Ukraine.

We're not influencing our government, at least in part, because we're lazy and distracted.

As such, getting up off the couch will necessitate a refilling of the Doritos bowl before any storming happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're not influencing our government, at least in part, because we're lazy and distracted.

As such, getting up off the couch will necessitate a refilling of the Doritos bowl before any storming happens.

Yup. Nobody to blame but ourselves. If I governed a population of whimpering cowards, Id probably do whatever I felt like too.

Why would they be open if we cant even find it in us to collectively demand it? Altruism? Good luck!

Edited by dre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I confiscate Slinkys when people bring them to my home. Also chocolate chip cookies, which I destroy immediately in my mouth.

You're setting a great example for discussion on this forum. Have fun mocking everyone else in this thread because I'm done trying to provide you with any kind of insight into how data is managed by the government through the Statistics Act and how it's used by researchers. I'm pretty disappointed that this is what comes from the "facilitator" here. I see the forum improvement plan is in full effect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. Nobody to blame but ourselves. If I governed a population of whimpering cowards, Id probably do whatever I felt like too.

Why would they be open if we cant even find it in us to collectively demand it? Altruism? Good luck!

I agree - you can't depend on altruism. Then again, the system is built on the assumption that the public is lazy. Information is played out on mass media, with the average Canadian as a passive participant. Then your participation is to mark an x on a piece of paper every five years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're setting a great example for discussion on this forum. Have fun mocking everyone else in this thread because I'm done trying to provide you with any kind of insight into how data is managed by the government through the Statistics Act and how it's used by researchers. I'm pretty disappointed that this is what comes from the "facilitator" here. I see the forum improvement plan is in full effect.

Cyber, I was not mocking you. It was meant to be light, is all. I'm sorry if that was a faux pas, ok ?

There are two discussions here - the discussion of the OGP and what can reasonably be accomplished, and the discussion of the Absolutist position which is airy-fairy, head in the clouds, playful and theoretical. I would hope that this conversation could be a little lighter than others on MLW.

Please believe me that I had no intention to mock, and that I have the utmost respect for posters on this thread, even if I don't agree with all of their positions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is also why the StatCan RDCs that I mentioned in a post above are not connected to the internet at all. They also confiscate your cellphones when you go there.

Depending on the type of hardware. Intel was working on a chip that has wifi built into it. So even then the system can't be isolated 100%. But there are things to kill wifi signals and connection attempts.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-to-demonstrate-Atom-Rosepoint-chips-with-built-in-Wi-Fi-and-solar-powered-CPUs-at-ISSCC-2012.70541.0.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're not influencing our government, at least in part, because we're lazy and distracted.

As such, getting up off the couch will necessitate a refilling of the Doritos bowl before any storming happens.

Decades of conditioning through media to get you to be a lazy oaf. You've been socio-engineered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...