<$BlogRSDURL$>

constructions

Thursday, March 29, 2007

security through obscurity

In computer security engineering (of which I know nothing at all), "security through obscurity" is a principle where secrecy is used to ensure security. The idea is, as far as I can understand, not to tell anyone about how your system works. Consequently flaws in the system are not known to others than the owners and designers and attackers are unlikely to find them (for more, see AllExperts. It is a controversial principle, but my interest stems from the use of the principle to explain why users voluntarily expose private information without worrying about the hazards these performances pose to their privacy. danah boyd for example writes the following in "Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites"

Most people believe that security through obscurity will serve as a functional barrier online. For the most part, this is a reasonable assumption. Unless someone is of particular note or interest, why would anyone search for them?

Keeping the original meaning of the principle in mind, is this argument valid only for users who are determined to keep their performances a secret? I mean, it can hardly be applied to explain the practices of users who do little to hide their presence? Moreover, it is hardly the case that users themselves actually think that security through obscurity functions as a barrier securing their privacy. My impression is rather that users perceive the sheer magnitude of expressions online to be a protection towards their own privacy. Which is how David seems to apply the term in his contribution to the forthcoming anthology Personlige medier. Livet mellom skjermene (in English, Personal media. Life between screens): "For the most part those interviewed rely on ‘security through obscurity’ (the sheer number of weblogs and web pages in general) to ensure what they write is not read by anyone save the ‘innocuous’ passing stranger." (David's contribution is translated from English and concerns how bloggers relate to their readers).

Labels:

Thursday, March 22, 2007

computers and time

So I have this silly personal hypothesis. Computers affect the experience of time. It is of course related to the fact that time appears to pass more quickly when you're having fun (such as my experience of time at the magnificent Dolly Parton concert a week ago - oh, it was wonderful). The difference is I'm not necessarily having fun when I work with computers - yet time passes so quickly.

I have no other explanation for the fact that the years 2001-2007 ("my adult working life") feels like a much shorter period than 1995-2001 (student-years, when I generally didn't spend the whole day in front of a computer). It could of course be related to the fact that I'm getting older. I've also considered whether time actually passes more quickly than before.

But I like boring-time. Maybe I need to log off.

Labels: ,

Thursday, March 08, 2007

substitute or supplement

Are you tired of discussions of whether new technologies substitute or supplement old technologies? I think Eric A. Havelock's moves beyond such a discussion in his beautiful book The Muse Learns to Write. He discusses how literacy, as it emerged with the Greek writing system, created the character of modern consciousness. Yet, it was not so that writing merely replaced or supplemented oral storytelling. Neither did the introduction of the radio represent a reversion to past oral times. No, these technological developments represent marriage and remarriage between the spoken word and the written. I've only reached page 33, looking forward to the rest. Havelock was 83 when he wrote the book.

(...) the epics as we know them are the result of some interlock between the oral and the literate; or to vary the metaphor, the acoustic flow of language contrived by echo to hold the attention of the ear has been reshuffled into visual patterns created by the thoughtful attention of the eye (page 13).

Wow, the art of writing .

Labels: ,