41 ms·

Really trying to figure out a response that isnt flip - but if you give up your principals when something is difficult, why have them at all?

by hobs 7y ago

wideasleep1 7y ago
Particularly when excellent privacy-respecting alternatives exist.
- impendia 7y ago
  I would cheerfully listen to recommendations. And I should add that I'm trying out MS Teams as an alternative. After six days, and multiple e-mails back and forth with our IT department, I think I've almost got it set up properly.
  - andrepd 7y ago
    Jitsi Meet.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- maccard 7y ago
  Such as?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
Xylakant 7y ago
> but if you give up your principals when something is difficult, why have them at all? Your answer sort of reads as if the choice of technology is the only friction people are currently dealing with. The situation isn't easy, even using some easy to use technology like zoom. Adding friction will only make things harder for people doing their best in already hard circumstances. It may well exceed their mental budget for friction. I wish widely deployed privacy-respecting solutions were already deployed at scale, people trained in their use and a suitable curriculum available. But that's not where we are and putting more load on already well loaded people will not improve the situation.
- hobs 7y ago
  No, it really doesn't, which is why I prefaced it with talking about being flip. It asks the question "What is the point of a principle?" I dont think calling privacy a principle is true if you are willing to give it up for something that "just works" - I believe covid is likely one of the biggest problems in the modern age, but during times of hardship we need to cling ever harder to our principles, or consider that maybe it isn't nearly as important to us as we thought.
  - Xylakant 7y ago
    > No, it really doesn't, which is why I prefaced it with talking about being flip. Preface or not, it still reads like that. You're extolling one principle. I entirely agree that privacy is important but should be upheld. But there are other conflicting principles at work here - the list here is in no way complete. * The right to privacy. * The right of pupils to receive an education * The right of teachers to limit the amount of work and energy they need to put into their work. * The right of teachers and pupils (and the general public) to stay at home and evade infection. So glorifying one principle at the expense of others is at best problematic. What's the point of upholding one principle and ignore that at the moment, it conflicts with others? And that's why your absolutism on one principle to me still reads flip - or at least ill considered - even if you preface it with "I don't want to be flip."
    - hobs 7y ago
      If your principles are in conflict, I suggest recognizing that not all of them are actually principles, which is what I poorly communicated.
      - Xylakant 7y ago
        Ok, but then you cannot have any principles, because even the principles laid out in the declaration of human rights are in conflict to each other.
      - CJefferson 7y ago
matz1 7y ago
In the end, its cost vs benefit. Does the benefit overweight the cost ? For most people, including me the answer is Yes.
- angry_octet 7y ago
  But are you excluding people for whom the cost vs benefit is the other way? If you're in a position of authority it is up to you to minimise the violation.
  - matz1 7y ago
    It goes both way, if you force privacy, you too are excluding people for whom the cost vs benefit is the other way
    - angry_octet 7y ago
      The consequences of privacy loss can be severe, up to and including violent death (partner violence, anti-LGBTI attacks, religious persecution). A person with a moral (and likely legal) obligation to protect individual privacy cannot lightly discard someone's fundamental rights to favour the marginal benefit of others. We haven't seen a Zoom log found in an open S3 bucket yet, or a leak via fb, but experience says that it is only a matter of time. So if you're going to mandate Zoom, own the risk. Mitigation is possible: provide recorded streams for secured download (if safe/ethical/notified to record other participants!); provide a work laptop with a non-identifying config instead of a BYOD; many other options.
      - matz1 7y ago
        >The consequences of privacy loss can be severe, up to and including violent death (partner violence, anti-LGBTI attacks, religious persecution) If you are going that way then likewise, there is always someone somewhere could die because the software doesn't work because they prioritize privacy. Beside, The reason we have growing acceptance for the LGBT is because of the openness and transparency. That won't happen if we have perfect privacy. Yes is true that leak is only matter of time, so its even more infeasible to maintain privacy. The solution should be to assume information is public as much as we can and fix the issue that arise from that.
impendia 7y ago
So some company I don't like will advertise at me. I don't like it, but I don't care that much. I am prioritizing. During the present COVID-19 situation, my top two priorities are (1) maintain my health, including my mental health, and refrain from posing a health hazard to others, and (2) maintain my relationships with my students, colleagues, and collaborators. As I see it, if I give some skeezy private company some personal information by accident, then I am making a personal sacrifice, and not all that big of one. I'm trying to worry about my duties to others first.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > So some company I don't like will advertise at me. I don't like it, but I don't care that much. You're normalizing it and making your students use it though, so it's really not "it affects me, but I don't care enough", it affects others as well. And let's not kid ourselves: once it's established, nobody will switch to something else, because they'd have to explain and guide everyone they want to talk to to install another app etc.
  - matz1 7y ago
    Likewise you are affecting others too by telling people to install other app. Lets not kid ourselves not everyone value privacy the same.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      Possibly, though my personal experience is that people differ mostly on their understanding of privacy issues, not their valuation of privacy. Somebody that doesn't fully understand how much you can tell about someone just by looking at their call meta data isn't concerned about meta data. I've found most alter their stance when they get a better understanding of the issue.
  - impendia 7y ago
    The first is a fair criticism, point taken. Your second point I disagree with; I think if people raise objections, encourage people to switch, and volunteer to shepherd others through the technical details -- then people will be agreeable, and we'll see a shift which will gradually become pervasive.
angry_octet 7y ago
If you are going to require students/employees to use a tool like Zoom (and choosing it for lectures is definitely making it a requirement) then you are obligated to, at the very least, seek informed consent from students/staff as to what privacy they are giving up. And if someone doesn't consent (voluntarily), you have to seek alternatives and mitigations. If you're a Comp Sci or Engineering prof you really have an obligation to try harder. You have the capability to explain mitigation techniques (virtual machines, sandboxing, using temporary email addresses, VPNs). Longer term I think we will see a host of Zoom competitors, because really there is nothing special in the client. Hangouts in particular could easily eclipse it with some work. Also, I think the grid of faces approach is just awful. Many people have been working on VR meeting systems which have significant advantages for multiperson communication (i.e. discussion vs broadcast). Lecture/theatre VTC (which provides an aggregated feedback signal to the presenter) is completely unmet by Zoom. So once we're past the hump the field will broaden, and at that point the privacy requirements have to be enforced rigourously.
- gowld 7y ago
  > Longer term I think we will see a host of Zoom competitors, because really there is nothing special in the client. Hangouts in particular could easily eclipse it with some work. Then why hasn't it, despite far more work and funding than Zoom, for over a decade? This is a "I could have invented Facebook" comment. Things are harder than you suggest.
  - angry_octet 7y ago
    Google notoriously loses interest in what isn't hip at the moment. I think they might notice this market segment. Also I've done 300+ participant A/V conferencing systems, it isn't the client part that is hard, its the authentication, directory and latency that becomes difficult, and google already has that pretty well sorted.
- klyrs 7y ago
  > Hangouts in particular could easily eclipse it with some work. Is this actually better from a privacy perspective? Sounds like abandoning the frying pan for the fire...
BurningFrog 7y ago
Real life is full of tradeoffs. Accept it, and you'll be happier.

Really trying to figure out a response that isnt flip - but if you give up your principals when something is difficult, why have them at all?

by hobs 7y ago

Really trying to figure out a response that isnt flip - but if you give up your principals when something is difficult, why have them at all?

wideasleep1 7y ago

Particularly when excellent privacy-respecting alternatives exist.

impendia 7y ago
I would cheerfully listen to recommendations. And I should add that I'm trying out MS Teams as an alternative. After six days, and multiple e-mails back and forth with our IT department, I think I've almost got it set up properly.
- andrepd 7y ago
  Jitsi Meet.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
maccard 7y ago
Such as?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

Xylakant 7y ago

> but if you give up your principals when something is difficult, why have them at all? Your answer sort of reads as if the choice of technology is the only friction people are currently dealing with. The situation isn't easy, even using some easy to use technology like zoom. Adding friction will only make things harder for people doing their best in already hard circumstances. It may well exceed their mental budget for friction. I wish widely deployed privacy-respecting solutions were already deployed at scale, people trained in their use and a suitable curriculum available. But that's not where we are and putting more load on already well loaded people will not improve the situation.

hobs 7y ago
No, it really doesn't, which is why I prefaced it with talking about being flip. It asks the question "What is the point of a principle?" I dont think calling privacy a principle is true if you are willing to give it up for something that "just works" - I believe covid is likely one of the biggest problems in the modern age, but during times of hardship we need to cling ever harder to our principles, or consider that maybe it isn't nearly as important to us as we thought.
- Xylakant 7y ago
  > No, it really doesn't, which is why I prefaced it with talking about being flip. Preface or not, it still reads like that. You're extolling one principle. I entirely agree that privacy is important but should be upheld. But there are other conflicting principles at work here - the list here is in no way complete. * The right to privacy. * The right of pupils to receive an education * The right of teachers to limit the amount of work and energy they need to put into their work. * The right of teachers and pupils (and the general public) to stay at home and evade infection. So glorifying one principle at the expense of others is at best problematic. What's the point of upholding one principle and ignore that at the moment, it conflicts with others? And that's why your absolutism on one principle to me still reads flip - or at least ill considered - even if you preface it with "I don't want to be flip."
  - hobs 7y ago
    If your principles are in conflict, I suggest recognizing that not all of them are actually principles, which is what I poorly communicated.
    - Xylakant 7y ago
      Ok, but then you cannot have any principles, because even the principles laid out in the declaration of human rights are in conflict to each other.
    - CJefferson 7y ago

matz1 7y ago

In the end, its cost vs benefit. Does the benefit overweight the cost ? For most people, including me the answer is Yes.

angry_octet 7y ago
But are you excluding people for whom the cost vs benefit is the other way? If you're in a position of authority it is up to you to minimise the violation.
- matz1 7y ago
  It goes both way, if you force privacy, you too are excluding people for whom the cost vs benefit is the other way
  - angry_octet 7y ago
    The consequences of privacy loss can be severe, up to and including violent death (partner violence, anti-LGBTI attacks, religious persecution). A person with a moral (and likely legal) obligation to protect individual privacy cannot lightly discard someone's fundamental rights to favour the marginal benefit of others. We haven't seen a Zoom log found in an open S3 bucket yet, or a leak via fb, but experience says that it is only a matter of time. So if you're going to mandate Zoom, own the risk. Mitigation is possible: provide recorded streams for secured download (if safe/ethical/notified to record other participants!); provide a work laptop with a non-identifying config instead of a BYOD; many other options.
    - matz1 7y ago
      >The consequences of privacy loss can be severe, up to and including violent death (partner violence, anti-LGBTI attacks, religious persecution) If you are going that way then likewise, there is always someone somewhere could die because the software doesn't work because they prioritize privacy. Beside, The reason we have growing acceptance for the LGBT is because of the openness and transparency. That won't happen if we have perfect privacy. Yes is true that leak is only matter of time, so its even more infeasible to maintain privacy. The solution should be to assume information is public as much as we can and fix the issue that arise from that.

impendia 7y ago

So some company I don't like will advertise at me. I don't like it, but I don't care that much. I am prioritizing. During the present COVID-19 situation, my top two priorities are (1) maintain my health, including my mental health, and refrain from posing a health hazard to others, and (2) maintain my relationships with my students, colleagues, and collaborators. As I see it, if I give some skeezy private company some personal information by accident, then I am making a personal sacrifice, and not all that big of one. I'm trying to worry about my duties to others first.

luckylion 7y ago
> So some company I don't like will advertise at me. I don't like it, but I don't care that much. You're normalizing it and making your students use it though, so it's really not "it affects me, but I don't care enough", it affects others as well. And let's not kid ourselves: once it's established, nobody will switch to something else, because they'd have to explain and guide everyone they want to talk to to install another app etc.
- matz1 7y ago
  Likewise you are affecting others too by telling people to install other app. Lets not kid ourselves not everyone value privacy the same.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    Possibly, though my personal experience is that people differ mostly on their understanding of privacy issues, not their valuation of privacy. Somebody that doesn't fully understand how much you can tell about someone just by looking at their call meta data isn't concerned about meta data. I've found most alter their stance when they get a better understanding of the issue.
- impendia 7y ago
  The first is a fair criticism, point taken. Your second point I disagree with; I think if people raise objections, encourage people to switch, and volunteer to shepherd others through the technical details -- then people will be agreeable, and we'll see a shift which will gradually become pervasive.

angry_octet 7y ago

If you are going to require students/employees to use a tool like Zoom (and choosing it for lectures is definitely making it a requirement) then you are obligated to, at the very least, seek informed consent from students/staff as to what privacy they are giving up. And if someone doesn't consent (voluntarily), you have to seek alternatives and mitigations. If you're a Comp Sci or Engineering prof you really have an obligation to try harder. You have the capability to explain mitigation techniques (virtual machines, sandboxing, using temporary email addresses, VPNs). Longer term I think we will see a host of Zoom competitors, because really there is nothing special in the client. Hangouts in particular could easily eclipse it with some work. Also, I think the grid of faces approach is just awful. Many people have been working on VR meeting systems which have significant advantages for multiperson communication (i.e. discussion vs broadcast). Lecture/theatre VTC (which provides an aggregated feedback signal to the presenter) is completely unmet by Zoom. So once we're past the hump the field will broaden, and at that point the privacy requirements have to be enforced rigourously.

gowld 7y ago
> Longer term I think we will see a host of Zoom competitors, because really there is nothing special in the client. Hangouts in particular could easily eclipse it with some work. Then why hasn't it, despite far more work and funding than Zoom, for over a decade? This is a "I could have invented Facebook" comment. Things are harder than you suggest.
- angry_octet 7y ago
  Google notoriously loses interest in what isn't hip at the moment. I think they might notice this market segment. Also I've done 300+ participant A/V conferencing systems, it isn't the client part that is hard, its the authentication, directory and latency that becomes difficult, and google already has that pretty well sorted.
klyrs 7y ago
> Hangouts in particular could easily eclipse it with some work. Is this actually better from a privacy perspective? Sounds like abandoning the frying pan for the fire...

BurningFrog 7y ago

Real life is full of tradeoffs. Accept it, and you'll be happier.