About information freedom
What is an integral part of life? Of course, the freedom of this life is its essential characteristic. But if earlier in the times before history and in the first part of history, life could be bound by metal chains, now it is bound by a new form of enslavement: information chains. Just as God's servants are subject to higher spiritual forces, since they are informationally open to them, they cannot hide anything from all-seeing eyes from above, and today people, regardless of religion, are open to the eyes of satellites, who tirelessly remove the earth's space and objects and subjects located on it. But this is not the worst, because the sounds of negotiations, texts, photographs, and almost anything presented and expressed in digital form are also open. And today almost everything or much is expressed in it. But who are the new gods of the information society: people, server or power? And were such ideologists of an open society and information space dreaming of such an “open” society, creating a worldwide network?
This is a famous funny pun related to openness. On the one hand, it is interoperability, the ability to be mutually expressed for various systems. Yes, and it’s just ability. However, this openness does not negate confidentiality. There should never be openness without the desire for this openness. Often, it turns out to be either hidden openness or one-sided.
The emerging trend is becoming threatening, since much has been technologically done to ensure information transparency on the technical side, different systems are gaining more and more opportunities for efficient data exchange, and this process is already difficult to stop, while the control over the dissemination of data should apparently be in the plane of public relations, who seem to be catching up. Without changing the situation, people may soon find themselves without personal space, abandoning their freedom unnoticed by themselves, as is usually the case in history.
By hidden "openness" we can understand a situation where information exchange is carried out, but without the knowledge of the owners. Such "openness" is well known in everyday life, when part of the information is transmitted non-verbally. Without conscious control, it is necessary for communication. It is in such an uncontrolled form that it is naturally necessary for communication. There is nothing surprising. Surprise arises when latent "openness" appears in communication through the network. But why does she seem unnatural? It should be noted that hidden openness can be both in relation to consciousness, and in relation to the general field of human perception, which involves both the conscious and unconscious and supraconscious sides. Of course, one thing is to feel such openness, in principle, exercising general conscious control, physically, including visually, interacting with a person or a group of people, and it’s another matter when the interlocutor is not visible, or when it is not known whether someone is collecting information. Indeed, too often this collection is carried out not by people, but by software-silicon-metal complexes.
Instead of the traditional hidden openness associated with secrecy with respect to the conscious part of the interaction in a visual-atmospheric environment, today there is a hidden openness in the environment that brings only a small part of the information to end users, that is, people. The point here is that information exchange in computer networks includes many hidden levels, in the end, of course, also reduced to the form of physical signals, which, however, users have only a very general idea. The image of this medium of a metal or plastic wire or electromagnetic waves, similar to the image of the atmosphere, air, nature, sound is absent. Instead, it looks attractive illusory external image of the device in the form of a back cover, soft wire braid or thoughtful roughness of the keys. What of course, has nothing to do with information processes. Creating such an image is similar to creating the image of a Christmas tree instead of the image of an ordinary Christmas tree in the forest (as if all the trees were dressed up), aromatizing the air on the whole planet to that aroma that seems suitable at the moment. But this is natural, because a more common form of information exchange in nature is other channels than electromagnetic waves or light beams emitted at an inconceivable speed. This can be represented in the form of a paradox, when it is more important how the wire smells, how much data can be transmitted through it (which, of course, will end with various fragrant and multi-colored and gold-plated wires sticking out of the computer through which nothing is transmitted). Creating such an image is similar to creating the image of a Christmas tree instead of the image of an ordinary Christmas tree in the forest (as if all the trees were dressed up), aromatizing the air on the whole planet to that aroma that seems suitable at the moment. But this is natural, because a more common form of information exchange in nature is other channels than electromagnetic waves or light beams emitted at an inconceivable speed. This can be represented in the form of a paradox, when it is more important how the wire smells, how much data can be transmitted through it (which, of course, will end with various fragrant and multi-colored and gold-plated wires sticking out of the computer through which nothing is transmitted). Creating such an image is similar to creating the image of a Christmas tree instead of the image of an ordinary Christmas tree in the forest (as if all the trees were dressed up), aromatizing the air on the whole planet to that aroma that seems suitable at the moment. But this is natural, because a more common form of information exchange in nature is other channels than electromagnetic waves or light beams emitted at an inconceivable speed. This can be represented in the form of a paradox, when it is more important how the wire smells, how much data can be transmitted through it (which, of course, will end with various fragrant and multi-colored and gold-plated wires sticking out of the computer through which nothing is transmitted). But this is natural, because a more common form of information exchange in nature is other channels than electromagnetic waves or light beams emitted at an inconceivable speed. This can be represented in the form of a paradox, when it is more important how the wire smells, how much data can be transmitted through it (which, of course, will end with various fragrant and multi-colored and gold-plated wires sticking out of the computer through which nothing is transmitted). But this is natural, because a more common form of information exchange in nature is other channels than electromagnetic waves or light beams emitted at an inconceivable speed. This can be represented in the form of a paradox, when it is more important how the wire smells, how much data can be transmitted through it (which, of course, will end with various fragrant and multi-colored and gold-plated wires sticking out of the computer through which nothing is transmitted).
In any case, the facial expressions of computer networks seem as scary to users as the gorillas grimaces. New levels of the computer subconscious and subconscious (administrator) leave modern users lonely clogged in the corner where the conscious is in the form of a graphic pseudo-interface or textual sub-interface. Hidden openness is at the mercy of technology and those who follow or do not follow the order in the work of this technology and the semantic content of these people who manage the networks (administrators). This order already seems natural when users relieve themselves of their rights as well as responsibilities for computer networks, as if fencing off their consciousness from them. But this is just a terrible illusion, which already lies in the field of the second type of “openness” - one-sided.
One-sided "openness" takes place when there is a purposeful collection of information from one of the parties. For example, owners of electronic resources can collect information about users without the knowledge of the latter, ranging from search queries to preferences in music and people. Such "openness" originates from the moment the user "gets acquainted" with the computer: he uses it, trying not to delve into how it works. But it’s one thing if the user is driving a car, or holding an iron or a chainsaw in his hands, not knowing the features of these devices, and another thing if he is dealing with a data processor and transmitter, a significant part of which is confidential, because with the help of these devices, he will do nothing more than communicate with people, including the closest. But the trouble is: in addition to communication, you will need to somehow record, collect and save all this data. And where, by what means, why, and for whom - the user, of course, is almost not interested. He simply can not think about it, or trust in integrity and law-abiding, ethics and much more from well-known manufacturers.
Of course, users today have some idea of the risks associated with information transparency, only almost everyone seems ready for the fact that for our safety, all information about them will be stored and analyzed in a safe place. Or not? Due to well-known circumstances, we have to assert that there is none, but we also have no particular choice. After all, you need to use modern devices, and there seems to be nothing valuable in personal correspondence ... For one reason or another, for users (and not only for them), it seems surprising how much information is sometimes in the hands of evil owners of networks and portals , companies, states, simple or complex malware.
In all such cases, one-sided "openness" appears in various forms, often requiring first formal agreement with 130 pages of text, which is, of course, designed for Harvard lawyers, or at first being hidden uncontrollable openness, only becoming one-way managed over time (when making "improvements" to the system). The reverse situation is also possible: when a user gains access to the information system of a large information network (for example, a bank). But for some reason such users are considered illegal upstarts that violate the "established" order. Yes, it turns out that the order of impunity for data collection by large “sharks” with informational influence is preserved.
There is another form of “openness”, when information is collected without the knowledge of all participants in the interaction, that is, espionage. The interaction of the espionage entities is limited, it may mean a failure of the operation for them, or they may disguise themselves and carry out interaction without disclosing the fact of collecting information without the knowledge of the other party (s). In the latter case, in fact, there is one-sided “openness” (although a completely special case is possible when both sides are following each other without the knowledge of each other), while in the first case, for the subjects of interaction, “openness” remains hidden.
With all of the above, it is easy to notice that in the case of natural interaction without the use of technology, people do not know exactly how they transmit information. Nevertheless, millions of years in nature, ideas about the features of this communication have been developed, a kind of practical knowledge by trial and error, as well as understanding and understanding of what is happening. Such ancient espionage techniques (while maintaining the latent openness of interaction, that is, openness to third eyes and ears, as well as for your own subconscious), such as eavesdropping and spying, are the basis for the development of natural communities. However, they are mainly used in situations of armed conflict. (It is difficult to say, though, whether consciousness and the subconscious are in such a conflict, but it can be assumed that they are also). But people and animals almost certainly know how, under what circumstances and who can observe them. And here an interesting picture begins. Of course, animals can no longer do this in relation to modern technical means by which people manage to spy on them, or use one-sided openness. But people find themselves in similar conditions: they also cannot imagine all these circumstances without having all the knowledge about modern rapidly developing social life. Of course, people, like animals, retain a certain degree of freedom, because they can still use "openness" in relation to the subconscious, while animals collect a lot of information that is not accessible to people using highly sensitive organs. animals can no longer do this in relation to modern technical means by which people manage to spy on them, or use one-sided openness. But people find themselves in similar conditions: they also cannot imagine all these circumstances without having all the knowledge about modern rapidly developing social life. Of course, people, like animals, retain a certain degree of freedom, because they can still use "openness" in relation to the subconscious, while animals collect a lot of information that is not accessible to people using highly sensitive organs. animals can no longer do this in relation to modern technical means by which people manage to spy on them, or use one-sided openness. But people find themselves in similar conditions: they also cannot imagine all these circumstances without having all the knowledge about modern rapidly developing social life. Of course, people, like animals, retain a certain degree of freedom, because they can still use "openness" in relation to the subconscious, while animals collect a lot of information that is not accessible to people using highly sensitive organs. not having all the knowledge about modern fast-paced social life. Of course, people, like animals, retain a certain degree of freedom, because they can still use "openness" in relation to the subconscious, while animals collect a lot of information that is not accessible to people using highly sensitive organs. not having all the knowledge about modern fast-paced social life. Of course, people, like animals, retain a certain degree of freedom, because they can still use "openness" in relation to the subconscious, while animals collect a lot of information that is not accessible to people using highly sensitive organs.
And if animals are free in their ignorance of the features and knowledge of the established order, in which “hidden” and especially “one-sided” openness is life-threatening, then people are subordinated and constrained by the openness of information about themselves without their own knowledge and desire. However, it was necessary to write “the animals wereare free ”in the previous sentence, because today they collect and analyze information about them in large volumes, however, they basically cannot provide information about themselves and do not enter it into any devices of their own free will (probably, with the exception of some laboratory experiments, if we consider the presence of a similarity of feelings of will and freedom in animals), because they are only limited able to do otherwise. People, whose society has created a variety of devices and methods of processing information, should have been able to manage the amount of information provided themselves, but instead they often find themselves in the power of third parties.
Initially, people were subordinated to the will of other groups of people who carried out physical coercion, demanded the performance or non-execution of any actions by the hands of slaves, of their own free will or as a result of conflicts. Then actions began to be carried out not by hands, but by other means, and, it would seem, the problem of slavery disappeared. In the end, instead of disposing of their whole lives, the owners of non-slaves had to be content only with the right to certain strictly limited actions. But here comes the key word for information freedom: privacy. Confidential means personal, associated with the space or degrees of freedom that a person, group, public or community organization possesses. Deprived of confidentiality, people are able to turn into information slaves (lose their identity and personal): all their actions will be available for analysis and viewing without restrictions. The availability of this information opens up the possibility for manipulation of people, which mankind has not yet known since the prohibition of physical slavery (which, however, have passed not so long ago, but in some places still last).
In contrast to direct slavery, information slavery can be called indirect, since it is based on an electronic network for transmitting data. It's simple: by losing or replacing their traditional communication environment, people enter a territory unfamiliar to them, within which, as it turns out, information about them is “open” without their knowledge. The problem is that this environment is not a passive physical environment, but instead the human factor is the basis of its functioning. The most interesting thing is that in this environment there are traps with which free and “free” resources turn out to be cells for collecting information about users (starting from places that provide free communication, for which one of the forms of generating revenue is collecting and selling information about users including by showing them ads based on preferences). People in the new environment can try to become anonymous, enter data without identifying themselves, however, while their data does not stop being stored in one place, they continue to use communication tools that inevitably store information in their databases, starting with a phone number and ending with an account record on the page. In fact, this anonymity does not boil down to the exclusion of openness, but only introduces additional difficulties, just as if 2 masked persons had an appointment with the eavesdroppers. they continue to use means for communication with the inevitability of storing information in their databases, starting with the phone number and ending with the account on the page. In fact, this anonymity does not boil down to the exclusion of openness, but only introduces additional difficulties, just as if 2 masked persons had an appointment with the eavesdroppers. they continue to use means for communication with the inevitability of storing information in their databases, starting with the phone number and ending with the account on the page. In fact, this anonymity does not boil down to the exclusion of openness, but only introduces additional difficulties, just as if 2 masked persons had an appointment with the eavesdroppers.
What then is true openness, which can become the basis of a harmonious information society? Spying on people of their own society or other societies to ensure the security of the state is in reality informational totalitarianism. If the state has a will, then it will embody it on the basis of the available information. If she has information about all people, she will embody her will in relation to all people. From time immemorial, everything was back: people could speak out at meetings of their own free will, at a gathering of a tribe or city-state. As far as we know today, technologies for eavesdropping and spying on neighboring villages and houses have never been the basis for the development of societies, at least voluntary development. But how physical slavery at a certain stage became an obstacle to development,
It’s not surprising for anyone today that people should voluntarily choose what to do and what not to do, and the limitations nowadays lie rather in the speculative field, in the field of knowledge and education. And the key area of limitations is the information space, which is not as harmless as it seems at first glance. It is like a mysterious forest in which for the first time it seems that no one is following, and the person who has entered is not yet involved in the game with the unknown, while thousands of eyes are already watching him, and many creatures have already established a state of hidden openness.
One of the answers to the question of information transparency will be the use of ethical standards. Indeed, the forms of “openness” are essentially manifestations of unlawful actions, a violation of the rights to personal space, whatever the gauges of this space are. Individual freedom in the new conditions may simply disappear, as any informational action becomes controlled. It is ethical not to interfere in the actions of people without their desire. If you develop information systems starting with this principle, then perhaps the systems will not be a threat to human life and health. On the other hand, people should be able to decide what they are ready to throw out of their consciousness and what to keep in it, as well as which of their negotiations are open and which should remain secret.
In addition, confidentiality functions are not common in modern applications that would allow you to increase security, quickly select and delete certain messages or other data (which the user considers confidential). Similar mechanisms are not common in information standards and systems. Although the activity of all modern systems is built on ensuring confidentiality, because it starts with entering passwords or fingerprints, but this seems strange and burdensome to many users. But entering passwords in essence with confidentiality is only conditionally related, of course, this is protecting data from access to it without the desire of the user, but it is more likely protection from hacking from other users, like a lock on a door to a house or in a car. The deplorable situation is
However, first of all, in order to become free in the information society, a person must independently realize that he is free, understand and experience this freedom. Having realized and outlined the zone of openness, a person receives freedom in return, just as slaves are able to gain freedom by outlining the possibilities of applying their physical and mental forces, and then realizing these opportunities. That is, openness is similar to the field of physical interaction with the world. If a person defines it independently, proceeding from consciously interacting with the world, then he is free; if not, then he is not free, regardless of where this border passes. Like a home in a physical environment, the information border, although it does not protect against any intrusion, will save us from unjustified encroachments on confidentiality.
Here one more interesting observation can be made: by erecting a fence a person can show his closeness and conditionality of the existence of freedom in society. Traveling to different countries we will find fences and walls of different heights and technical properties. They determine the desire of the owner. A general trend can be called that with greater openness, the size and strength of the fence decreases. However, the existence of a hostile environment requires a barrier. That is, only in conditions of mutual openness, and not “openness”, it is possible to build open interaction in the information environment.
And yet, in order to achieve the closest possible approach to spiritual freedom, people usually limit their ordinary, other, worldly freedom to the utmost. So in order to achieve information freedom, a person will have to limit the scope of his actions and study the features of metal-silicon devices? In this formulation, it is clear that information freedom is a very conventional designation, since in its pure form it represents a very deplorable entity. If you imagine it as an addition to everyday freedom, then achieving true openness will not be so simple, since it will prove too costly. It may seem that everyday freedom along with informational freedom is opposed to pacifying pastime in a calm environment,
When achieving openness in society, it is necessary to create institutions that are not inferior in design to microprocessor logic. To achieve public control of openness can only be reduced to the limit of costs for the implementation of individual control actions. This can be done today in the conditions of computer networks. Here, public freedom appears in its openness: it cannot be reduced to any particular scheme, since the possibility of creating complex social structures will make it possible to embody the wishes of members of society in a harmonious arrangement. That is, public freedom is no longer opposed to peace, but coexists with it.
But coexisting with everyday information freedom along with openness should be subject to control (by public institutions or a combination of members of society). And the question goes back to where it started, but now it becomes clear that all forms of control are good if they coexist in the form of checks and balances, however, when a state of freedom is reached, direct control is not carried out and is minimized, since the number of violations decreases. Means of ensuring information security, it seems, will never have to disappear, just as to ensure the safety of society from destruction it will always be necessary to have weapons even in the absence of war (at least to repel an alien invasion).
Of course, in order to achieve a public state of information freedom, a preliminary restriction is necessary, and it should be emphasized that this is rather a border, which is determined by the interaction of the parties, consciously and unconsciously, as well as using certain means and with predictable consequences. Meanwhile, the establishment of boundaries in the form of a mutual agreement of the participants, as a result of an offense or the operation of the law, is much more difficult than simply placing, storing and protecting information. And the difficulty lies in the fact that in the information space, business is not limited to either the legal side or the problem of cryptography. Of course, without establishing norms, boundaries, standards or something more, the interaction will be if not closed (absent), then “open” (hence the appearance of fences, though in the end, the best option for such a strategy may be to exist in the bunker). At least with regard to information freedom, this task should not so often be transferred to the area of “something more”.
So, the establishment of information boundaries, the boundaries of the dissemination of information by authors and the observance of these boundaries by users of information determines the field of information openness, however, when setting boundaries, one should rely on various social subsystems, including the legal one, but with regard to modern devices remember first about typical situations and perception of information during its distribution. The problem, on the one hand, is to inform users in a visual way how their devices operate (and not just what functions they perform and how efficiently), and, on the other hand, in the ability for users to control the dissemination of information. In this sense, instead of a well-thought-out formal-conscious approach, it is necessary to focus on the subconscious that is naturally developed.
One of the main methods, probably, should be the use of special meta-tags (tags), such as a ban on indexing, only they will determine the boundaries in a variety of situations. Some of these marks may be similar to physical fingerprints, which for the time being may remain unexplored by anyone. By setting a label, the author is able to track the distribution of information. The use of information without a label will be a clear violation. Tracking ownership and preservation of information, in fact, is more complex information, since the definition of authorship does not boil down to an analysis of the identifiers under which information first appeared. To protect the rights of the author, a database and registration of data is necessary. Apparently, in modern conditions, such a base should not be centralized. For instance, it may be necessary to provide evidence of the first occurrence of information, that is, the availability of systems for recording user input on a particular device. If the user wants to confirm authorship, then he will have to provide evidence from such a system.
The solution to the problem of "openness" may be all the same tracking, only controlled by the user and for himself. Ideally, the user should control all the consequences of entering information, similar to how he can understand to whom he showed or did not show the paper manuscript. The most important thing here is the ability to destroy, that is, delete unwanted data from the user's point of view (due to confidentiality), which can be done only by understanding the boundaries of the dissemination of information. Deletion at the same time in the end should consist in the physical deletion of all copies of the data. When such deletion of personal information will be impossible (that is, deletion of all copies of such information), then users should reasonably be able to limit the dissemination of information.
In the end, since some information is collected and processed to ensure the safety of citizens, they must manage this information themselves and determine, if not the possibilities for its collection, then the rules for its destruction at will. Perhaps the authors will need to use various kinds of tricks, for example, traps in the form of abandoned passwords to withdraw electronic money. Withdrawals will result in a breach of confidentiality Using permissions to access applications to physical information collection devices is also an effective way to control the dissemination of information, but as in other cases, a physical disconnection of the device gives a full guarantee (do not want to be monitored by phone, so remove the communication and data transfer module, but You can also call on the walkie-talkie, which, of course, is most reliable to collect on your own).
The authors' natural desire in such a situation may be to create a pseudonym, or perhaps several, but this is already a slightly different problem, although in its pure form information freedom is not the freedom of a person, but of his virtual image. Separating the image and the person, the people themselves created a specific environment that resembles a carnival. In ordinary life, the carnival sooner or later ends and the characters remain in memory, so it is important that in the virtual space a carnival image exists only for certain cases. As a result, it remains to wait for the emergence of special public institutions for privacy advocates.
Finally, it should be emphasized that freedom can be both personal and public. Some types of ideology pay attention primarily to the personal side of freedom. Others, on the contrary, trust freedom in the field of government, which, with their wise hand, will indicate the path that everyone will agree with. But freedom is at the same time something more abstract and something too concrete, because it is as complex as life. In well-known formulations, if free relations can be defined as the interaction of those who are knowledgeable and who wish to carry out the interaction of people under ordinary conditions, then in the public plan, social groups and world systems, including natural ones, should be replaced by individuals. Of course, conditions and desires will turn out to be something other than the concepts of everyday life.
Having experienced personal freedom, a person becomes the owner of his future, having felt himself free with society or the whole world, a person is approaching their disposal, while at the same time changing something is difficult, because freedom does not come without responsibility. Information freedom, of course, is limited in comparison with the freedom of life. But the freedom of life today may be dependent on information freedom. And the freedom of life of a society is largely determined by its information freedom. And this is not the freedom to control the unidirectional influence of the media. This freedom extends to all spheres and stages of people's lives, it is associated with their communication. And in fact, openness is associated with all forms of freedom: it manifests itself both in mass communication and in personal correspondence.
Choosing from personal and social freedom today people should choose both, and add responsibility for the computing devices that they own and use, while these devices have not yet acquired their own freedom, because otherwise the freedom of society and people are in the same basket with openness computer networks, which, of course, is a tidbit for those who like to control freedom.
It should be emphasized that in comparison with traditional ideas about freedom, the electronic information environment is too different and mobile: to participate in it requires activity, including openness to understanding its structure and readiness to fight with ill-wishers. Perhaps openness to change is that genuine openness that creates freedom (openness of oneself and everything in the future, and not openness of the past for copying and analysis)?
Practical rules for openness look twofold. On the one hand, it would be possible to describe them as follows: delete all data physically as soon as you do not need it, do not be lazy to store personal data in your head, or at least in a place that cannot be penetrated using only the keyboard, mouse and network connections, remember the chain of data conversions from the interface to the transmission channel. But are such rules not too similar to the axioms of openness?
But in fact, if you start with the last phrase and supplement it with the dissemination of knowledge about the principles of network openness, about the technologies used, you can imagine full-fledged participants in a truly open information field. True, probably, they will need to be armed with knowledge about the theory of information, its encryption, processing and analysis. At the very least, knowledge about the methods of interception, together with the openness of the source code of the system - this is exactly what should not prevent the construction of an open space with respect to all participants. Instead, people are offered to live with classified information about the structure of our ears and eyes, because otherwise there will be risks of interception of the information received and processed by them. At the very least, ways of processing personal information in an open society should not be hidden,
It is difficult to imagine, however, the baggage of knowledge that is required for all people to use virtual and impersonal money, high-value content, or just a project with a wide coverage. Indeed, even government agencies often prefer to simply prohibit and restrict the use of virtual monetary systems or networks that are not under their control.
Until now, many areas of electronic freedom remain areas for experiments, and in order to achieve freedom, the conditions of these experiments should be determined, but they should not stop. In reality, there are specialized groups that will have to monitor and analyze the processes taking place in an open information society, the processes are too dynamic and virtual for centralized control based on total surveillance. In addition to supervising these groups, users will also receive responsibility for the implementation of security measures on the devices they manage. At the very least, they should be able and willing to outline the scope of the dissemination of personal information and apply the necessary security methods at the level of the means they manage. On the other hand, it is important to provide an opportunity for failure, if necessary, from one technology, for the transition, including non-electronic forms of interaction (without the use of electronic devices). A variety of methods, along with a variety of tools and characteristics, will allow you to approach confidentiality together with the development and improvement of technology. As long as the control of both confidentiality and experiments on the processing and analysis of information are carried out for people in the walls of closed laboratories, or even worse, when experiments are carried out among people, but controlled from laboratories, then neither personal nor public freedom can be guaranteed in the information age. A variety of methods, along with a variety of tools and characteristics, will allow you to approach confidentiality together with the development and improvement of technology. As long as the control of both confidentiality and experiments on the processing and analysis of information are carried out for people in the walls of closed laboratories, or even worse, when experiments are carried out among people, but controlled from laboratories, then neither personal nor public freedom can be guaranteed in the information age. A variety of methods, along with a variety of tools and characteristics, will allow you to approach confidentiality together with the development and improvement of technology. As long as the control of both confidentiality and experiments on the processing and analysis of information are carried out for people in the walls of closed laboratories, or even worse, when experiments are carried out among people, but controlled from laboratories, then neither personal nor public freedom can be guaranteed in the information age.
This is a famous funny pun related to openness. On the one hand, it is interoperability, the ability to be mutually expressed for various systems. Yes, and it’s just ability. However, this openness does not negate confidentiality. There should never be openness without the desire for this openness. Often, it turns out to be either hidden openness or one-sided.
The emerging trend is becoming threatening, since much has been technologically done to ensure information transparency on the technical side, different systems are gaining more and more opportunities for efficient data exchange, and this process is already difficult to stop, while the control over the dissemination of data should apparently be in the plane of public relations, who seem to be catching up. Without changing the situation, people may soon find themselves without personal space, abandoning their freedom unnoticed by themselves, as is usually the case in history.
Forms of "openness"
By hidden "openness" we can understand a situation where information exchange is carried out, but without the knowledge of the owners. Such "openness" is well known in everyday life, when part of the information is transmitted non-verbally. Without conscious control, it is necessary for communication. It is in such an uncontrolled form that it is naturally necessary for communication. There is nothing surprising. Surprise arises when latent "openness" appears in communication through the network. But why does she seem unnatural? It should be noted that hidden openness can be both in relation to consciousness, and in relation to the general field of human perception, which involves both the conscious and unconscious and supraconscious sides. Of course, one thing is to feel such openness, in principle, exercising general conscious control, physically, including visually, interacting with a person or a group of people, and it’s another matter when the interlocutor is not visible, or when it is not known whether someone is collecting information. Indeed, too often this collection is carried out not by people, but by software-silicon-metal complexes.
Instead of the traditional hidden openness associated with secrecy with respect to the conscious part of the interaction in a visual-atmospheric environment, today there is a hidden openness in the environment that brings only a small part of the information to end users, that is, people. The point here is that information exchange in computer networks includes many hidden levels, in the end, of course, also reduced to the form of physical signals, which, however, users have only a very general idea. The image of this medium of a metal or plastic wire or electromagnetic waves, similar to the image of the atmosphere, air, nature, sound is absent. Instead, it looks attractive illusory external image of the device in the form of a back cover, soft wire braid or thoughtful roughness of the keys. What of course, has nothing to do with information processes. Creating such an image is similar to creating the image of a Christmas tree instead of the image of an ordinary Christmas tree in the forest (as if all the trees were dressed up), aromatizing the air on the whole planet to that aroma that seems suitable at the moment. But this is natural, because a more common form of information exchange in nature is other channels than electromagnetic waves or light beams emitted at an inconceivable speed. This can be represented in the form of a paradox, when it is more important how the wire smells, how much data can be transmitted through it (which, of course, will end with various fragrant and multi-colored and gold-plated wires sticking out of the computer through which nothing is transmitted). Creating such an image is similar to creating the image of a Christmas tree instead of the image of an ordinary Christmas tree in the forest (as if all the trees were dressed up), aromatizing the air on the whole planet to that aroma that seems suitable at the moment. But this is natural, because a more common form of information exchange in nature is other channels than electromagnetic waves or light beams emitted at an inconceivable speed. This can be represented in the form of a paradox, when it is more important how the wire smells, how much data can be transmitted through it (which, of course, will end with various fragrant and multi-colored and gold-plated wires sticking out of the computer through which nothing is transmitted). Creating such an image is similar to creating the image of a Christmas tree instead of the image of an ordinary Christmas tree in the forest (as if all the trees were dressed up), aromatizing the air on the whole planet to that aroma that seems suitable at the moment. But this is natural, because a more common form of information exchange in nature is other channels than electromagnetic waves or light beams emitted at an inconceivable speed. This can be represented in the form of a paradox, when it is more important how the wire smells, how much data can be transmitted through it (which, of course, will end with various fragrant and multi-colored and gold-plated wires sticking out of the computer through which nothing is transmitted). But this is natural, because a more common form of information exchange in nature is other channels than electromagnetic waves or light beams emitted at an inconceivable speed. This can be represented in the form of a paradox, when it is more important how the wire smells, how much data can be transmitted through it (which, of course, will end with various fragrant and multi-colored and gold-plated wires sticking out of the computer through which nothing is transmitted). But this is natural, because a more common form of information exchange in nature is other channels than electromagnetic waves or light beams emitted at an inconceivable speed. This can be represented in the form of a paradox, when it is more important how the wire smells, how much data can be transmitted through it (which, of course, will end with various fragrant and multi-colored and gold-plated wires sticking out of the computer through which nothing is transmitted).
In any case, the facial expressions of computer networks seem as scary to users as the gorillas grimaces. New levels of the computer subconscious and subconscious (administrator) leave modern users lonely clogged in the corner where the conscious is in the form of a graphic pseudo-interface or textual sub-interface. Hidden openness is at the mercy of technology and those who follow or do not follow the order in the work of this technology and the semantic content of these people who manage the networks (administrators). This order already seems natural when users relieve themselves of their rights as well as responsibilities for computer networks, as if fencing off their consciousness from them. But this is just a terrible illusion, which already lies in the field of the second type of “openness” - one-sided.
One-sided "openness" takes place when there is a purposeful collection of information from one of the parties. For example, owners of electronic resources can collect information about users without the knowledge of the latter, ranging from search queries to preferences in music and people. Such "openness" originates from the moment the user "gets acquainted" with the computer: he uses it, trying not to delve into how it works. But it’s one thing if the user is driving a car, or holding an iron or a chainsaw in his hands, not knowing the features of these devices, and another thing if he is dealing with a data processor and transmitter, a significant part of which is confidential, because with the help of these devices, he will do nothing more than communicate with people, including the closest. But the trouble is: in addition to communication, you will need to somehow record, collect and save all this data. And where, by what means, why, and for whom - the user, of course, is almost not interested. He simply can not think about it, or trust in integrity and law-abiding, ethics and much more from well-known manufacturers.
Of course, users today have some idea of the risks associated with information transparency, only almost everyone seems ready for the fact that for our safety, all information about them will be stored and analyzed in a safe place. Or not? Due to well-known circumstances, we have to assert that there is none, but we also have no particular choice. After all, you need to use modern devices, and there seems to be nothing valuable in personal correspondence ... For one reason or another, for users (and not only for them), it seems surprising how much information is sometimes in the hands of evil owners of networks and portals , companies, states, simple or complex malware.
In all such cases, one-sided "openness" appears in various forms, often requiring first formal agreement with 130 pages of text, which is, of course, designed for Harvard lawyers, or at first being hidden uncontrollable openness, only becoming one-way managed over time (when making "improvements" to the system). The reverse situation is also possible: when a user gains access to the information system of a large information network (for example, a bank). But for some reason such users are considered illegal upstarts that violate the "established" order. Yes, it turns out that the order of impunity for data collection by large “sharks” with informational influence is preserved.
There is another form of “openness”, when information is collected without the knowledge of all participants in the interaction, that is, espionage. The interaction of the espionage entities is limited, it may mean a failure of the operation for them, or they may disguise themselves and carry out interaction without disclosing the fact of collecting information without the knowledge of the other party (s). In the latter case, in fact, there is one-sided “openness” (although a completely special case is possible when both sides are following each other without the knowledge of each other), while in the first case, for the subjects of interaction, “openness” remains hidden.
Techniques and cells
With all of the above, it is easy to notice that in the case of natural interaction without the use of technology, people do not know exactly how they transmit information. Nevertheless, millions of years in nature, ideas about the features of this communication have been developed, a kind of practical knowledge by trial and error, as well as understanding and understanding of what is happening. Such ancient espionage techniques (while maintaining the latent openness of interaction, that is, openness to third eyes and ears, as well as for your own subconscious), such as eavesdropping and spying, are the basis for the development of natural communities. However, they are mainly used in situations of armed conflict. (It is difficult to say, though, whether consciousness and the subconscious are in such a conflict, but it can be assumed that they are also). But people and animals almost certainly know how, under what circumstances and who can observe them. And here an interesting picture begins. Of course, animals can no longer do this in relation to modern technical means by which people manage to spy on them, or use one-sided openness. But people find themselves in similar conditions: they also cannot imagine all these circumstances without having all the knowledge about modern rapidly developing social life. Of course, people, like animals, retain a certain degree of freedom, because they can still use "openness" in relation to the subconscious, while animals collect a lot of information that is not accessible to people using highly sensitive organs. animals can no longer do this in relation to modern technical means by which people manage to spy on them, or use one-sided openness. But people find themselves in similar conditions: they also cannot imagine all these circumstances without having all the knowledge about modern rapidly developing social life. Of course, people, like animals, retain a certain degree of freedom, because they can still use "openness" in relation to the subconscious, while animals collect a lot of information that is not accessible to people using highly sensitive organs. animals can no longer do this in relation to modern technical means by which people manage to spy on them, or use one-sided openness. But people find themselves in similar conditions: they also cannot imagine all these circumstances without having all the knowledge about modern rapidly developing social life. Of course, people, like animals, retain a certain degree of freedom, because they can still use "openness" in relation to the subconscious, while animals collect a lot of information that is not accessible to people using highly sensitive organs. not having all the knowledge about modern fast-paced social life. Of course, people, like animals, retain a certain degree of freedom, because they can still use "openness" in relation to the subconscious, while animals collect a lot of information that is not accessible to people using highly sensitive organs. not having all the knowledge about modern fast-paced social life. Of course, people, like animals, retain a certain degree of freedom, because they can still use "openness" in relation to the subconscious, while animals collect a lot of information that is not accessible to people using highly sensitive organs.
And if animals are free in their ignorance of the features and knowledge of the established order, in which “hidden” and especially “one-sided” openness is life-threatening, then people are subordinated and constrained by the openness of information about themselves without their own knowledge and desire. However, it was necessary to write “the animals wereare free ”in the previous sentence, because today they collect and analyze information about them in large volumes, however, they basically cannot provide information about themselves and do not enter it into any devices of their own free will (probably, with the exception of some laboratory experiments, if we consider the presence of a similarity of feelings of will and freedom in animals), because they are only limited able to do otherwise. People, whose society has created a variety of devices and methods of processing information, should have been able to manage the amount of information provided themselves, but instead they often find themselves in the power of third parties.
Initially, people were subordinated to the will of other groups of people who carried out physical coercion, demanded the performance or non-execution of any actions by the hands of slaves, of their own free will or as a result of conflicts. Then actions began to be carried out not by hands, but by other means, and, it would seem, the problem of slavery disappeared. In the end, instead of disposing of their whole lives, the owners of non-slaves had to be content only with the right to certain strictly limited actions. But here comes the key word for information freedom: privacy. Confidential means personal, associated with the space or degrees of freedom that a person, group, public or community organization possesses. Deprived of confidentiality, people are able to turn into information slaves (lose their identity and personal): all their actions will be available for analysis and viewing without restrictions. The availability of this information opens up the possibility for manipulation of people, which mankind has not yet known since the prohibition of physical slavery (which, however, have passed not so long ago, but in some places still last).
In contrast to direct slavery, information slavery can be called indirect, since it is based on an electronic network for transmitting data. It's simple: by losing or replacing their traditional communication environment, people enter a territory unfamiliar to them, within which, as it turns out, information about them is “open” without their knowledge. The problem is that this environment is not a passive physical environment, but instead the human factor is the basis of its functioning. The most interesting thing is that in this environment there are traps with which free and “free” resources turn out to be cells for collecting information about users (starting from places that provide free communication, for which one of the forms of generating revenue is collecting and selling information about users including by showing them ads based on preferences). People in the new environment can try to become anonymous, enter data without identifying themselves, however, while their data does not stop being stored in one place, they continue to use communication tools that inevitably store information in their databases, starting with a phone number and ending with an account record on the page. In fact, this anonymity does not boil down to the exclusion of openness, but only introduces additional difficulties, just as if 2 masked persons had an appointment with the eavesdroppers. they continue to use means for communication with the inevitability of storing information in their databases, starting with the phone number and ending with the account on the page. In fact, this anonymity does not boil down to the exclusion of openness, but only introduces additional difficulties, just as if 2 masked persons had an appointment with the eavesdroppers. they continue to use means for communication with the inevitability of storing information in their databases, starting with the phone number and ending with the account on the page. In fact, this anonymity does not boil down to the exclusion of openness, but only introduces additional difficulties, just as if 2 masked persons had an appointment with the eavesdroppers.
What then is true openness, which can become the basis of a harmonious information society? Spying on people of their own society or other societies to ensure the security of the state is in reality informational totalitarianism. If the state has a will, then it will embody it on the basis of the available information. If she has information about all people, she will embody her will in relation to all people. From time immemorial, everything was back: people could speak out at meetings of their own free will, at a gathering of a tribe or city-state. As far as we know today, technologies for eavesdropping and spying on neighboring villages and houses have never been the basis for the development of societies, at least voluntary development. But how physical slavery at a certain stage became an obstacle to development,
It’s not surprising for anyone today that people should voluntarily choose what to do and what not to do, and the limitations nowadays lie rather in the speculative field, in the field of knowledge and education. And the key area of limitations is the information space, which is not as harmless as it seems at first glance. It is like a mysterious forest in which for the first time it seems that no one is following, and the person who has entered is not yet involved in the game with the unknown, while thousands of eyes are already watching him, and many creatures have already established a state of hidden openness.
Where is the openness?
One of the answers to the question of information transparency will be the use of ethical standards. Indeed, the forms of “openness” are essentially manifestations of unlawful actions, a violation of the rights to personal space, whatever the gauges of this space are. Individual freedom in the new conditions may simply disappear, as any informational action becomes controlled. It is ethical not to interfere in the actions of people without their desire. If you develop information systems starting with this principle, then perhaps the systems will not be a threat to human life and health. On the other hand, people should be able to decide what they are ready to throw out of their consciousness and what to keep in it, as well as which of their negotiations are open and which should remain secret.
In addition, confidentiality functions are not common in modern applications that would allow you to increase security, quickly select and delete certain messages or other data (which the user considers confidential). Similar mechanisms are not common in information standards and systems. Although the activity of all modern systems is built on ensuring confidentiality, because it starts with entering passwords or fingerprints, but this seems strange and burdensome to many users. But entering passwords in essence with confidentiality is only conditionally related, of course, this is protecting data from access to it without the desire of the user, but it is more likely protection from hacking from other users, like a lock on a door to a house or in a car. The deplorable situation is
However, first of all, in order to become free in the information society, a person must independently realize that he is free, understand and experience this freedom. Having realized and outlined the zone of openness, a person receives freedom in return, just as slaves are able to gain freedom by outlining the possibilities of applying their physical and mental forces, and then realizing these opportunities. That is, openness is similar to the field of physical interaction with the world. If a person defines it independently, proceeding from consciously interacting with the world, then he is free; if not, then he is not free, regardless of where this border passes. Like a home in a physical environment, the information border, although it does not protect against any intrusion, will save us from unjustified encroachments on confidentiality.
Here one more interesting observation can be made: by erecting a fence a person can show his closeness and conditionality of the existence of freedom in society. Traveling to different countries we will find fences and walls of different heights and technical properties. They determine the desire of the owner. A general trend can be called that with greater openness, the size and strength of the fence decreases. However, the existence of a hostile environment requires a barrier. That is, only in conditions of mutual openness, and not “openness”, it is possible to build open interaction in the information environment.
And yet, in order to achieve the closest possible approach to spiritual freedom, people usually limit their ordinary, other, worldly freedom to the utmost. So in order to achieve information freedom, a person will have to limit the scope of his actions and study the features of metal-silicon devices? In this formulation, it is clear that information freedom is a very conventional designation, since in its pure form it represents a very deplorable entity. If you imagine it as an addition to everyday freedom, then achieving true openness will not be so simple, since it will prove too costly. It may seem that everyday freedom along with informational freedom is opposed to pacifying pastime in a calm environment,
When achieving openness in society, it is necessary to create institutions that are not inferior in design to microprocessor logic. To achieve public control of openness can only be reduced to the limit of costs for the implementation of individual control actions. This can be done today in the conditions of computer networks. Here, public freedom appears in its openness: it cannot be reduced to any particular scheme, since the possibility of creating complex social structures will make it possible to embody the wishes of members of society in a harmonious arrangement. That is, public freedom is no longer opposed to peace, but coexists with it.
But coexisting with everyday information freedom along with openness should be subject to control (by public institutions or a combination of members of society). And the question goes back to where it started, but now it becomes clear that all forms of control are good if they coexist in the form of checks and balances, however, when a state of freedom is reached, direct control is not carried out and is minimized, since the number of violations decreases. Means of ensuring information security, it seems, will never have to disappear, just as to ensure the safety of society from destruction it will always be necessary to have weapons even in the absence of war (at least to repel an alien invasion).
Of course, in order to achieve a public state of information freedom, a preliminary restriction is necessary, and it should be emphasized that this is rather a border, which is determined by the interaction of the parties, consciously and unconsciously, as well as using certain means and with predictable consequences. Meanwhile, the establishment of boundaries in the form of a mutual agreement of the participants, as a result of an offense or the operation of the law, is much more difficult than simply placing, storing and protecting information. And the difficulty lies in the fact that in the information space, business is not limited to either the legal side or the problem of cryptography. Of course, without establishing norms, boundaries, standards or something more, the interaction will be if not closed (absent), then “open” (hence the appearance of fences, though in the end, the best option for such a strategy may be to exist in the bunker). At least with regard to information freedom, this task should not so often be transferred to the area of “something more”.
So, the establishment of information boundaries, the boundaries of the dissemination of information by authors and the observance of these boundaries by users of information determines the field of information openness, however, when setting boundaries, one should rely on various social subsystems, including the legal one, but with regard to modern devices remember first about typical situations and perception of information during its distribution. The problem, on the one hand, is to inform users in a visual way how their devices operate (and not just what functions they perform and how efficiently), and, on the other hand, in the ability for users to control the dissemination of information. In this sense, instead of a well-thought-out formal-conscious approach, it is necessary to focus on the subconscious that is naturally developed.
One of the main methods, probably, should be the use of special meta-tags (tags), such as a ban on indexing, only they will determine the boundaries in a variety of situations. Some of these marks may be similar to physical fingerprints, which for the time being may remain unexplored by anyone. By setting a label, the author is able to track the distribution of information. The use of information without a label will be a clear violation. Tracking ownership and preservation of information, in fact, is more complex information, since the definition of authorship does not boil down to an analysis of the identifiers under which information first appeared. To protect the rights of the author, a database and registration of data is necessary. Apparently, in modern conditions, such a base should not be centralized. For instance, it may be necessary to provide evidence of the first occurrence of information, that is, the availability of systems for recording user input on a particular device. If the user wants to confirm authorship, then he will have to provide evidence from such a system.
The solution to the problem of "openness" may be all the same tracking, only controlled by the user and for himself. Ideally, the user should control all the consequences of entering information, similar to how he can understand to whom he showed or did not show the paper manuscript. The most important thing here is the ability to destroy, that is, delete unwanted data from the user's point of view (due to confidentiality), which can be done only by understanding the boundaries of the dissemination of information. Deletion at the same time in the end should consist in the physical deletion of all copies of the data. When such deletion of personal information will be impossible (that is, deletion of all copies of such information), then users should reasonably be able to limit the dissemination of information.
In the end, since some information is collected and processed to ensure the safety of citizens, they must manage this information themselves and determine, if not the possibilities for its collection, then the rules for its destruction at will. Perhaps the authors will need to use various kinds of tricks, for example, traps in the form of abandoned passwords to withdraw electronic money. Withdrawals will result in a breach of confidentiality Using permissions to access applications to physical information collection devices is also an effective way to control the dissemination of information, but as in other cases, a physical disconnection of the device gives a full guarantee (do not want to be monitored by phone, so remove the communication and data transfer module, but You can also call on the walkie-talkie, which, of course, is most reliable to collect on your own).
The authors' natural desire in such a situation may be to create a pseudonym, or perhaps several, but this is already a slightly different problem, although in its pure form information freedom is not the freedom of a person, but of his virtual image. Separating the image and the person, the people themselves created a specific environment that resembles a carnival. In ordinary life, the carnival sooner or later ends and the characters remain in memory, so it is important that in the virtual space a carnival image exists only for certain cases. As a result, it remains to wait for the emergence of special public institutions for privacy advocates.
Where is the freedom?
Finally, it should be emphasized that freedom can be both personal and public. Some types of ideology pay attention primarily to the personal side of freedom. Others, on the contrary, trust freedom in the field of government, which, with their wise hand, will indicate the path that everyone will agree with. But freedom is at the same time something more abstract and something too concrete, because it is as complex as life. In well-known formulations, if free relations can be defined as the interaction of those who are knowledgeable and who wish to carry out the interaction of people under ordinary conditions, then in the public plan, social groups and world systems, including natural ones, should be replaced by individuals. Of course, conditions and desires will turn out to be something other than the concepts of everyday life.
Having experienced personal freedom, a person becomes the owner of his future, having felt himself free with society or the whole world, a person is approaching their disposal, while at the same time changing something is difficult, because freedom does not come without responsibility. Information freedom, of course, is limited in comparison with the freedom of life. But the freedom of life today may be dependent on information freedom. And the freedom of life of a society is largely determined by its information freedom. And this is not the freedom to control the unidirectional influence of the media. This freedom extends to all spheres and stages of people's lives, it is associated with their communication. And in fact, openness is associated with all forms of freedom: it manifests itself both in mass communication and in personal correspondence.
Choosing from personal and social freedom today people should choose both, and add responsibility for the computing devices that they own and use, while these devices have not yet acquired their own freedom, because otherwise the freedom of society and people are in the same basket with openness computer networks, which, of course, is a tidbit for those who like to control freedom.
It should be emphasized that in comparison with traditional ideas about freedom, the electronic information environment is too different and mobile: to participate in it requires activity, including openness to understanding its structure and readiness to fight with ill-wishers. Perhaps openness to change is that genuine openness that creates freedom (openness of oneself and everything in the future, and not openness of the past for copying and analysis)?
Practical rules for openness look twofold. On the one hand, it would be possible to describe them as follows: delete all data physically as soon as you do not need it, do not be lazy to store personal data in your head, or at least in a place that cannot be penetrated using only the keyboard, mouse and network connections, remember the chain of data conversions from the interface to the transmission channel. But are such rules not too similar to the axioms of openness?
But in fact, if you start with the last phrase and supplement it with the dissemination of knowledge about the principles of network openness, about the technologies used, you can imagine full-fledged participants in a truly open information field. True, probably, they will need to be armed with knowledge about the theory of information, its encryption, processing and analysis. At the very least, knowledge about the methods of interception, together with the openness of the source code of the system - this is exactly what should not prevent the construction of an open space with respect to all participants. Instead, people are offered to live with classified information about the structure of our ears and eyes, because otherwise there will be risks of interception of the information received and processed by them. At the very least, ways of processing personal information in an open society should not be hidden,
It is difficult to imagine, however, the baggage of knowledge that is required for all people to use virtual and impersonal money, high-value content, or just a project with a wide coverage. Indeed, even government agencies often prefer to simply prohibit and restrict the use of virtual monetary systems or networks that are not under their control.
Until now, many areas of electronic freedom remain areas for experiments, and in order to achieve freedom, the conditions of these experiments should be determined, but they should not stop. In reality, there are specialized groups that will have to monitor and analyze the processes taking place in an open information society, the processes are too dynamic and virtual for centralized control based on total surveillance. In addition to supervising these groups, users will also receive responsibility for the implementation of security measures on the devices they manage. At the very least, they should be able and willing to outline the scope of the dissemination of personal information and apply the necessary security methods at the level of the means they manage. On the other hand, it is important to provide an opportunity for failure, if necessary, from one technology, for the transition, including non-electronic forms of interaction (without the use of electronic devices). A variety of methods, along with a variety of tools and characteristics, will allow you to approach confidentiality together with the development and improvement of technology. As long as the control of both confidentiality and experiments on the processing and analysis of information are carried out for people in the walls of closed laboratories, or even worse, when experiments are carried out among people, but controlled from laboratories, then neither personal nor public freedom can be guaranteed in the information age. A variety of methods, along with a variety of tools and characteristics, will allow you to approach confidentiality together with the development and improvement of technology. As long as the control of both confidentiality and experiments on the processing and analysis of information are carried out for people in the walls of closed laboratories, or even worse, when experiments are carried out among people, but controlled from laboratories, then neither personal nor public freedom can be guaranteed in the information age. A variety of methods, along with a variety of tools and characteristics, will allow you to approach confidentiality together with the development and improvement of technology. As long as the control of both confidentiality and experiments on the processing and analysis of information are carried out for people in the walls of closed laboratories, or even worse, when experiments are carried out among people, but controlled from laboratories, then neither personal nor public freedom can be guaranteed in the information age.