Bits exist along a gradient from private to public.  But in practice they only move in one direction.

Thus, there are two destinies for information: public or oblivion.

Information wants to be copied.

This is not the same as information wanting to be free (or expensive), or information wanting *you* to be free.  Information probably prefers to be free because it may increase the rate at which it is copied, not because it is inherently liberating to the user.  In fact, the “free” quality of some information is probably not liberating at all.  Copying and liberty are orthogonal.

Information diffuses over time: access rights to information can expand over time, but only rarely (ever?) does data become less available, and once available publicly, information is almost never entirely private again.

With enough copies on enough devices, information becomes essentially public. The state of being public may come in degrees, some things are more public than others.  Much information is public in principle but enjoys security by obscurity. Obscurity is eroded by increasing availability of computing resources that make collection and machine analysis affordable at large scales.  The banality of data is no protection.  “No one cares what I think/do/say/click” is not a valid assumption.  In aggregate the banal is data and fuel to many business models.  Maybe no one *cares* what you tweet, click, buy or search for, but many businesses make it their business to aggregate these scattered faint signals and build detailed profiles to drive commerce and customized views of data.

Some information is destroyed, never to be recovered.  This is the only way information can avoid eventually (potentially) becoming public. But less and less data now meets this fate.  Delete is a declining feature of many systems.

Information that is not public and has not yet been destroyed is just waiting to change to either state.

Despite security systems, many private bits are eventually exposed by people passing material to someone else who then accidentally makes them public, or they do so unintentionally themselves by leaving files in publicly accessible locations that are visited by search engine spiders and other web crawlers.  Even professionally managed private data repositories are subject to subsequent distribution, infiltration or error. Data spills are becoming more common. Billions of records are hemorrhaged  into the public regularly.  If well funded organizations cannot secure their information, the rest of us should take note.

It may not be possible for big organizations or any organization to secure their networks, or even do so sufficiently effectively to give users a practical period of privacy, however short.  Eventually private bits, even when encrypted (no matter how well), become public because the march of computing power makes their encryption increasingly trivial to break and their exchange over networks (no mater how well secured) is subject to leaking, intentional and otherwise.  Private bits may only have a “half-life” during which they retain their non-public existence.  The length of this half-life may itself be getting shorter.   Mary Branscome suggests that there could be a physical law in operation: the natural entropy of access control lists?

All bits that persist are destined to be public, and once public never to be private again. Unless they are destroyed.

I argue that the only bits that you cannot find are the ones you need right now. The only bits you cannot get rid of are the ones that are most embarrassing to you right now.  Just because you cannot find the bits you want does not mean that no one else can find those bits.

All your bits are belong to us.

This issue is getting more important as we are invited to use systems that promise selective sharing of data and other tools generate ever more data to potentially share.  Anything that puts your bits into the cloud promises selective sharing.  I believe and hope my much beloved Dropbox account is separate from all the others, except for the one’s I chose to share with. And I think it is, expect for that glitch they had, the details of which elude me (but I think we’re good now, and I so depend on Dropbox I do not know what I would do without it). But all these walls are just made out of a few lines of business logic and an Access Control List. ACLs rule our access to digital objects with an iron fist until they don’t for the many human and technical reasons mentioned.  Like most human infrastructures these selective sharing mechanisms are subject to failure and attack.

Now new sources of data captured from the details of everyday life by sensors and  services are increasingly recorded by external systems and by people themselves, generating new streams of archival material that is richer than all but the most obsessively observed biographies.

Many organizations are adopting social media and creating data sets that can map their internal social network structure as an accidental by-product of their communication practices.  Studying these data sets is a focus of growing interest.  Research projects like SenseCam are now becoming products and existing services like MingleSticks, Poken, FourSquare, and Google Latitude already deliver many of these features. Devices like iPhone and Android phones are weaving location information into every application.

Some steps are still in progress: when my phone notices your phone a new set of mobile social software applications become possible as whole populations capture data about other people as they beacon their identities to one another. Additional sensors will collect ever more medical data with the intent of improving our health and safety, as early adopters in the “Quantified Self” movement make clear.

But the  consequences of data diffusion are becoming difficult to predict.  Social media systems are being linked to one another to enable cascades of events to be triggered from a single message as status updates are passed among Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and blogs.  Tools now automatically aggregate the results of searches and post articles that themselves may trigger other events.  Taking a photo or updating a status message can now set off a series of unpredictable events.

Add potential improvements in audio and facial recognition and a new world of continuous observation and publication emerges.  Some benefits, like those displayed by the Google Flu tracking system, illustrate the potential for insight from aggregated sensor data.  More exploitative applications are also likely.

The result will be lives that are more publicly displayed than ever before.  The collapse of roles (“lowest common denominator culture”) described by Bernie Hogan (listen starting in about 40 minutes – but the entire talk is good and worth a listen) as described by the sociologist Erving Goffman may be one consequence: we are interacting with everyone when we interact with anyone.  Secret shared meanings may still be possible — but selectively shared bits are not, at least not very reliably so in the short term and almost certainly not in the medium term.

Therefore, all services that promote the idea of “selective sharing” are selling a myth.  The more you trust that information you generate can be contained, the more potential there is for an “explosive decompression” as data intended for an individual or a small group becomes suddenly available to a large group or a complete population. Private bits are in a state of high potential energy, always poised to become public.

Engineering is the science, art and practice of containing and directing  forces. Information system engineers might be up to the challenge of delivering selective sharing.  And when combined with law, regulation and social practices, technology could make selective sharing real the way that engineers manage the flow of powerful but dangerous flows of high pressure steam through power plants.  However, recently even high pressure steam engineers working with nuclear fuels have faced some very bad failure conditions beyond their predicted scope.  Information technologists may face analogous issues when managing high pressure containers of selectively shared information.

My policy is not to give up all forms of privacy, I still keep my email and other data behind passwords that I do not (knowingly) share.  I share lots of pictures on flickr but not all of them are public.  I would prefer to keep lots of financial, medical, and personal stuff selectively shared.  I’d like these features to work.

But I have started to understand that my data is likely to be open to others, if not now then some day — and probably sooner than I expect. The net/cloud  holds a good sized and growing  chunk of my digital life and I would like selective sharing features (if I could handle the cognitive tax of managing them).  I just do not believe it is a reasonable expectation.  In a world of increasing interconnection and unifying name and search spaces, data may not be something you can keep local for long.

Tools that suggest that we can reliably segregate content and limit its diffusion are suggesting that water does not roll down hill.  Those who believe that are likely to get wet.

I am very interested in the Quantified Self conference to be held in Mountain View, California, May 28 and 29.  While I have attended just a few of the in-person meet-ups, which were engaging and intriguing events, I have followed the blog and tweet stream closely.  These events feature short presentations about practices, prototypes, and products that record information about our own behavior and activity.  It is great to hear that, as the meet-ups grew to become very large, a conference has been organized to accommodate the demand and growing interest in the intersection of sensors and other devices with medical and personal self-monitoring.  Using a variety of devices, our lives can now create detailed inscriptions that illuminate our behavior and patterns with novel clarity and detail. (See: http://quantifiedself.com/conference/)

I plan to attend.  I will speak on Sunday morning at a 10:30 breakout session on using social media network analysis to map personal and collective social media spaces.

Quantifying the “Quantified Self” discussion in Twitter: Here is a map of the connections among the people who recently tweeted the string “quantified self” on May 25th, 2011.

Click for larger image.

The top most between participants in this graph were:

@timoreilly
@quantifiedself (-1)
@harscoat (-)
@edyson
@qsparis
@egadenne (-4)
@agaricus (-)
@brunoaziza
@adriana872
@chloester

Bolded users also appeared in a previous map made earlier in the year, on January 20, 2011, which looked like this:

This is the list of the most “between” users in this network on January 20th, 2011:

The most between participants in this graph are: @quantifiedself, @egadenne, @harscoat, @genomera, @neufit, @jxa, @agaricus, @emergentorder, @bulletproofexec, @2healthguru.

The topics discussed in the quantifiedself tweet stream can be rendered as a network graph based on words that co-occur:

Next week I will be attending and discussing mobile social media and social networks at the Mobile Web Africa conference in Johannesburg, South Africa. It is my first time to Africa and I am excited to both visit and to discuss how mobile networked devices can change social organizations.  Mobile devices are in many ways more important in emerging and developing regions where the availability of these tools enable the first voice and data services that have ever been affordable and reliable, let alone mobile.  There are vast opportunities in this space, a topic well reviewed in the recent issue of the Economist:

The Mobile Web Africa event will focus on these key questions:

1. How will the industry evolve to a point where the vast majority of people have access to the mobile web and the content they want to view?
2. How will the industry fully exploit existing and future opportunities?
3. How can PC or mobile based developers and start-ups monetise their innovation and creativity to grow in to companies that will drive the expansion of the ecosystem?
4. How can Operators, Original Equipment Manufacturers, global associations and other mobile powerhouses assist their smaller partners?
5. How can societal and economic problems be tackled by the development of the capabilities of the mobile device?
6. What handsets, standards, networks and designs will allow consumers to successfully access the content and consume it?
7. How will the consumer be able to discover that content – through an Application, Browser, Search Engine, Advert, Social Network?

I will focus my discussion on the idea of the “Electrification of the Interaction Order” and topics related to the growing use of sensors on mobile devices and the sharing of the resulting data.  A service like SenseNetworks is a  good example of a mobile data collection, analysis, and presentation service.  Other sites, like Quantified Self, CureTogether, and FitBit, are examples of the social movements, web applications, and devices that are emerging in the self-monitoring medical tracking space.  These communities overlap with the trail based exercise communities of runners, bikers, skaters, hikers, and skiers, some with artistic inclinations.  I see a new wave of devices that are extensively quantify your “self” and “others”, perhaps when people swap sensor data with one another.  The recent work of Nathan Eagle and his co-authors illustrate the possibilities of using many devices with (already existing and widely used) sensors can generate remarkable maps of human behavior.  Much of this data will take the form of social networks as people are linked by “hyperties” – forms of association and connection that are authored by machines from the records of association and behavior.  People will be linked who have never met, in the same way that web book store customers who have never met can be linked by common browse and purchase patterns.  Hyperties will be formed by shared use of location, even if at different times, or patterns created by passing through different spaces at different times but in common patterns (Starbucks, then gas?  Or subway then tea shop?).  The notion of “Tribes” used by the SenseNetworks company is a good example of this approach.    The Economist is all over this topic, with another article “Mobile phones Sensors and sensitivity” that captures the topic.  Jonathan Donner’s work is also a good resource for insights on the role of mobile technology in many parts of the world.  The ability to enable a form of banking service is a particular benefit for the many people who do not have access to banking services.

Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy

Here is the slide deck I presented at the “Studying Society In A Digital World” conference at the Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton University.  They just posted most of the conference slides.  I took some pictures and posted to flickr.  Here is the slide deck I presented along with my talk at the conference.

The theme of mobile sensor data shared via social networks was one reinforced by the many presentations at the conference. In my talk, I focused on the idea that information want not to be free or expensive, rather, information wants to be copied.  Like DNA, the goal of any string of bits is to make a duplicate copy of themselves.  Several technical realities mean that while information may exist on a spectrum from private to public, it only moves in one direction (public) and almost never back.  Once made public on the Internet, even if only for a moment, a photo, document, or other digital object is almost certainly to have been copied, indexed, backed up, or replicated.  All efforts to delete a digital object once widely distributed is like trying to take wine out of water.  This is because all cryptography become brittle over time, most bits end up exposed after they get distributed, and more events trigger widespread distribution of bits than expected (for example, linking a photo, and a location, to a tweet that gets copied to LinkedIn and Facebook, that then appears in an RSS feed and is copied from there to Friend Feed.  As it travels, information looses more of the access controls that initially made it relatively private until it is effectively public.

Held in conjunction with SocialCom ’09
29th-30th August, Vancouver, Canada
http://thesocialmobileweb.org

The mobile space is evolving at an astonishing rate. At present there are over 3.5 billion mobile subscribers worldwide and with continued advances in devices, services and billing models, the mobile web looks set to inspire a new age of anytime, anywhere information access. The inherent characteristics of mobile phones enable new types of interactions, e.g. mobile phones are personal to the individual, they are always on and always connected. And as such we are seeing a shift towards mobile devices for social mediated tasks. The world is also witnessing an explosion in social web services. Online social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace continue to experience huge increases in usage, with more and more users seeking novel ways of interacting with their friends and family.

In this workshop we are interested in the combination of these two exciting research spaces: the social web and the mobile space. We believe that the social mobile web is going to be a highly influential research area in the near future. As such this workshop will investigate the current state of the social mobile web. Topics of interest to this workshop include (but are not limited to) the following:

* Novel social interactions on mobile devices.
* Social mobile content sharing and distribution services.
* Context aware mobile services – beyond location based services.
* Social mobile search and social mobile browsing.
* User evaluations of social mobile services.
* Mobile user interfaces that incorporate social elements.
* Mobility and social networks.
* Models of mobile social behavior and mobile traces.
* Urban gaming, mobile mixed reality, etc.
* Innovative social mobile applications.

This workshop is targeted towards researchers working within the mobile web and social web spaces.  Participants are invited to submit: (1) a short position or demonstration paper of 2-4 pages in length or (2) a full length technical paper of up to 10 pages in length. Papers should be in IEEE publication format and should be submitted as a PDF file via email to organizers@thesocialmobileweb.org. Workshop papers will be published by IEEE CS Press. Note that at least one author of accepted papers needs to register and attend the workshop.

Organising Committee
————————–
* Karen Church, Telefonica Research, Barcelona
* Josep M. Pujol, Telefonica Research, Barcelona
* Barry Smyth, University College Dublin, Ireland
* Noshir Contractor, Northwestern University, Evanston

Program Committee
————————–
* Lada Adamic, University of Michigan
* Alex Arenas, Universitat Rovira i Virgili
* John Breslin, DERI Institute, NUI Galway
* Meeyoung Cha, Max Planck Institute for Software Systems
* Augustin Chaintreau, Thomson Research
* Nathan Eagle, MIT/Santa Fe Institute
* Andreas Flache, University of Groningen
* Jill Freyne, CSIRO
* Scott A. Golder, Cornell University
* Carmen Guerrero, Universidad Carlos III
* Tom Heath, Talis
* Matt Jones, FIT Lab, Swansea University
* David Lazer, Harvard University
* Nuria Oliver, Telefonica Research
* Alex Payne, Twitter
* Ramon Sang¸esa, Technical University of Catalonia, Citilab
* Albrecht Schmidt, University Duisburg-Essen
* Marc Smith, Telligent Systems
* Roger M. Whitaker, University of Cardiff
* Peter Mika, Yahoo Research Labs

Important Dates
11th May 2009: Deadline for submissions
5th June 2009: Notification to authors
15th June 2009: Final paper version deadline
29th-31st August 2009: Conference dates

Website
Further details are available from the workshop website at: http://thesocialmobileweb.org

Goffman did write about telephone conversations as well as the ways broadcasters altered the patterns of spoken interactions in radio transmissions but he died before mobile phones became popular or online Internet social spaces became mainstream.  Several scholars have applied Goffman to social interaction in cyberspace.  There are lots of possible connections: Goffman wrote at length about the ways people “present” their identities to one another as if we were all actors on a stage.  After decades of “reality TV” this is not the revolutionary thought it once was in Goffman’s day.  Today his work can be a guide to studying the ways people now use the Internet to create representations of themselves and interact with one another.  Profiles on social network systems and other kinds of Internet based media publication tools are a new kind of surface for displaying membership insignia and symbols of connections with other people.  Like clothing or landscaping, Internet media are a medium for self-expression and claims to membership in a number of demographics and sub-cultures.

It is no longer necessary to bring Goffman to the Internet; the Internet is coming to Goffman.  Goffman’s work has even more value in the coming years.  The main focus of his work was the minute details of face-to-face interactions.  Goffman relished the details of careful control of eye contact and posture, tone of voice and timing.  When applied to “online” media this aspect of Goffman’s work has been applied metaphorically to the interactions of avatars and user names.  It is certainly possible to extend Goffman into these Internet spaces.  But now Internet spaces are extending themselves into the Interaction Order.

Mobile Internet devices are now along for the ride in many of the situations Goffman wrote about: meetings and encounters between people which feature exchanges and evaluations of identity claims.  Mobile phones are becoming more general purpose networked mobile computers.  Today these devices remain end points of Internet data more than sources.  But increasingly mobile devices have sensors that allow them to measure physical states of their owners and the presence of others in proximity.  When my phone notices your phone and can tell that it is your phone new opportunities emerge for people interacting in the interaction order.

The “interaction order” has been very analog and few innovations have taken place there — with a few notable exceptions.  Speech and body adornment were both big innovations that gave humans a big advantage in the creation of complex societies.  Since those novel practices there have been few things that have dramatically altered the basic nature of human to human interaction in face-to-face situations.  It could be argued that refinements like amphitheaters increase the number of people who can usefully gather in one place and still hear one another.  Similarly, writing and printing altered the interaction order only to the extent that sitting side-by-side with someone looking at the same relatively rare books created a structured interaction space but not new ways of presenting who we are or reading one another’s claims.

Clocks and maps help people get to an interaction at the right time and in the right place, but they do not change the basic capacity to signal between people.  Phones and cell phones create new kinds of spaces for an interaction order – with novel rules, but they do not change face-to-face interaction as much as they pull people out of face-to-face interactions and into a network mediated interactions.

Goffman will have renewed value for those trying to understand the impact of mobile devices because for the first time networked digital machines are aware of social interactions and are able to alter how we interact with each other.  The Interaction Order is “electrified” when we bring devices into our interactions with other people and those devices help us display the right symbols to others and access the right symbols about others.

After a lovely dinner you order a third glass of wine, take a sip and your mobile phone rings.

Its your health insurance company’s computer. You take the call.

“We’re delighted to see you are enjoying yourself this evening!” the cheerful voice synthesis exclaims.

“Please note, however, that you are now at the policy limit for blood alcohol level. To purchase a 24 hour waiver that will allow you to exceed this limit, press 1. A fee of $20 will be charged to your monthly co-payment invoice. To decline waiver coverage, press 2. Please note that if you decline coverage your blood alcohol level must drop under the policy limit within 45 minutes. Continued elevated blood alcohol above your policy limit will constitute breach of your coverage agreement and you may loose all coverage for alcohol related illnesses including injuries received from accidents that may be caused by impairment.”

With a paid-for glass of wine on the table, many people may just go along with the offer (their judgment may already be somewhat impaired).

Real-time health monitoring is an application that is rapidly developing.  Our mobile devices are likely to play a central role in enabling a wide scale real-time continuous monitoring of health related data.  The Quantified Self meet-up is exploring many aspects of this space, but discussion of ways large institutions could use this data has not been a large focus so far.

Medical compliance is a huge issue: most of us do not take prescribed medicines the way we are “supposed to” – skipping doses, doubling up, or quitting a series of medications once symptoms subside.  A real-time assessment of our blood (among other measures) would go a long way to reducing the costs of illness and treatment.  In a world of scarce medical resources, can competitive societies allow their members to be slothful and subsequentially expensive to maintain?

The Intel Health Guide is a good example of this emerging trend, although still in a “desktop” form factor.

Intel Health Guide Device

Other examples can be found in the iPhones app store where health and navigation and travel categories of applications are starting to collide.

The next meeting of the “Quantified Self” group will be held on January 27th, 2009 at the University of California, Berkeley School of Information.

The group focuses on the emerging practice of recording lots of data about your physical state and activity.  Its where life logging meets populations of people grappling with illness or seeking optimal health.  The idea is that close records of our health will reveal connections between behaviors and outcomes, letting us change our behavior or at least detect early when things go wrong.  Others are just interested in detailed record keeping, an extension of detailed blogging or life streaming.  In many cases people are sharing these records with others, sometimes to get social support to meet a goal like running more miles or loosing more pounds.

I find the topic interesting for all these reasons and because the technologies for the “Quantified Self” are also going to be applied to the “Quantified Other” – sensors that record data about your body may ultimately notice that you are near other people.  It is when machines automatically notice when people are near people that I think the “QS” effort will have greatest impact.

Kevin Kelly has been blogging about “QS” on a blog of the same name. This will be the 3rd meeting of Quantified Self people.  I was able to attend the second meeting at the IDEO offices in San Francisco which had a great turn out of people and presentations of projects for assembling personal biographies and recording fleeting thoughts.  Hope to see you at the next meeting!