Digital Privacy
Today Apple began releasing DRM-free music, which naturally engendered much commentary in the blogosphere. I thought there was an interesting post and comment thread over at The Unofficial Apple Weblog.
The post makes an interesting technical point about the DRM-free songs: the digital files are still embedded with the customer’s name (and possibly other unknown identifiers). Although there are no technical restrictions on copying, doing so might allow a copyright-holder to identify the source of a file uploaded to a peer-to-peer network, for example.
What isn’t clear to me is whether there is simply a name and account number embedded, or if there is more extensive watermarking.
The comment thread unfolded somewhat predictably, but well illustrates the different perspectives people take on intellectual property. There were two main perspectives:
1. Ominous Privacy Threat: People from this point of view found it unwelcome that music files could be tracked to an individual purchaser. This perspective has two subtypes: those who might want to engage in illegal file sharing, and those who see embedded metadata more as a general threat to privacy.
2. No Worries: Many commenters were more sanguine, observing that the only privacy “threat” was to people who break the law by illegally sharing files.
As is common for online discussions, there were many bad analogies and misinterpretations. For example, a commenter made a comparison to government wiretapping, sardonically adding “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, then there’s nothing to worry about.” This, however, is not really comparable, since wiretapping is an intrusion that may occur without you doing anything illegal or wrong, whereas you need to publicly share your downloaded music files before anyone can finger you for breaking copyright.
As a straight point of logic, I think the No Worries camp has the better of the argument. Those people placing higher value on privacy or anonymity can probably find a way to strip the metadata, or convert the file to other formats, and it’s understandable that Apple would choose to embed the customer’s information considering how reluctant the music industry has been to give up DRM.
But there are some Big Picture questions that I think merit addressing:
1. Tracing as a Point of Law: Many people reacted by pointing out that tracing is only of concern if you are breaking the law; their implication is that an embedded name and account number are sufficient proof that you illegally shared the file.
The trouble is that digitized intellectual property is “leaky” compared to tangible property: there are many, sometimes fairly innocuous ways a file can be illicitly shared. Most obviously, hardware on which IP is stored can be stolen (especially iPods or laptops). Less obviously, network permissions are often set too loosely allowing others to access files without your knowing. And sometimes other people have physical access to your computer (think about all the traffic going through a college dorm room). That a digital file with your name on it has leaked out doesn’t necessarily mean you shared it.
When you buy something physical, like a big screen TV, you own it, and enjoy the benefits of ownership as well as the costs of protecting your property (installing locks on your doors, burglar alarms, insurance, etc.). When you download music, you don’t enjoy the same benefits of ownership; technically all you have bought is a license to play music. If you don’t get the benefits of ownership, it seems dubious you should bear the costs of protecting the music on behalf of the record company.
2. Slippery Slope: Apple’s putting your name in a music file you downloaded is not really so monstrous. Many commenters noted Apple has always done so, although I find that objection irrelevant because only now is the music being touted as unprotected. But I agree it’s not such a big deal.
In the long run, however, we have to realize that as the digital paper trail follows more and more of our actions (and purchases), liberties we previously thought we had will become ever more constrained.
That’s very abstract so let me give an example. Let’s say GPS tracking technology keeps dropping in price, and more car manufacturers begin installing them in vehicles. They realize, however, that drivers who drive over the speed limit put more wear and tear on their cars. By linking GPS data to another database of speed limits, they can find if you are exceeding the speed limit and thus truncate or void your warranty. It’s easy to see why insurers and police agencies would be interested in such data as well.
You don’t have anything to worry about unless you’re breaking the law, right? Well, most of us do periodically commit minor infractions of the law. How many of the people insisting enforcement of IP is no problem always come to a complete stop at stop signs, never disobey the speed limit, never used alcohol before the legal limit, or never experimented with drugs? Probably not many.
And of those who do follow the law to the letter, but “made mistakes” in the past, are they willing to confess to the police and accept a citation — or prosecution — for breaking the laws they purport to believe in? Probably not many at all.
But we can ignore that with a wink and a nod, because no one’s going to know about it; no one’s going to do anything about it. There’s no way to prove it — yet.
We should be more honest about lawbreaking. It is not such a shameful thing, in of itself. It depends on the law. With that in mind, the discussion over intellectual property hinges on what sort of lawbreaking you are willing to stomach. File sharing is illegal, but I’ve known many people who are not otherwise criminals who don’t see a problem with it. Perhaps they are wrong, but perhaps the law is wrong. I don’t want to get into a detailed argument about IP — this post is verbose enough.
But I do want to stress there are going to be many more of these seemingly minor bits of information tying our identities to things we might prefer to keep private. Any one item, like this one with Apple, will seem minor and tolerable, but what is the cumulative effect? Eventually almost anyone can be prosecuted for one infraction or another, and who actually is prosecuted will be at the discretion of those in power.
Is Sex by Fraud Rape?
The Massachusetts supreme court says “no.” The case involved a man who had sex with his brother’s girlfriend by entering her bedroom with the lights out, pretending to be his brother. The court decided that the law has “for two centuries defined rape as sexual intercourse by force and against one’s will and that it is not rape when consent is obtained through fraud.” The court said the legislature would need to change to the definition of rape. Given that the same court found there is a right to gay marriage without awaiting legislative change, this reasoning strikes me as rather inconsistent.
My view is that, whether it is called rape or not, obtaining sex through fraud is a serious crime. Perhaps it is not as bad as using force, just as swindling someone is not as bad as directly using violence to obtain money, but it still deprives the person of the ability to make her own choices.
Although justice was not served, it is possible the court was correct insofar as having its hands tied by the legislature. Under our system the “lawmakers” in the legislature are supposed to be the source of law, so if they haven’t made the law, then it doesn’t exist.
This case illustrates the uselessness of the legislature. The legitimate function of courts is to discern justice, with justice seen as existing independently of any one person or group’s viewpoint. Having to rely on the legislature to create good law (and avoid creating bad law) impedes the courts’ ability to do justice.
The obvious objection is that we need a division of power; we do not want judges to have total discretion in deciding law. That is a good objection, but it would be a non-sequitur to infer a legislature is needed to supply the courts with law. Eliminate the legislature and establish competition between courts, so that judges must be fair, impartial, and respectful of people’s rights in order to protect their reputations.
Technorati Tags: law, philosophy, rape
“There is nothing immoral if there is nothing in charge.”
Said Al Sharpton in his debate with Christopher Hitchens, repeating a common argument against atheism.
What I find so weird about this argument is that it attempts to reject moral relativism, yet it is, itself, a moral relativist argument. It says that morality does not exist independently and is relative to the whim of God.
Murder is wrong, for example, because God says thou shalt not kill. But if, next Tuesday, God decides you should disembowel your neighbor and drink blood from his skull, then it is righteous and justified to do so, according to this argument. One can hope God would not demand such a thing of you, but even the religious admit they cannot fully know God’s plan.
And even if you believe God is too benevolent to do such a thing, or that God is unlikely to communicate such a wish, if you adhere to this argument you must admit it would be rightful to disembowel your neighbor and drink blood from his skull if God did unequivocally demand it of you. He is the only source of morality, after all.
Yet, incredibly, even within the very argument from which I quoted, Sharpton claims:
“When you raise the issue of morality, if there is no supervisory being, what do we base morality on? Is it based on who has the might at a given time, who is in power? [.. ]There is nothing immoral if there is nothing in charge.”
It is his own argument, not the atheists’, that is an appeal to power, to say the only possible source of morality is from someone “in charge.” Of course, it is well known logical error to believe rightness necessarily inheres in power or authority.
Sharpton’s faulty belief springs from another logical error, the argument from ignorance. He doesn’t know or care how morality might arise without God, seems to refuse to consider the possibility, and uses that ignorance as the basis for his belief that morality comes from God. (I’ve previously discussed ways to think about morality without relying on religion.)
Reading about this debate reminded me of Glen Whitman’s instructive post on the subject. Whitman notes the vague idea that morality comes from God can be considered more precisely, viewing God as either the “knower” or the “decider” of morality. If you view God as the decider of morality, then, as elaborated above, you have an essentially an amoral, relativistic view of morality that simply hinges on doing whatever the guy who shoots lightning bolts out of his fingers tells you to do. If, however, you view God as the knower of morality, you have conceded morality exists independently of God.
Technorati Tags: morality, philosophy, religion
