In a few hours I'm keynoting Jupiter's Inside ID Conference. Since I know less about digital ID than anyone in the audience, I'm going to say something like the following:
When it comes to digital ID and anonymity, let's take our cue from the real world where we've worked out these issues with great subtlety and precision.
In the real world, anonymity is the default.
Let's look at what ordinary language philosophy might say about the term "identity." It turns out that an identity isn't something we have. Rather, it's used primarily when someone has a reason to go from doubt to knowledge about how to connect us to some other piece of information, in order to accomplish something (e.g., arrest us or return our wallet).
So, we should only have to identify ourselves to the level of distinction that justifies a difference in treatment.
But why is anonymity good? Because we need leeway to live together.
Then I argue against "accountabalism," the magical belief in accountability. Accountabalism is eating us alive.
Then it's on to how accountability tramples the value of the implicit.
Thanks, God bless, and drive safely...
(Or something like that.)
This is a more ruminative (= incoherent) talk than usual, and the first one that includes a photograph of J.L. Austin.
After that, I get to go back to the Library of Congress for some discussions, which I believe center on the spellling of verkochte. Heck, if the Library of Congress doesn't know, then no one does!
Posted
by D. Weinberger at November 16, 2004 06:53 AM
Comments
I think I missed the gong, but I wanted to put a flag on the play.
1. I think the perspective of language acts and Austin is valuable, especially with regard to identity in use.
2. I don't think that accountability has anything to do with it, except that identification is applied there. One angle: consider accountability a declarative act and identity comes into play with regard to establishing the authority of that, verifying and validating the account, and assessing the attestations made in the account.
3. Requiring an account in law and regulation is a different matter. You notice how financial auditors sign their work? That's a social policy and political matter. I suppose it is a professional matter in many places. I would not think that it is appropriate for an anonymous source to be anonymous to a journalist who relies on the source. So, do those guys really know who Deep Throat was, you think? I don't have an axe to grind here, but I would not have this taken as all that accountability covers.
Posted by: orcmid | November 16, 2004 10:16 AM
i saw your apppearance on cspan and was wonderfully impressed. cspan introduced me to tham hartmann and now you. thank god for cspan.
Posted by: ebbak | November 16, 2004 12:35 PM
"In a few hours I'm keynoting Jupiter's Inside ID Conference. Since I know less about digital ID than anyone in the audience, I'm going to say something like the following..."
I suspect that giving a speach on something that you don't know that much about (compared with, say, the people you are speaking to) is the easy part--a simple matter of generalizing, highlighting the potential dangers and risks, offering some nostrums, etc. The hard part is somehow positioning yourself to be the one selected to give such a speech. A man of many estimable talents, this might be your most important one of all. So Dave, how do you pull it off?
Posted by: Daniel LUke | November 16, 2004 02:10 PM
Daniel, I don't.
Posted by: David Weinberger | November 16, 2004 10:52 PM
David, any chance you could post the slides?
Posted by: Frank Koehntopp | November 17, 2004 10:33 AM
Frank, I gave them to the conf organizers and they said they'e be posted yesterday, but I can't find them. I'll try to find out where they are.
Posted by: David Weinberger | November 17, 2004 11:35 AM
Here's where my slides are:
">http://www.jupiterevents.com/insideid04/presentations.html
Username: insideid
password: nov04
Unfortunately, they're not quite self-explanatory...
Posted by: David Weinberger | November 17, 2004 01:51 PM