 I'm now going to turn it over to David Weinberger and Colin McClay, who will do a summary and lead our closing session. Summary. Summary. Well, OK. No summary. Is it correct to take us in a completely different direction? Yeah, let's correct that. We will not do the summary. You all will do the summary. So, yeah, well, that is loud. I'm David Weinberger. I'm at the Berkman Center. The Harvard Library Innovation Lab. And my name is Colin McClay. I'm managing director of the Berkman Center. So I suspect that many of us are sort of, we've wrapped up mentally, is that? This was a very intense and interesting day. I'm feeling pretty much topped out intellectually, but we'll spend a few minutes, if you don't mind, on a couple of questions. And so one of the questions we thought that we would ask you, because we don't have a summary between us, is over the course of this day, it was a long day, but it's obviously a huge, huge topic. What is it that has not come up or has not come up sufficiently that we should be talking about, especially if there's something that, as we say, you have on your chest that is sort of bothering you? Why didn't they talk about? What are the, what's the stuff that just didn't arise? Really? This is a not-not. I'm just more, very much more interested in the issues just brought up about reliability, availability and performance, and what happens during models of wartime and where things go down and governmental and civic collapse. It just raised a lot of interesting questions. For privacy and publicness. Actually, would you mind saying, I'm sorry, Colin, would you mind saying a little bit more about what interests you about that or where that conversation, if we were to have it, should go? Oh, where it should go? I guess it's a longer conversation. One person's utopia about machines is someone else's dystopia, so I don't mean to make it philosophical, but I was interested in the last applications that were mentioned in the use of distribution of libraries and the distribution of hand tools for the youth, for children, and this kind of accumulative sense of possibility. Thank you. Other issues? We really covered everything today. There was nothing else that didn't get covered. I was interested in listening to solutions, actually, and applicable solutions we could put into place in terms of the design of how do you do it? All these privacy talk, what kind of actual solutions we could do, because the background is, I'm trying to build a social network. How would it be if I do it privacy by design from the beginning? I ran into a lot of design problems, and so I came here looking for actual solutions. So we have a request for a free consulting from this group. Why don't we try this? Because that's a really important question. And as a way of organizing it, Harry, I am beginning to look at you. If we did it in terms of the stack and ask for example, we do it in terms of Lessig's quadrants, which we might do, it's a very useful way of organizing, but if we did it in terms of the stack, is there stuff that we should be doing all the way down at the bottom of the stack in order to make privacy and publicness work better, whatever that means. And that's a really hard question. So... Yeah, well... You could rephrase it. So, well, we'll let you think, I'll give you just one more second. So one way to do it would be by stack and another way would be to think about it by discipline or what your respective discipline of computer science might contribute to that. You are the author of... I'm not the co-author of one of the best. I'm gonna answer a different question. Excellent. Before you hit the volume. So I thought one of the things that was interesting listening to Nick's comment here at the end and clashing it up against the dialogue between Ethan and Tim Sparapana about, you know, Sir Ethan pointed out, and somebody I think pointed out before him, that the economics of this are really important and we hit on it a couple of times today, but sort of the economics of privacy in particular as we've talked about it today are important because the digital world is evolving in many ways, away from the land of infinite diversity where every special interest can go off by itself and have its own sub-community, which we've always thought of as being generative of great social progress and a world where we've gotta live with Facebook's rules or Google's world or Amazon's rules or whatever the monopoly culture is. And I was very struck by that and they're not necessarily rules they make up because they've become so big that they're regulated monopolies. But to listen to Nick talk about on the other hand, that if you wanna make real progress in the world, you have to sort of put out of your mind anything that the market will take care of itself, I think really creates an interesting dialectic for us to think about, about how the economics of the world are affecting the whole space of private and public spaces. So that's down to the economic stack, so we'll accept that as an answer, that's fine. So I don't wanna push on the stack thing, but I do wanna raise it because it gets to, for example, what was going on at the EG8, which some of you may have followed and I know Jeff was at, I'm not sure other people here were at. Anybody else? Where there seems to be a fairly significant governmental, international governmental effort to regulate the internet towards more privacy enforcement friendly regime. So I'll just put in a marker for that, but there's a hand up. Is there a hand up? Yeah, exactly. Let's hear this and maybe Phil we could also ask you to take up JP's challenge earlier the day to expand upon it and talk about the role of lawyers in this whole thing, please. And then we'll get to it with Zon. I just wanna bring up something that was addressed earlier and it's been going around on the Twitter feed and I think a lot of people really wanna hear more about this, the role of privilege and privacy. Jane's comment earlier, I think that's something that we really need to talk about and how, especially how in certain communities that is really at risk and privacy, especially in the digital age, might be something that tends to be afforded only to those who have a great degree of access or have a great degree of knowledge and I think that's a really valid point that's worth addressing here. I have a feeling David has a follow up question to that. No I do not. I thought you were gonna ask, is this the end of privacy and is that, is it even possible? No, it's a good question though. Ha ha ha. Does anyone wanna take up the privilege question? We got three. Let's go with Judith first since she doesn't have a job right now. I think it's an enormous question because in a very everyday way as we see this, we see this with the ability to sell your privacy to get a discount at stop and shop. We certainly see it again in that distinction between how we see architectures. I think the glass house is a fascinating architecture because the glass houses that we see in the architecture magazines, we don't ever see them if we walk down the street because they're always hidden behind walls. They're hidden amongst acres and acres of weekend getaway land. If you think about building glass houses for the poor, I forget the name, there was one architect who's in the unprivate house who proposed doing glass houses in a slum section of a city and there the image that it's brought up is not, oh it's so wonderful to have this beautiful view of the sunrise but this is a way that we can monitor your every move, your every breakfast and everything. So I think these issues around privacy and privilege span both the architectural world, they certainly span the online world and they come back a lot to the question of who's watching us because online in particular, a lot of who's watching us is marketers and people for whom who are trying to get people to consume and so it's a protection against that type of persuasion that is also very hard to achieve if you don't have the money to be doing things without having everything be supported by advertising. So there's I think an enormous tension in all these worlds around money and privilege and I think a lot of the questions that come up tend to be about protecting those whose way of being is not part of the mainstream and whatever culture they live in and I think it's important to broaden it to saying that it's anyone who cannot afford to have some kind of retreat into privacy which becomes increasingly expensive. Well I'm not sure, I'm not sure I'll answer it but I want to sort of underscore and thank you for bringing it up especially actually because of the stunned silence that followed the woman right behind you raising her question earlier was very telling but what I wanted to do was link it actually to the conversation that was going on earlier also about fear and opportunity because it did strike me notably in the exam all the examples that came up around that the fears were associated with the potential privacy invasions to potentially minority groups and groups who might be discriminated against and I was also talking about gays, HIV, sufferers, people suffering from other kinds of disease I was actually thinking of an example myself where I've done work with around women shelters and if you want to think about the issues about knowing where you are for people who's for where publicity is not necessarily the right solution. And so I think a lot of that discussion about fear and opportunity is actually a privileged discussion so I just want to underscore that and link those conversations together again. I also thank you for bringing it up because I was about to do it on Twitter and people thought it wasn't being brought up I guess I'm looking at this I think in three and that'll be wrong, it'll be four or five with the time I've done it, but three areas. One is the notion of safety that I have a lot more safety to be open than someone who is in a underprivileged or different environment. So I think safety is one of the issues. The second is the economic issue I think Harry's right here but I see the economic in two ways. One is it's the entrepreneur Sam Lesson who just got acquired by Facebook who said this, not me. So if you tweet it, give him credit which is that privacy used to be ridiculously expensive and ridiculously inexpensive and publicity used to be ridiculously expensive and now it's reversed, right? That the effort we have to go through to get privacy takes more effort in all kinds of ways. Some economic, we have to cost but some just time and effort and knowledge and so on. Whereas publicity you had to either be Oprah or do something so outrageous that Oprah would have you on her show and so that was made publicity expensive and now we can all be public and but to be private is harder. So that's an economic thing to the effort it takes. With the other economic part of the privilege I think that I just heard is that if you are privileged your information is more valuable to a marketer, right? So the irony there is that if you're privileged it may be easier for you to get privacy but if you're privileged you may have to fight harder for your privacy because you're more valuable because you'll buy more stuff, you know? And so they'd be very interesting to look at privacy against these economic scales in some way putting aside as stipulated the safety questions that the impact of what society you are in and who you are in that society matters is a matter of privilege but then the economic privilege alone is fascinating because it is more quantifiable. So can, while we send the microphone back there maybe I can just ask one question on this privilege point. I'm thinking back to sort of years and years ago when people used to talk about the digital divide and then mercifully moved on to recognize that it was not just about access to the technology but you actually need the skills to use technology effectively and wondering whether this is to some extent just an extension of that this is that it's another element of skill to be able to use technology effectively to be able to protect your own privacy when you see fit but that there's also as opposed to the absence of being able to use technology there's also an inherent danger which is you need not even touch the technology your privacy is at risk. So it's in some sense that equation becoming a bit more complicated but absolutely part of that same suite of issues that those who are least privileged and underserved typically need and merit that much more attention and so the question then to us as designers whether as legal designers or technology designers or otherwise is to think about how do we design solutions for those communities back there. That was very much my question was just about time and effort as well and that it requires me the time to be able to read several articles online to determine how to protect my Facebook account and that not everyone has the same access to that information nor knows how to get it which is a problem I would pose to Negroponte if he's still in the room how these children learn to use computers which in my experience are not particularly intuitive but yeah I'm gonna pass this to him as you answer. Okay I just stepped out for a bit so I apologize if this was addressed early we've kind of been grazing out a little bit here but one of the points just mentioned actually about how we have this reversal of how publicity's become expensive and privacy expensive. I feel like it has some really interesting implications that we didn't go in as in depth on in terms of transparency and that's in that impact on accessibility of information and what actually kind of raised that question in my mind is when we were talking about these glass buildings I remember that I had been talking to someone who at the European Parliament they said the building's designed out of glass because it's supposed to be transparent and you can just log on and find all this information about it but during that same time there was a speech by the vice president for the commission Vivian Redding where she talked about how you have so much information and so much transparency and like so much like very easy publicity that it's almost counter-intuitively making it harder for the average person logging on to get an effective idea of information and it'd be kind of nice to see a little bit more covered on the issue because when you have anyone can basically throw up their ideas on the internet and it's become so cheap to obtain the publicity I feel like it's almost like a delusion of information and we haven't really adjusted completely on how we deal with that I feel like. So part of that's about filtering information which is maybe not as related to the public-private stuff but then another part perhaps it brings up a question for me I guess earlier from today from Beatrice's her statement that we become accustomed to the affordances of technology over time and wondering whether as these conceptions of privacy change oh sorry one to you whether we're just gonna we just sort of give up and we're okay with the fact that we're living these hyper-public lives. Sure I just wanted to return to the question working with underserved or also under-resourced communities and thinking of design questions that would inform helping people through these questions of privacy or protecting themselves, remaining anonymous and going to the example of the women's shelters or also HIV it was really in that moment where folks who experienced violence or HIV those were the folks who designed women's shelters and healthcare clinics to serve those communities the people who were most impacted and most at risk they by facing that risk were actually really expert in navigating really dangerous situations and so I would just kind of flip that question and say how can you actually take those people who are under-resourced and under-privileged who are experiencing great risk and put them in the center of really tapping their expertise working together with designers and engineers to handle some of these questions. A whole bunch of, we have two down here and then a couple more in the back. And I believe we are heading towards final minutes. Yeah, so these have to be kind of tweet lengths. Okay, tweet length, sorry. So all right, so respond to your question. Yes, the changing notions of privacy are hugely important. I mean, for example, looking at the X-ray of the woman that I saw at that time, I mean, looking at it now we will be concerned about maybe two things. One will be radiation and the other will be privacy, right? Do I have the beginning of tuberculosis? Do I want anybody to know about this? So the question of privilege is hugely important. If I'm healthy, it's no problem, right? I can send the picture to my boyfriend. But if not, it's a real problem. But the interesting thing is that in that moment that is not of their concern at all. The fear of the X-rays and the fear of living in the glass house has nothing to do with the preoccupations that we have today. So in 50 years, we have changed entirely our understanding of what privacy is. And this is one thing that I think we should insist more. And I have seen in this conference, which of course is fascinating, but there is absolutely constantly projection of what we understand privacy today, not only into the last century, but into the history of humanity when in fact continuously changed, right? So the fear is nothing to do with what we have. It's the fear of the spurser, the spurser of what was invisible before. Something that for us is now completely normal. And I'm not so sure about what you were saying. This is a guy we tweet like this. Other people, I'm sorry to be rude, but all right. I just wanted to add, you asked what you'd like to hear in addition to what was covered. I would have liked to have heard more of a discussion about how our digital culture is changing our relationship with ourself and how that self becomes a new reflection, a new privacy, a new public. And really that's an enormous topic which I felt was not addressed at all. Actually, I agree with you, I think I'm pretty interested. I'm sorry, what are you saying? Does it end up one of one of two, no? Nope. We're gonna favor people who have not yet spoken, even though you may be out of turn in the order of hands. Well, this is something that wasn't discussed, but I missed the first session because I was on the train from New York, so I hope it wasn't discussed. But one thing I was hoping to hear more about is more the global hyper-public. I feel like every time we talk about this on the international stage, it's the free world versus repressive regimes. And I thought that Ethan's point about websites needing to have an English version was a really important one. But I'd love to kind of engage more with the European approach to privacy and how we are shaping the hyper-public versus how Europe is and how we're influencing one another. Anyone who hasn't spoken especially? In your left, David, left, left, or there? I actually didn't see who's hand was up. I'm Joshua Kofferman from the Graduate School of Design. Tweet length is my concern and the question I think we should be addressing also is that through the erosion of privacy, our personal data is becoming privatized and we need to discuss those terms of exchange from a commercial and social standpoint. Anyone over here? And then we'll add perhaps just a minute after our appointed time. Let me just move. I'm going, I'm going, man, look at a bike home. Thank you. Hi. And I think this was discussed implicitly in a lot of things, especially when we started out the conversation with Street View. So something maybe more about the place of physical place, the place of location, in considerations of surveillance and the audiences that we consent to when we walk out onto the street. You know, when we were talking about this sort of informed consent or uninformed consent. So the consideration of the online audience but also sort of the physical audience and the physical context that we find ourselves in when we're considering how privacy or surveillance might affect our actions or interactions. So as everyone straightens up their seat backs and puts their tray tables up and Judith and Jeff I think are going to come up and just give us a final word to bring us in for a landing. I want to just, on behalf of the folks at the Berkman Center, offer you all a huge thanks for coming here today. This was really interesting for me personally. Everyone was asking, you know, what's going to happen? What's it going to be like? And I said, you know, I have no idea. I know it's going to be good because there are amazing people here and we had an interesting program set up but I had no idea what it was going to be. And I just, I really, I can't thank you enough from each of your different disciplines and perspectives for diving in, in this kind of creative and engaging and open way. And I think to do that in one day where you're kind of crossing so many boundaries and come this far, which is not to say we have answers but better sense of the questions was really pretty remarkable. So thank you. And with that, Judith and Jeff please. Thank you all very much. So many people had, I mean, one of the great things about a conference like this is that the audience and the speakers really blend together and both for the speakers and the audience I'd really urge you, so many people mentioned things they'd read whether it's song lyrics, papers they'd written, things that they thought were incredibly stupidly said and they wanted to critique them. We have a wiki here and I hope that one of the outcomes that we can have from this conference is an ongoing dialogue. So I would urge you all, I think we've all had enough talking in this room for today but I'd urge you to continue the dialogue whether it's over drinks and dinner later out in the sunshine or permanently or semi-permanently online to have this be a start of the discussion not the end of it. Thank you.