Print

Print


*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****

Thanks Phil,

I understand what you're saying and I certainly agree with you. However let
me add two other dimensions on what we're discussing.

First, as you've indicated, is the question of who owes, controls,
regulates and moderates the terms of use derived from the existing
intellectual property rights on published scientific work. Although the
valid corresponding trade related aspects are rather clearly standardized,
in what concerns uses and circumstances like the ones you're describing,
Phil, I don't know whether the author of a publication in which a major
technique is introduced might allow or prohibit certain contaminant
applications of this technique by whoever others in whatever other
(possibly political) areas. Please, enlighten me if you know more about
this. Actually, I know the answer on the formal ownership question but I'm
more interested in the repercussions it has on moral dilemmas and political
engagement.

There is also an issue of participant observational neutrality, which (when
it) is often (?) confronted with a justified or sometimes rather
unjustified dose of mistrust from the part of certain cohorts of activists
or militants who might happen to be interviewed or surveyed in, let's say,
a protest participation study. What's interesting is that in most of these
cases, mistrusting and reluctant to respond participants are driven by
exactly "symmetrical" concerns with what we're discussing now. Again from a
moral political point of view, what else can one do than respect such a
public mannerism?

Best,

--Moses


On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 7:32 PM, Phillip Bonacich <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

>  Hi Moses,****
>
> ** **
>
>             Over the past 50 years social scientists have developed
> sophisticated techniques for analyzing social networks.  Now these
> techniques are being used to fight a global war on terrorists.  We don’t
> own the techniques we developed but I think we can profitably reflect on
> the ways in which these techniques are used and the ways in which they
> might be used but aren’t.  For example, the resources devoted to the war on
> terror could be used to root out insider trading, a possibility which sends
> chills of pleasure down my spine.  On the other hand, in the 60’s they
> would certainly have been used against the civil rights and anti-war
> movements.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Moses Boudourides [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> *Sent:* Friday, June 21, 2013 8:58 AM
> *To:* Phillip Bonacich; Social Networks Discussion Forum
> *Subject:* Re: puzzling omissions****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi Phil,****
>
> ** **
>
> Is there any known example of a case where NSA or anybody else has
> directly misappropriated data or analyses used in a journal publication of
> a social networks scholar and without the latter's consent or
> authorization? Or are we just speculating about possibilities and potential
> risks? Living outside the US I'm not familiar with what is really at stake
> in this debate and thus I'm asking.****
>
> ** **
>
> Best,****
>
> ** **
>
> --Moses****
>
> ** **
>
> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Phillip Bonacich <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:****
>
> Hi.  Let me suggest another explanation for the silence.  There have been
> newspaper articles recently on the increasing collaboration between major
> Silicon Valley firms (Google, Facebook, etc.) and the NSA.  Silicon Valley
> has the tools, talent, and data that the intelligence community wants.  To
> a much lesser extent, this relationship also holds for the social network
> community.  I, and probably others, am critical of massive intelligence
> gathering but I also know the intellectual and career pressures that would
> lead one to collaborate: that’s where the action is.   But, the moral
> dilemma is uniquely ours, and we could politely and publically debate the
> issues.  A debate might help all of us achieve some clarity on this murky
> subject.  Or, you might think of it as an experiment in network dynamics.
> The outcome could be greater consensus or greater polarization.    ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> Phillip Bonacich****
>
> Professor Emeritus****
>
> Department of Sociology****
>
> U.C.L.A.****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Social Networks Discussion Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
> Behalf Of *James Moody
> *Sent:* Friday, June 21, 2013 5:40 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: puzzling omissions****
>
>  ****
>
> ***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org ***** ** **
>
> He – ****
>
>  ****
>
> Perhaps part of the silence is because the most interesting questions
> raised are not particularly network-specific (who owns data, what is the
> balance of govt protection vs. individual privacy, etc.), while the
> network-analytic issues are not particularly interesting (all the
> descriptions suggest that they are just building a big edgelist & doing a
> k-step breath-first-search from target nodes).  ****
>
>  ****
>
> On the former, the issues are deep moral & political questions – important
> and interesting, but not particularly network-centric.  Perhaps the one
> unique advantage folks on this list have to contribute to that is probably
> that most of the public severely over-estimates the computational ease of
> any real-time monitoring (rather than just data aggregation/collection).
> We could, perhaps, do a public service by making that more clear.****
>
>  ****
>
> On the latter, I think the technically interesting questions  here turn on
> how to store, organize & efficiently maintain a giant evolving edge-list,
> particularly when you care about people as nodes rather than the phone
> numbers as nodes.  That is, since numbers get changed & re-used and any
> nefarious near-do-well would certainly use multiple phones, a simple
> phone-number-is-node-number data storage system (which is inefficient in
> general, but fine for a BFS where all the isolates are ignored anyway) is
> not going to be particularly useful.  So you need a way to take each new
> batch of raw two-mode data (phone number – person) and sort, merge, match,
> etc. to your growing archive.   (the other obvious problem once you get
> into people-to-number merging on real data is the problem of false
> positives in name matching.  Again, great problem but not unique to
> networks).****
>
>  ****
>
> Peaceful Thoughts,****
>
> Jim ****
>
>  ****
>
> Professor Duke Sociology, ****
>
> Director, Duke Network Analysis Center****
>
>  ****
>
>   ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Social Networks Discussion Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>]
> *On Behalf Of *Moses Boudourides
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 20, 2013 4:31 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: puzzling omissions****
>
>  ****
>
> ***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org ***** ** **
>
> Wait a minute, folks, where's the PRISM-free social network analysis
> software? Tell me, Vlado, is Pajek safely PRISM-free?****
>
> Cheers, ****
>
> --Moses****
>
> On Jun 20, 2013 8:25 PM, "Michał Bojanowski" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> ****
>
> ***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org ***** ** **
>
> Bruce,****
>
> Thanks! Thats an awesome compilation.****
>
> ~michal****
>
> On Jun 20, 2013 10:17 PM, "Bruce Cronin" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:****
>
> *****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
>
> http://prism-break.org/
>
>
>
> On 14 Jun 2013, at 14:10, "Barry Wellman" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > *****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
> >
> > I am flabbergasted that there has been no discussion on this list -- or
> > even announcement -- of the NSA's use of social network analysis to do
> > massive surveillance of American and unAmerican populations.
> >
> > Nor any talk of the Turkish situation -- seems to fit Chuck Tilly's
> > network-basis analyses of collective political behaviour.
> >
> >   Barry Wellman
> >  _______________________________________________________________________
> >
> >   S.D. Clark Professor               FRSC               NetLab Director
> >   Faculty of Information (iSchool)                 611 Bissell Building
> >   140 St. George St.    University of Toronto    Toronto Canada M5S 3G6
> >   http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman          twitter: @barrywellman
> >
> >   NETWORKED:The New Social Operating System. Lee Rainie & Barry Wellman
> >   MIT Press            http://amzn.to/zXZg39      Print $22  Kindle $16
> >                  Old/NewCyberTimes http://bit.ly/c8N9V8
> >
> ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> > _____________________________________________________________________
> > SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
> > network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
> > an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
> > UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.
>
> University of Greenwich, a charity and company limited by guarantee,
> registered in England (reg. no. 986729).  Registered office:
> Old Royal Naval College, Park Row, Greenwich, London SE10 9LS.
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
> network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
> an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
> UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.****
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
> network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send an email
> message to [log in to unmask] containing the line UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET
> in the body of the message. ****
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
> network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send an email
> message to [log in to unmask] containing the line UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET
> in the body of the message. ****
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
> network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send an email
> message to [log in to unmask] containing the line UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET
> in the body of the message.****
>
> ** **
>

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.