Dangling Conversation

@markhillary asks "When you follow company Twitter accounts, do you like being able to see who runs the account, like a named person on the profile?"

I think that depends how gullible you are. When I get a letter signed by an Important Person, I generally assume it was written by his staff and signed in his absence. And when I get a mass-produced "personal letter" from an Important Person, I assume it was generated by a computer and signed by a programmer.

I got an email recently, which claimed to be a "A Personal Message from Dr. Richard Soley, Chairman and CEO, OMG and Keith Steele, CEO, PrismTech and OMG Board Member". I wrote back and thanked Richard personally - not to the address on the email (which was omg_marketing@omg.org) but to his real email address. For some reason, he ignored this. I hope he's not ill or anything.

And corporate communications sometimes use a fictional identity. Gerald Kaufman MP once tried to phone a person in the Prime Minister's office who had responded to a letter, only to discover that "Mrs E Adams" didn't actually exist. [Source: John Walsh: Beware letters from fictional civil servants (Independent May 2011)] This kind of thing is convenient for bureaucracies, because it allows incoming communications to be sorted by topic and redirected to whoever happens to be on duty that day. I'm sure the same thing often happens with Twitter, to prevent a corporate spokesperson ever being confused with a private individual.

As for company bosses, politicians and other celebrities, it would be naive to imagine that they always write their own tweets. "Of course they don't", tweets @markhillary, "but allowing helpers to do broadcast stuff is surely OK if the conversational is genuine?" Well, that depends on your idea of a genuine conversation.

It seems to me that there are some serious sociological and ethical problems here - of public/private identity, authenticity and trust - and we are only just learning how to operate in this new world.

---

@markhillary goes on to ask another question. "If you were interacting with a brand like Virgin Media, are you happy conversing with the brand?"

My answer to that question invokes Freud's concept of transference. Our psychological state (happiness, frustration) may depend on what we project onto a given brand or persona that we are conversing with. I generally try to separate my feelings about the company/brand from my feelings about the human being who is standing between me and the company/brand - but I don't always succeed. When we are really angry about something, it is difficult to avoid being rude or sarcastic to the junior employee that picks up the phone, even when we know it's not really their fault. Conversely, if the sales assistant is charming enough, it is tempting to buy something we don't really need.

Of course the CEO never picks up the phone herself. Funny that. When I'm conversing with the Virgin brand, I may fondly imagine that I'm getting Richard Branson's personal attention, but there is a little voice inside my head saying that's unlikely.

There is of course one thing that is likely to make me very unhappy indeed. Suppose I am naive enough to imagine I am having a personal conversation with Richard Branson or Richard Soley. Then the screen falls over and I see it is just some little functionary and not the Wizard of Oz at all. Isn't that just going to annoy me? Isn't it Richard, isn't it? #OMG.

Kettle Logic

In the muddled thinking of inconsistent excuses, Freud's example of the borrowed kettle provides a perfect example. Hence the name kettle logic.

1. I never borrowed a kettle from you
2. And anyway I returned it to you unbroken
3. And anyway the kettle was already broken when I got it from you.

This kind of logic is one of the characteristic features of defensive denial, which I identify as one of the symptoms of organizational stupidity. I should welcome some more specific examples of this kind of argument, especially in a business organization setting.


Update (October 2018). In his writings on the current American president, Jeet Heer reminds us that the phrase was developed by Jacques Derrida, riffing on Freud’s original idea.


Update (May 2020)

This is known in Israel as the "I haven't got a sister" defence.

Claim: Your sister damaged my kettle.

"My sister never touched your kettle" .
"The kettle was damaged already" .
"I haven't got a sister."@ComplicatedGame@ShunraCat@BanterBernie @JohnFordBlagger https://t.co/RKXPSpMK1D

— Mira Bar-Hillel (@mirabarhillel) May 24, 2020

---

Examples

Here is Fake Steve Jobs defending the iPhone: "I want to go on record saying this: There is no “antenna problem” on the iPhone 4, and we’re not going to fix anything, because nothing needs to be fixed".(And although FSJ must of course be regarded as satire and not a fair account of Apple's true position on design flaws, the reason this kind of satire touches a raw nerve is that a corporate self-image (identity) based around design perfection can easily result in this kind of denial - "it couldn't happen to us" and "because we are so brilliant, critics will always latch onto the most trivial issue" and "of course we aren't perfect (yes we are)". See Apple Is "Not Perfect," Says Steve Jobs, New York Times via Slate, 16 July 2010. It would be interesting to explore in more detail the links between denial and identity. )

In a recent case of public lewdness and adultery, the accused woman denied she and her lover were having sex, and said anyway they had chosen a picnic table out of the view of others in the park [Daily Mail 9 June 2010].

In politics, Slavoj Žižek uses this schema to understand WMD in Iraq as well as Islamic holocaust denial (via Alain), while Phil Edwards writes about Tony Blair and our relation to his unconscious.

Debaters often accuse their opponents of using kettle logic. For example, in evangelist debating circles, Robert Price attacks Josh McDowell while Jon attacks William Lane Craig. See also Pagan Origins of the Christian Myth.

Me on Trump, "kettle logic," Freud, Derrida and Zizek: https://t.co/MUap0hArJ2

— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) November 28, 2016

Jeet Heer, Trump’s Lies Destroy Logic As Well As Truth (New Republic, 28 November 2016), How Freud’s kettle logic explains Trump’s incoherent story on Michael Flynn (New Republic, 2017), In his response to tape allegations, Trump remains the master of kettle logic (New Republic, 2018)

Saudi kettle logic:

1) Jamal Khashoggi is not dead, he went home, maybe he's lost;
2) Jamal Khashoggi is dead, but he died accidentally;
3) Jamal Khashoggi was killed, we vow to find the killers & hold them responsible.
*4) I'm sorry, it seems we killed him brutally.

— Akira Mizuta Lippit (@alippit) October 19, 2018

---

Wikipedia: Kettle Logic

Related posts: Intelligence Failures at Barclays Bank (Aug 2012), Defensive Denial (June 2014)


Updated 25 May 2020

Shakespeare on Identity Theft

On the Loss of Two CDs by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs containing the Records of 25 Million Taxpayers and their Children.

Shall I compare thee to a string of digits?
Thou art more personal and more private.
Rough Humphreys doth quiz the Darling on Today,
And Gordon's lease hath all too short a date.
Sometime too close the eye of Google shines,
And oft is gold from banking accounts skimmed;
And every mother’s maiden name declines,
By chance, or nature's changing course untrimmed.
But thy perfect database shall not leak
Nor lose possession of that CD they sent;
Nor shall the hacker spam and phish and phreak,
When with eternal ID card thou went,
So long as cars have chips and streets have CCTV,
So long lives your identity, and this gives life to thee.

Sources: BBC News, The Register, Robin Wilton, Into the Machine.

Double Bluff 2

Barry Briggs worries that the bad guys might get to scan our data, thanks to Passport RFID.

"Achieving international cooperation for RFID encryption would probably never work anyway, and of course there are those nations that would be fine letting the algorithms/decoding chips into the wrong hands."

Now, which nations would those be? In my post Double Bluff (Oct 2005), I commented on the claim that the British security forces deliberately leaked some technologies to the IRA, playing a devious game they thought they could control. These technologies later led to the death of British soldiers in Iraq.

It seems we can't even trust our own side to look after our own security, or to think through the consequences of their actions.


Updated 4 April 2014

Identity Differentiation

Kim Cameron asks

"if there is some blood alcohol level after which informed consent no longer applies?"

According to an informal view of identity, there is some blood alcohol level at which you are no longer the same person. Can a sober person repudiate the past or future actions of his drunk alterego? Or vice versa?

---

I thought this would be a good opportunity to republish some of my earlier notes on Security and Identity and Signatures.

It is not unusual for decisions of trust to make a distinction between different identities of the same person. Let's say I have a friend called John. JOHN-SOBER and JOHN-DRUNK are two different identities, with recognizably different patterns of behaviour and risk. I am happy to lend my car keys to JOHN-SOBER, but not to JOHN-DRUNK.

If a person has a gun to his head, or his children are held hostage, his behaviour is likely to be uncharacteristic. ("You are not yourself today.") Signatures and voice patterns change under stressful conditions, including duress and torture. If this uncharacteristic behaviour is detected at a security checkpoint, then it might be appropriate to hinder a person's entry, until the identity difference is resolved.

This is about a difference in identity, not just a difference in behaviour. I am not refusing John my car keys because of his slurred speech; I am refusing them because he is drunk It may be his slurred speech that alerts me to the fact that he is drunk; but if he convinces me that his slurred speech on this occasion is a result of a visit to the dentist, I may let him have the car keys. Conversely, if he learns to speak normally even when drunk, I shall just have to find a different way to determine when he is drunk and when sober.

After his attempt to blow up the Houses of Parliament, Guy Fawkes was taken to the Tower of London and tortured to extract a confession. His signature - an important token of identity - degenerated under torture, and on his confession it is barely legible. There are serious questions about the validity and authenticity of confessions extracted under torture. The Guy Fawkes example indicates that the identity of the person signing the confession may be brutally transformed by torture, or perhaps even destroyed. We also know that identity and character may be tranformed by brainwashing - which we may sometimes regard as just another more subtle form of violence. In other contexts, identity may be altered by advertising or other modes of influence.

And can Hogwarts parents trust Professor Lupin with the care of their children? Not when there's a full moon. Remus Lupin has two identities - man and werwolf. As man, he is an excellent teacher. As werwolf he is a danger to himself and others. However, the werwolf identity manifests itself only at the full moon; at other times Lupin is perfectly safe. [Hogwarts Security]

Can "user-centric" identity deal with these cases? How does "user-centric" identity deal with context-dependent identity?

Hogwarts Security 2

In my previous post, I suggested that the ineffectual security mechanisms in the Harry Potter books could be read as part of J.K. Rowling's ongoing satire against technology. The books also include a good dose of political satire, regularly presenting the Minister for Magic and his aides in a poor light.

In the Prisoner of Azkaban, Hermione possesses a Time Turner, which allows her to be in two places at once. She and Harry use this device to frustrate the plans of the Ministry of Magic, while retaining a cast-iron alibi. And yet Hermione's possession of the Time Turner had previously been authorized by the Ministry of Magic - presumably by a separate department. Clearly the wizarding world has failed to embrace Joined-Up-Government.

All through the Half-Blood Prince, wizards mock the stupid authentication mechanisms invented by the Ministry of Magic.

"You have not asked me, for instance, what is my favourite flavor of jam, to check that I am indeed Professor Dumbledore and not an imposter, ... although of course, if I were a Death Eater, I would have been sure to research my own jam preferences before impersonating myself."

"I still don't understand why we have to go through that every time you come home. ... I mean, a Death Eater might have forced the answer out of you before impersonating you." "I know, dear, but it's Ministry procedure and I have to set an example."

In my view, Rowling has perfectly captured the kind of bureaucratic panic that causes Government Departments to disseminate such half-baked security schemes.

---

Into The Machine (updated now with a sensible title and a new URL) is an excellent blog documenting the serial follies of the British Home Office. And here is a great video of the British Home Secretary, singing the benefits of the UK Identity Card scheme. [updated to add] ... and I've just discovered this sequel thanks to Robin Wilton.

Musing on identity

originally posted by John

---

ID's a funny thing in as much as it has lots of uses: the wife of a former US ambassador was ID'd (named, outed, revealed) as a long time CIA undercover operative by Bush-puppeteer Karl Rove and had her career ruined and her life put in danger after her husband revealed the actuality of Iraq not buying yellowcake from Niger. In the same context and without considering innocence or guilt, think about what stems from tabloid naming and shaming. Then think about KAL007 the Korean airliner trashed by the Soviets all those years ago for reportedly getting out of line near an overfly boundary. Or the Iranian airliner the US trashed, using similar technology, over the Gulf. Like all aircraft these carried IFF (identification friend or foe) and ID beacons - just as four in the11th Sept squadron did - that are internationally recognised and 'foolproof'. Think about invading a foreign land: if every coalition soldier has an ID card and a set of dog-tags how come there are still deaths from friendly fire? Think about how much ID there is in your cookie jar, then think about who uses it and what they use it for...





John Smith

Identity Cards

The identity card is seen both as a mechanism for Government agencies to provide citizens with some set of services (in a reliable and secure manner), and as a mechanism for Government agencies to perform some set of mandated controls over the citizenry. These objectives naturally conflict, and this is part of the reason for the distrust mentioned by Aidan.



Furthermore, there is a common pattern of service providers distrusting their users/customers. Banks assume all their customers are engaged in money laundering or some other fiddle, while Insurance companies assume all their customers are in a perpetual state of moral hazard, and that all claims are potentially fraudulent.



And yet service providers expect their customers to trust them absolutely - trust them and their staff and their overseas contractors and their extremely complex computer systems. Government agencies are no different in this respect from any other service provider.



This is an example of Asymmetric Trust. See also Finance Industry View of Security.