About informational freedom
What is an integral part of life? Of course the freedom of this life is its essential characteristic. But if earlier, in the times before history and in the first part of history, life could be bound by metal chains, now it is bound by a new form of enslavement: information chains. Just as God's slaves are subject to higher spiritual forces, since they are informationally open to them, they cannot hide anything from all-seeing eyes above, even today people, regardless of religion, are open to the eyes of satellites, without being tired of removing earthly space and the objects and subjects on it. But this is not the worst thing, because the sounds of negotiations, texts, photos and almost anything, presented and expressed in digital form, are also open. And in it today almost everything or much is expressed. But who are the new gods of the information society: people, servers or authorities? And did the ideologues of an open society and the information space dream of such an “open” society, creating a worldwide network?
This is a famous funny pun related to openness. On the one hand, this is interoperability, the ability to be mutually expressed for various systems. Yes, simply and precisely the ability. However, this openness does not cancel confidentiality There should never be openness without the desire for this openness. Often, it turns out to be either hidden openness or one-sided.
The emerging trend is becoming threatening, because much has been technologically done to ensure information transparency from the technical side, different systems have more and more opportunities for effective data exchange and this process is already difficult to stop, while control over data dissemination seems to be on the plane of public relations, who seem to be in the role of catch-up. Without a change in the situation, soon people may find themselves without personal space, abandoning their freedom imperceptibly to themselves, as has usually happened in history.
Under the hidden "openness" can be understood a situation where the exchange of information is carried out, but without the knowledge of the owners. Such “openness” is well known in everyday life, when part of the information is transmitted non-verbally. Without conscious control, it is necessary for communication. It is in this uncontrolled form that it is naturally necessary for communication. There is nothing surprising. Surprise occurs when the hidden "openness" appears in communication through the network. But why does it seem unnatural? It should be noted that the hidden openness can be both in relation to consciousness, and in relation to the general field of human perception, in which both the conscious, and the unconscious and superconscious sides are involved. Of course, one thing is to feel this openness, in principle, exercising general conscious control, physically, including visually, interacting with a person or a group of people, and another thing is when the interlocutor is not visible, or when it is not known whether someone is collecting information. After all, too often this collection is carried out not by people, but by software-silicon-metal complexes.
Instead of the traditional hidden openness associated with secrecy in relation to the conscious part of interaction in the conditions of the visual-atmospheric environment, today there is a hidden openness in an environment that conveys to the end users, that is, people, only a small part of the information. The point here is that the information exchange in computer networks includes many hidden levels, in the end, of course, also reduced to the form of physical signals, which, however, users have only a very general idea. There is no image of this medium of metal or plastic wire or electromagnetic waves, similar to the image of the atmosphere, air, nature, sound. Instead, the illusory external image of the device looks like attractive in the form of a back cover, soft wire braid or thoughtful key roughness. Which, of course, has nothing to do with information processes. Creating such an image is similar to creating an image of a New Year tree instead of the image of an ordinary tree in the forest (as if all the trees are dressed up), flavoring the air on the entire planet into one that seems appropriate at the moment. But this is also natural, because a more familiar form of information exchange in nature is other channels, rather than electromagnetic waves or beams of light emitted at an incredible speed. This can be represented as a paradox, when the wire smells more importantly than how much data can be transmitted through it (which, of course, ends with various fragrant and multi-colored and gold-plated wires sticking out of the computer, through which nothing is transmitted).
')
In any case, the mimicry of computer networks for users seems as terrible as the grimaces of gorillas. New levels of the computer subconscious and supraconscious (administrator) leave modern users lonely clogging into the corner where the conscious is in the form of a graphical pseudo-interface or a text-less interface. Hidden openness turns out to be at the mercy of technology and those who follow or do not follow the order in the operation of this technology and the semantic content of these people who manage networks (administrators). This order already seems natural when users remove their rights as well as their responsibilities for computer networks, as if they are fencing off their minds from them. But this is just a terrible illusion, which already lies in the area of ​​the second type of “openness” - one-sided.
One-sided "openness" occurs when there is a targeted collection of information from one of the parties. For example, owners of electronic resources may collect information about users without the knowledge of the latter, ranging from search queries to ending preferences in music and people. Such “openness” originates from the moment the user “gets acquainted” with the computing machine: he uses it, trying not to delve into how it operates. But one thing is if the user is driving the car, or is holding an iron or a chainsaw in his hands, without representing the features of these devices, and another thing if he is dealing with a data processor and transmitter, much of which is confidential, because with the help of these devices he will do nothing more than communicate with people, including the closest. But here's the problem: in addition to communication, you will need to somehow record, collect and save all this data. And where, by what means, why and for whom, the user, of course, is hardly interested. He just may not think about it, or trust in the integrity and law-abiding, ethical, and much more from well-known manufacturers.
Of course, users today have some idea of ​​the risks associated with informational openness, only almost everyone seems ready for the fact that for our own safety, all information about them will be stored and analyzed in a safe place. Or not? We have to assert, due to well-known circumstances, that they do not, but we don’t have much choice either. After all, you need to use modern devices, and there seems to be nothing special in personal correspondence ... For one reason or another, for users (and not only for them), it is surprising how much information sometimes falls into the hands of evil network owners, portals , companies, states, simple or complex malware.
In all such cases, one-sided “openness” appears in various forms, often requiring first formal agreement with 130 pages of text, which is designed, of course, for lawyers from Harvard, or initially being hidden unmanaged openness, only with time making "improvements" to the system). The opposite situation is also possible: when the user gets access to the information system of a large information network (for example, a bank). But for some reason, such users are considered illegal upstarts that violate the “well-established” order. Yes, it turns out that the order of impunity of data collection by large “sharks” with informational influence persists.
There is also another form of “openness” when information is collected without the knowledge of all participants in the interaction, that is, espionage. The interaction of subjects of espionage is limited, it can mean for them the failure of the operation, or they can be masked and interact without disclosing the fact of collecting information without the knowledge of the other party (s). In the latter case, there is essentially a one-sided “openness” (although a very special case is possible when both parties follow each other without knowing each other), while in the first case “openness” remains hidden for the subjects of interaction.
With all this, it is easy to see that in the case of natural interaction without the use of technology, people do not know exactly how they convey information. However, millions of years in nature have been developed ideas about the features of this communication, a kind of practical knowledge by trial and error, as well as understanding and understanding what is happening. Such ancient espionage techniques (while maintaining the latent openness of interaction, that is, openness to third eyes and ears, as well as to one’s own subconscious), such as eavesdropping and peeking underlie the development of natural communities. However, they are mainly used in situations of armed conflict. (It is difficult to say whether it is true that the conscious and the subconscious are in such a conflict, but it can be assumed that they are also). But after all, people and animals almost certainly know how, under what circumstances and who can observe them. And here begins an interesting picture. Of course, animals can no longer do this with respect to modern technical means, with the help of which people manage to spy on them or use one-sided openness. But people find themselves in similar conditions: they also cannot imagine all these circumstances without having all the knowledge about modern rapidly developing social life. Of course, people, like animals, retain a certain degree of freedom, because they can still use “openness” in relation to the subconscious, while animals collect a lot of information that is not accessible to people with the help of highly sensitive organs.
And if animals are free in their ignorance of the peculiarities and knowledge of the established order, within which “hidden” and especially “one-sided” openness are life-threatening, then people are subordinated and constrained by the openness of information about themselves without their own knowledge and desire. However, it was necessary to write “animals were free” in the previous sentence, because today information and about them in large volumes are collected and analyzed, but they fundamentally cannot provide information about themselves and do not enter it into any devices of their own accord (probably , with the exception of some laboratory experiments, if we consider the presence of a similarity of feelings of will and freedom in animals), because they are only limited they can do otherwise. People whose society has created a variety of devices and methods for processing information would have to be able to manage the amount of information provided, but instead are often at the mercy of third parties.
At first, people were subordinated to the will of other groups of people who carried out physical coercion, demanded that any actions be performed or not performed by slaves, voluntarily or as a result of conflicts. Then actions began to be carried out not by hands, but by other means, and, it would seem, the problem of slavery disappeared. In the end, instead of disposing of all life, the owners of non-slaves had to be content only with the right to some strictly limited actions. But here comes the key word for information freedom: confidentiality. Confidential means personal, associated with the space or degrees of freedom possessed by a person, group, public or supra-public organization. Without privacy, people are able to turn into information slaves (to lose their identity and personal): all their actions will be available for analysis and viewing without restrictions. The availability of this information makes it possible to manipulate people, which humankind has not known since the prohibition of physical slavery (which, however, did not take place a long time ago, and in some places still lasts).
In contrast to direct slavery, information slavery can be called indirect, since it is based on an electronic network for data transmission. It's simple: losing or replacing their traditional communication environment, people enter a territory they are unfamiliar with, within which, as it turns out, information about them is “open” without their knowledge. The problem is that this environment is not a passive physical natural environment, but instead the human factor is the basis for its functioning. The most interesting thing is that in this environment there are traps, with the help of which free and “free” resources turn out to be cells for collecting information about users (starting from places providing free communication, for which collecting and selling information about users, including by displaying ads based on preferences). People in the new environment may try to become anonymous, enter data without revealing themselves, however, their data does not cease to be stored in one place, they continue to use the means for communication with inevitably keeping information in their databases, starting with a phone number and ending with account information. by recording on the page. In fact, this anonymity does not boil down to the exclusion of openness, but only introduces additional difficulties, just as if 2 persons in masks had a meeting before the eavesdropping.
What, then, is true openness, which can become the basis of a harmonious information society? Spying on people of our own society or other societies to ensure the security of the state is in reality informational totalitarianism. If the state has a will, then it will embody it on the basis of available information. If she has information about all people, she will embody her will towards all people. From time immemorial, everything was back: people could speak at meetings of their own accord, at a gathering of a tribe or a city-state. As far as is known today, never had the technology of eavesdropping and spying on neighboring villages and houses were the basis of the development of societies, at least voluntary development. But just as physical slavery became an obstacle for development at a certain stage, so today the subordination of information is no longer the first state to become a brake and a threat to development.
It’s not surprising to anyone today that people should voluntarily choose what to do with them and what they don’t, and the limitations in our time lie more in the speculative area, in the field of knowledge and upbringing. And the key area of ​​restrictions is the information space, which is not as harmless as it seems at first glance. It is like a mysterious forest, in which at first it seems that no one is watching, and the person who has entered is not involved in the game with the unknown, while thousands of eyes are already watching him, and many creatures have already established a state of hidden openness.
One of the answers to the question of information transparency will be the use of ethical standards. After all, the forms of “openness” are essentially manifestations of illegal actions, a violation of the rights to a personal space, whatever the gauges of this space. Individual freedom in the new conditions may simply disappear, since any informational action becomes controlled. It is ethical not to interfere in the actions of people without their desire. If we develop information systems starting from this principle, then perhaps the systems will not be a threat to the life and health of people. On the other hand, people should be able to decide what they are ready to spill out of their consciousness, and what to keep in it, as well as which of their negotiations are open and which should remain secret. Therefore, in any system, the boundaries for which data cannot be distributed without the additional permission of the user should be first delineated.
In addition, in modern applications, privacy functions are not common, which would allow to increase security, quickly select and delete certain messages or other data (which the user considers confidential). Similar mechanisms are not common in information standards and systems. Although the activity of all modern systems is based on ensuring confidentiality, after all, it begins with the input of passwords or fingerprints, but this seems strange and burdensome to many users. But entering passwords is inherently confidential only conditionally, of course, this protects data from being accessed without the user's desire, but it’s more like protection against quick hacking, from other users, like a lock on a door to a house or in a car. The sadness of the situation is that if the hacking of a car or an apartment is likely to remain noticed by the owner, the loss of electronic data protection may go unnoticed, and copying the data leaves much less evidence than the physical removal of equipment and furniture.
However, first of all, in order to become free in the information society, a person must independently realize that he is free, understand and experience this freedom. Realizing and outlining the zone of openness, a person receives freedom in return, just as slaves are able to get freedom, outlining the possibilities of applying their physical and mental forces, and then realizing these possibilities. That is, openness is similar to the realm of physical interaction with the world. If a person defines it independently, proceeding from consciously interacting with the world, then he is free, but if not, then he is not free, regardless of where this border lies. Like a home in a physical environment, the information boundary, while not protecting against any invasion, will save you from unreasonable encroachment on confidentiality.
Here you can cite another interesting observation: by erecting a fence a person can show his closeness and the conventionality of the existence of freedom in society. Traveling to different countries, we find fences and walls of different heights and technical properties. They determine the desire of the owner. The general trend can be called the fact that with greater openness the size and strength of the fence decreases. However, the existence of a hostile environment requires a barrier.That is, only in conditions of mutual openness, and not “openness,” is it possible to build open interaction in the information environment.
, , . - ? , , . , , . , , .
, . . . : - , . , .
( ). , , , , , , . , , , , ( , ).
, , , , , , , . , , , . , , . , , , , (), «» ( , ). , , « ».
, , , , , , , . , ( ), . -- .
, , - (), , . , . , . . , , , , . . -, , . , , . , .
«» , . , , , . , ( ), , . . ( ), .
, , , . , . . , ( , , , , , , ).
, , , — , . , . , , . .
, , , , . . , , , . - - , , . , , , . - , .
, , - , . , , , . . . . , . : , .
, , , , , , , , .
, : , . , , ( , )?
. : , , , , , , , , . ?
, , . , , , , . , , — . , . , .
, , . , .
, , . , , , . . , . , ( ). . , , , , , , , .
This is a famous funny pun related to openness. On the one hand, this is interoperability, the ability to be mutually expressed for various systems. Yes, simply and precisely the ability. However, this openness does not cancel confidentiality There should never be openness without the desire for this openness. Often, it turns out to be either hidden openness or one-sided.
The emerging trend is becoming threatening, because much has been technologically done to ensure information transparency from the technical side, different systems have more and more opportunities for effective data exchange and this process is already difficult to stop, while control over data dissemination seems to be on the plane of public relations, who seem to be in the role of catch-up. Without a change in the situation, soon people may find themselves without personal space, abandoning their freedom imperceptibly to themselves, as has usually happened in history.
Forms of "openness"
Under the hidden "openness" can be understood a situation where the exchange of information is carried out, but without the knowledge of the owners. Such “openness” is well known in everyday life, when part of the information is transmitted non-verbally. Without conscious control, it is necessary for communication. It is in this uncontrolled form that it is naturally necessary for communication. There is nothing surprising. Surprise occurs when the hidden "openness" appears in communication through the network. But why does it seem unnatural? It should be noted that the hidden openness can be both in relation to consciousness, and in relation to the general field of human perception, in which both the conscious, and the unconscious and superconscious sides are involved. Of course, one thing is to feel this openness, in principle, exercising general conscious control, physically, including visually, interacting with a person or a group of people, and another thing is when the interlocutor is not visible, or when it is not known whether someone is collecting information. After all, too often this collection is carried out not by people, but by software-silicon-metal complexes.
Instead of the traditional hidden openness associated with secrecy in relation to the conscious part of interaction in the conditions of the visual-atmospheric environment, today there is a hidden openness in an environment that conveys to the end users, that is, people, only a small part of the information. The point here is that the information exchange in computer networks includes many hidden levels, in the end, of course, also reduced to the form of physical signals, which, however, users have only a very general idea. There is no image of this medium of metal or plastic wire or electromagnetic waves, similar to the image of the atmosphere, air, nature, sound. Instead, the illusory external image of the device looks like attractive in the form of a back cover, soft wire braid or thoughtful key roughness. Which, of course, has nothing to do with information processes. Creating such an image is similar to creating an image of a New Year tree instead of the image of an ordinary tree in the forest (as if all the trees are dressed up), flavoring the air on the entire planet into one that seems appropriate at the moment. But this is also natural, because a more familiar form of information exchange in nature is other channels, rather than electromagnetic waves or beams of light emitted at an incredible speed. This can be represented as a paradox, when the wire smells more importantly than how much data can be transmitted through it (which, of course, ends with various fragrant and multi-colored and gold-plated wires sticking out of the computer, through which nothing is transmitted).
')
In any case, the mimicry of computer networks for users seems as terrible as the grimaces of gorillas. New levels of the computer subconscious and supraconscious (administrator) leave modern users lonely clogging into the corner where the conscious is in the form of a graphical pseudo-interface or a text-less interface. Hidden openness turns out to be at the mercy of technology and those who follow or do not follow the order in the operation of this technology and the semantic content of these people who manage networks (administrators). This order already seems natural when users remove their rights as well as their responsibilities for computer networks, as if they are fencing off their minds from them. But this is just a terrible illusion, which already lies in the area of ​​the second type of “openness” - one-sided.
One-sided "openness" occurs when there is a targeted collection of information from one of the parties. For example, owners of electronic resources may collect information about users without the knowledge of the latter, ranging from search queries to ending preferences in music and people. Such “openness” originates from the moment the user “gets acquainted” with the computing machine: he uses it, trying not to delve into how it operates. But one thing is if the user is driving the car, or is holding an iron or a chainsaw in his hands, without representing the features of these devices, and another thing if he is dealing with a data processor and transmitter, much of which is confidential, because with the help of these devices he will do nothing more than communicate with people, including the closest. But here's the problem: in addition to communication, you will need to somehow record, collect and save all this data. And where, by what means, why and for whom, the user, of course, is hardly interested. He just may not think about it, or trust in the integrity and law-abiding, ethical, and much more from well-known manufacturers.
Of course, users today have some idea of ​​the risks associated with informational openness, only almost everyone seems ready for the fact that for our own safety, all information about them will be stored and analyzed in a safe place. Or not? We have to assert, due to well-known circumstances, that they do not, but we don’t have much choice either. After all, you need to use modern devices, and there seems to be nothing special in personal correspondence ... For one reason or another, for users (and not only for them), it is surprising how much information sometimes falls into the hands of evil network owners, portals , companies, states, simple or complex malware.
In all such cases, one-sided “openness” appears in various forms, often requiring first formal agreement with 130 pages of text, which is designed, of course, for lawyers from Harvard, or initially being hidden unmanaged openness, only with time making "improvements" to the system). The opposite situation is also possible: when the user gets access to the information system of a large information network (for example, a bank). But for some reason, such users are considered illegal upstarts that violate the “well-established” order. Yes, it turns out that the order of impunity of data collection by large “sharks” with informational influence persists.
There is also another form of “openness” when information is collected without the knowledge of all participants in the interaction, that is, espionage. The interaction of subjects of espionage is limited, it can mean for them the failure of the operation, or they can be masked and interact without disclosing the fact of collecting information without the knowledge of the other party (s). In the latter case, there is essentially a one-sided “openness” (although a very special case is possible when both parties follow each other without knowing each other), while in the first case “openness” remains hidden for the subjects of interaction.
Techniques and cells
With all this, it is easy to see that in the case of natural interaction without the use of technology, people do not know exactly how they convey information. However, millions of years in nature have been developed ideas about the features of this communication, a kind of practical knowledge by trial and error, as well as understanding and understanding what is happening. Such ancient espionage techniques (while maintaining the latent openness of interaction, that is, openness to third eyes and ears, as well as to one’s own subconscious), such as eavesdropping and peeking underlie the development of natural communities. However, they are mainly used in situations of armed conflict. (It is difficult to say whether it is true that the conscious and the subconscious are in such a conflict, but it can be assumed that they are also). But after all, people and animals almost certainly know how, under what circumstances and who can observe them. And here begins an interesting picture. Of course, animals can no longer do this with respect to modern technical means, with the help of which people manage to spy on them or use one-sided openness. But people find themselves in similar conditions: they also cannot imagine all these circumstances without having all the knowledge about modern rapidly developing social life. Of course, people, like animals, retain a certain degree of freedom, because they can still use “openness” in relation to the subconscious, while animals collect a lot of information that is not accessible to people with the help of highly sensitive organs.
And if animals are free in their ignorance of the peculiarities and knowledge of the established order, within which “hidden” and especially “one-sided” openness are life-threatening, then people are subordinated and constrained by the openness of information about themselves without their own knowledge and desire. However, it was necessary to write “animals were free” in the previous sentence, because today information and about them in large volumes are collected and analyzed, but they fundamentally cannot provide information about themselves and do not enter it into any devices of their own accord (probably , with the exception of some laboratory experiments, if we consider the presence of a similarity of feelings of will and freedom in animals), because they are only limited they can do otherwise. People whose society has created a variety of devices and methods for processing information would have to be able to manage the amount of information provided, but instead are often at the mercy of third parties.
At first, people were subordinated to the will of other groups of people who carried out physical coercion, demanded that any actions be performed or not performed by slaves, voluntarily or as a result of conflicts. Then actions began to be carried out not by hands, but by other means, and, it would seem, the problem of slavery disappeared. In the end, instead of disposing of all life, the owners of non-slaves had to be content only with the right to some strictly limited actions. But here comes the key word for information freedom: confidentiality. Confidential means personal, associated with the space or degrees of freedom possessed by a person, group, public or supra-public organization. Without privacy, people are able to turn into information slaves (to lose their identity and personal): all their actions will be available for analysis and viewing without restrictions. The availability of this information makes it possible to manipulate people, which humankind has not known since the prohibition of physical slavery (which, however, did not take place a long time ago, and in some places still lasts).
In contrast to direct slavery, information slavery can be called indirect, since it is based on an electronic network for data transmission. It's simple: losing or replacing their traditional communication environment, people enter a territory they are unfamiliar with, within which, as it turns out, information about them is “open” without their knowledge. The problem is that this environment is not a passive physical natural environment, but instead the human factor is the basis for its functioning. The most interesting thing is that in this environment there are traps, with the help of which free and “free” resources turn out to be cells for collecting information about users (starting from places providing free communication, for which collecting and selling information about users, including by displaying ads based on preferences). People in the new environment may try to become anonymous, enter data without revealing themselves, however, their data does not cease to be stored in one place, they continue to use the means for communication with inevitably keeping information in their databases, starting with a phone number and ending with account information. by recording on the page. In fact, this anonymity does not boil down to the exclusion of openness, but only introduces additional difficulties, just as if 2 persons in masks had a meeting before the eavesdropping.
What, then, is true openness, which can become the basis of a harmonious information society? Spying on people of our own society or other societies to ensure the security of the state is in reality informational totalitarianism. If the state has a will, then it will embody it on the basis of available information. If she has information about all people, she will embody her will towards all people. From time immemorial, everything was back: people could speak at meetings of their own accord, at a gathering of a tribe or a city-state. As far as is known today, never had the technology of eavesdropping and spying on neighboring villages and houses were the basis of the development of societies, at least voluntary development. But just as physical slavery became an obstacle for development at a certain stage, so today the subordination of information is no longer the first state to become a brake and a threat to development.
It’s not surprising to anyone today that people should voluntarily choose what to do with them and what they don’t, and the limitations in our time lie more in the speculative area, in the field of knowledge and upbringing. And the key area of ​​restrictions is the information space, which is not as harmless as it seems at first glance. It is like a mysterious forest, in which at first it seems that no one is watching, and the person who has entered is not involved in the game with the unknown, while thousands of eyes are already watching him, and many creatures have already established a state of hidden openness.
Where is the openness?
One of the answers to the question of information transparency will be the use of ethical standards. After all, the forms of “openness” are essentially manifestations of illegal actions, a violation of the rights to a personal space, whatever the gauges of this space. Individual freedom in the new conditions may simply disappear, since any informational action becomes controlled. It is ethical not to interfere in the actions of people without their desire. If we develop information systems starting from this principle, then perhaps the systems will not be a threat to the life and health of people. On the other hand, people should be able to decide what they are ready to spill out of their consciousness, and what to keep in it, as well as which of their negotiations are open and which should remain secret. Therefore, in any system, the boundaries for which data cannot be distributed without the additional permission of the user should be first delineated.
In addition, in modern applications, privacy functions are not common, which would allow to increase security, quickly select and delete certain messages or other data (which the user considers confidential). Similar mechanisms are not common in information standards and systems. Although the activity of all modern systems is based on ensuring confidentiality, after all, it begins with the input of passwords or fingerprints, but this seems strange and burdensome to many users. But entering passwords is inherently confidential only conditionally, of course, this protects data from being accessed without the user's desire, but it’s more like protection against quick hacking, from other users, like a lock on a door to a house or in a car. The sadness of the situation is that if the hacking of a car or an apartment is likely to remain noticed by the owner, the loss of electronic data protection may go unnoticed, and copying the data leaves much less evidence than the physical removal of equipment and furniture.
However, first of all, in order to become free in the information society, a person must independently realize that he is free, understand and experience this freedom. Realizing and outlining the zone of openness, a person receives freedom in return, just as slaves are able to get freedom, outlining the possibilities of applying their physical and mental forces, and then realizing these possibilities. That is, openness is similar to the realm of physical interaction with the world. If a person defines it independently, proceeding from consciously interacting with the world, then he is free, but if not, then he is not free, regardless of where this border lies. Like a home in a physical environment, the information boundary, while not protecting against any invasion, will save you from unreasonable encroachment on confidentiality.
Here you can cite another interesting observation: by erecting a fence a person can show his closeness and the conventionality of the existence of freedom in society. Traveling to different countries, we find fences and walls of different heights and technical properties. They determine the desire of the owner. The general trend can be called the fact that with greater openness the size and strength of the fence decreases. However, the existence of a hostile environment requires a barrier.That is, only in conditions of mutual openness, and not “openness,” is it possible to build open interaction in the information environment.
, , . - ? , , . , , . , , .
, . . . : - , . , .
( ). , , , , , , . , , , , ( , ).
, , , , , , , . , , , . , , . , , , , (), «» ( , ). , , « ».
, , , , , , , . , ( ), . -- .
, , - (), , . , . , . . , , , , . . -, , . , , . , .
«» , . , , , . , ( ), , . . ( ), .
, , , . , . . , ( , , , , , , ).
, , , — , . , . , , . .
?
, , , , . . , , , . - - , , . , , , . - , .
, , - , . , , , . . . . , . : , .
, , , , , , , , .
, : , . , , ( , )?
. : , , , , , , , , . ?
, , . , , , , . , , — . , . , .
, , . , .
, , . , , , . . , . , ( ). . , , , , , , , .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/200888/
All Articles