Negation as Definition
The Economist published a story about “negative databases” in their Science section. This article is worth a read for a few reasons. First, it highlights once again, the depth of the relationship between computer science and philosophy. The databases online that contain our most valuable information are nothing more than implementations of set theory, a broad-ranging field that influences mathematics, philosophy, art, and, of course, computer science.
Another reason the article is worth a read is that, without specifically mentioning it, it discusses a relatively new approach to information security known as translucence. I’m reading a book now by Peter Wayner called “Translucent Databases.” Wayner argues that the majority of the world’s databases are not secure because they don’t implement “translucent” practices. Some examples from the book of these practices are encryption (of course - but he recommends more usage of one-way algorithms to encrypt data), minimization (only storing zip codes instead of full addresses when possible), misdirection (add fake data to the db so that only qualified users will recognize what is “real” and what is not), and equivalence (substituting precise values such as measurements for ’small,’ ‘medium,’ and ‘large’). Taking these simple approaches can go a long to way to prevent identity theft, government spying, and data leaks. Jon Udell has written more than once about the need for organizations to take Wayner’s lessons seriously.
Philosophically speaking, it seems that taking the negative of an object results in a set of objects (required to define what the object is not) larger in quantity than the original object or set of objects. The article also alludes this paradox with this bit:
“Dr Esponda gives the example of a negative survey in which respondents are asked to tick the box of one sexually transmitted disease they do not have. He reckons that this would be sufficient to estimate the population frequency of each disease, without having to ask people whether they actually suffer from such diseases—which is intrusive and also invites lying. As he puts it: ‘In Hindu philosophy, to find out who you are, you ask what are you not. Then you are left with what you are.’”