Tag Archives: Opinion

It’s all about the BATNA

(Image courtesy Ismael Celis under Creative Commons license.)

It seems like there is a constant stream of articles being turned out about how we’re all going to be working in Amazon fulfillment centers and holding in our pee for 12 hours while we dry-swallow bottles of Aleve and live in fear of our slave-driving lower-level warehouse managers.

You can read a lot of these types of articles on sites like the Verge for some reason. (I am beginning to think of them – at least in part – as “nominally ‘tech’ but actually ‘tech pessimism'” sites.)

Meanwhile, there is another – perhaps-less-frequent but still influential – stream of articles about how companies “can’t find” good employees, they “can’t hire”, millennials want “too much” from their employers, Americans “won’t work hard” and “don’t have the necessary skills” for “the future” ™, and so on.

You can probably read these articles in the Wall Street Journal.

The NY Times, that bourgeois rag, will happily run both types of article. (Parts of its demographic hold both views, in some cases simultaneously, and hey, the ads pay either way.)

Unfortunately there is an important concept taken from business negotiation called BATNA that is almost never even mentioned in either type of article – even though it usually explains the behaviors chronicled in the article! I could almost forgive this if the writer had studied journalism and not economics (although not really), but if they have any economics or business background at all it’s just criminal.

What is BATNA though, really? Well you can read the wiki article for more information, but it is an acronym that means “Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement”. In other words, it’s a way of thinking during any type of negotiation about questions of the form “What’s my next best option if this deal falls through?”

For example, if you are an employer with a lot of cash on the balance sheet you can afford to wait a few quarters (or years) until employee wages come down to a level you find more appealing, maybe. If you are a wage-earning employee, you probably cannot. (Not to mention that it’s probably cheaper for companies to have their PR people push articles in the WSJ about how hard it is to hire than it is to just raise wages until hiring picks up.)

P.S. Special thanks to Andrew Kraft, who gave a great talk on BATNA and other related topics a few years back at AppNexus. Without his talk, I might never have heard of this magical acronym.)


Some thoughts about privacy and networked computers

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, privacy is:

a : the quality or state of being apart from company or observation

b : freedom from unauthorized intrusion

Historically, the most common use of this term was around one’s physical space. If you go into a room in your house and close the door, you are experiencing privacy. You are “apart from” others. They cannot see you, hear you, etc.

If you go and sit in your back yard, then depending on the visibility of your back yard to neighbors and passersby, you are experiencing some degree of privacy.

If you send a letter to a friend (the kind that is written on paper and wrapped in an envelope), you have an expectation of privacy in that you expect that your letter will not be read.

In each of these cases, there is a physical barrier that separates the space that you (or your communications) occupy from space that is available for other people to see and observe.

In each of these cases, the physical objects in question do not broadcast information. There is visual information available to any passersby or other residents of the home, but the passerby must take action to look, to seek it out.

It seems that historical notions of privacy have to do with physical presence and a third party must make an effort to transgress a boundary that you have explicitly put in place (a door, wall, envelope, etc.).

Networked computers do not have any of these characteristics!

A networked computer is, in essence, a beacon that is constantly shining in the night. Networked computers constantly transmit information to other computers, and you have to do a lot of work if you want to keep that from happening (and you will probably not succeed anyway, even if you have a lot of relevant expertise). To use the beacon metaphor, it is shining all of the time, you have to do a lot of work to keep it covered up, and any slip of the covering means you will be visible from many miles away.

This flips the notion of what we historically think of as “privacy” completely on its head. Rather than a third party being forced to transgress a boundary to see you in a private room, tear open your letter’s envelope, or jump your backyard fence, the third party running the computer network that you connect to, or the server that your browser connects to, would have to explicitly take action to drop information on the floor that they have already been given.

This is a fundamentally different thing to ask for. In the first case, you are saying, “please don’t cross this physical boundary”. In the second, you are saying “I am sending you this information, but please don’t read it. Well actually, that won’t work — you will have to read it to provide me the service I’m asking for. But after providing the service, please go back and erase the information. Definitely don’t store it anywhere.”

Whereas in the first case you were asking the third party to simply avoid a behavior, in the second case you are asking the third party to do work on your behalf. This is going to be fundamentally harder to accomplish, and you really need to understand that you are asking someone else to do something for you. Implied in asking someone else to do work on your behalf is that they are not obligated to do that work, except under certain conditions or relationships.

You almost certainly do not enjoy these conditions or relationships with network operators, computer manufacturers, the writers of web browsing software, web applications, or advertising technology. You are not in a position to demand extra work from these entities.

Another way of looking at it is: given a possibility space of all behaviors in the physical realm, traditional privacy just carves out a small area of the total space and says “don’t go here”. It looks like this:


Given the possibility space of all of the behaviors that can be engaged in by networked computers, “privacy” carves out an area of the total space and says “you will have to go here at least once to provide me with network connectivity and other services, but I want you to then take a second pass over that area and erase/drop the information you collected during the first pass”.


I hope the above explains why I do not really like or agree with the use of the word “privacy” in discussions about computers. It’s the wrong word. I don’t know if we even have a word for what we need going forward.