I heard it from Mike Williams, when he had his professor of computer science hat on! Here's how he said it:

If it is there, but you can't see it, it is transparent. If it isn't there, but you see it, it is virtual. If it is there, and you see it, it is real.

For the purposes of symmetry, what if something is not there and you can't see it?

If it isn't there and you can't see it, you're ok. David

Dear Tom, I believe this is from an old 1978 poster that IBM released dealing with virtual memory. It is sometimes attributed to Scott Hammer, who worked at William and Mary before I got here as a graduate student. Here is him explaining that this is the first time he saw it: http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/92q3/seeit.html Hope that helps. Sincerely, Nabeel Siddiqui On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 11:02 AM, James Cortada <jcortada@umn.edu> wrote:

By the way, Mike is alive and well. Mike can you pipe in and confirm. This is a fabulous insight and expression. It should be quoted frequently!!

Cheers.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 9:24 AM, David Hemmendinger <hemmendd@union.edu> wrote:

...

...

I heard it from Mike Williams, when he had his professor of computer science hat on! Here's how he said it:

If it is there, but you can't see it, it is transparent. If it isn't there, but you see it, it is virtual. If it is there, and you see it, it is real.

For the purposes of symmetry, what if something is not there and you can't see it?

If it isn't there and you can't see it, you're ok.

David _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members

-- James W. Cortada Senior Research Fellow Charles Babbage Institute University of Minnesota jcortada@umn.edu 608-274-6382

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members

It is actually the policy version of “transparency” that prompted me to remember the quote. (Thanks to all those who responded). Journalism sociologist/historian Michael Schudson from Columbia University was visiting our Social Studies of Information group at UWM last week and speaking on the “Origins of Transparency” which he located in the 1960s/70s developments of the Freedom of Information Act, public disclosure of EPA impact statements, etc. However, contrary to Matthew’s point, it seemed to me that the meanings are actually opposite in the two areas. Something that is “transparent” in CS is invisible – you look right through it without seeing it. In the political sense, a “transparent” process is one where all the details are visible to the public. It seems to me that the CS sense is a more intuitive use of the metaphor. Making a political process transparent would literally mean that you see straight through it to whatever is behind it, but also that the process itself is invisible. When we talk about making the workings of government transparent the metaphor somehow seems to have mutated to mean the opposite. Tom From: matthew.battles@gmail.com [mailto:matthew.battles@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Matthew Battles Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 5:26 AM To: Nabeel Siddiqui Cc: James Cortada; thaigh@computer.org; sigcis Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Virtuality versus transprency -- trying to locate a quote about the difference All this does have me wondering about the internet-and-society field's interest in, and advocacy for, a certain kind of "transparency" in civil discourse shares lineage with transparency in the comp-sci sense, to the effect that transparency (in the sense of openness and publicness of bureaucratic or deliberative decision-making process) is a quality that can be produced and modified computationally. There is an ideological disposition there to see government as a kind of social UTM upon which different norms, beliefs, and commitments may be run like so many lines of code... On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Nabeel Siddiqui <nasiddiqui@email.wm.edu> wrote: Dear Tom, I believe this is from an old 1978 poster that IBM released dealing with virtual memory. It is sometimes attributed to Scott Hammer, who worked at William and Mary before I got here as a graduate student. Here is him explaining that this is the first time he saw it: http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/92q3/seeit.html Hope that helps. Sincerely, Nabeel Siddiqui On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 11:02 AM, James Cortada <jcortada@umn.edu> wrote: By the way, Mike is alive and well. Mike can you pipe in and confirm. This is a fabulous insight and expression. It should be quoted frequently!! Cheers. On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 9:24 AM, David Hemmendinger <hemmendd@union.edu> wrote:

I heard it from Mike Williams, when he had his professor of computer science hat on! Here's how he said it:

If it is there, but you can't see it, it is transparent. If it isn't there, but you see it, it is virtual. If it is there, and you see it, it is real.

For the purposes of symmetry, what if something is not there and you can't see it?

If it isn't there and you can't see it, you're ok. David _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members -- James W. Cortada Senior Research Fellow Charles Babbage Institute University of Minnesota jcortada@umn.edu 608-274-6382 _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members -- matthew battles associate director, <http://metalab.harvard.edu/> metaLAB (at) harvard fellow, <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu> berkman center for internet and society twitter = @matthewbattles <http://twitter.com/matthewbattles> Image removed by sender.

Putting on my hat as someone trained as a political historian: Tom's point on the divergent meaning is an interesting one. I've enjoyed this thread. As I understand the derivation of transparency in a U.S. political context, the origins lie with a metaphor centered on doors and windows, open versus closed. Traditional machine politics -- Tammany Hall, smoke-filled back rooms, handshake deals out of sight of voters, reporters, etc. -- is obscured to the external observer by walls. Transparency here is akin to the Progressive-Era notion of a window permitting light to stream through. What you're making permeable to vision is the barrier external scrutiny, revealing the innerworkings. In government, optimal transparency means you're supposed to see the workings as they're in motion, but you are still outside the structure. I'd liken Henri Bergson's thirties-era theorization of an "open society" as the "glass-bottom boat model of democracy." In a truly open society, the citizen can see all the fishies but doesn't have to get wet. --AMM -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Andrew Meade McGee Corcoran Department of History University of Virginia PO Box 400180 - Nau Hall Charlottesville, VA 22904 On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Thomas Haigh <thaigh@computer.org> wrote:

It is actually the policy version of “transparency” that prompted me to remember the quote. (Thanks to all those who responded). Journalism sociologist/historian Michael Schudson from Columbia University was visiting our Social Studies of Information group at UWM last week and speaking on the “Origins of Transparency” which he located in the 1960s/70s developments of the Freedom of Information Act, public disclosure of EPA impact statements, etc.

However, contrary to Matthew’s point, it seemed to me that the meanings are actually opposite in the two areas. Something that is “transparent” in CS is invisible – you look right through it without seeing it. In the political sense, a “transparent” process is one where all the details are visible to the public.

It seems to me that the CS sense is a more intuitive use of the metaphor. Making a political process transparent would literally mean that you see straight through it to whatever is behind it, but also that the process itself is invisible. When we talk about making the workings of government transparent the metaphor somehow seems to have mutated to mean the opposite.

Tom

*From:* matthew.battles@gmail.com [mailto:matthew.battles@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Matthew Battles *Sent:* Friday, October 31, 2014 5:26 AM *To:* Nabeel Siddiqui *Cc:* James Cortada; thaigh@computer.org; sigcis *Subject:* Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Virtuality versus transprency -- trying to locate a quote about the difference

All this does have me wondering about the internet-and-society field's interest in, and advocacy for, a certain kind of "transparency" in civil discourse shares lineage with transparency in the comp-sci sense, to the effect that transparency (in the sense of openness and publicness of bureaucratic or deliberative decision-making process) is a quality that can be produced and modified computationally. There is an ideological disposition there to see government as a kind of social UTM upon which different norms, beliefs, and commitments may be run like so many lines of code...

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Nabeel Siddiqui <nasiddiqui@email.wm.edu> wrote:

Dear Tom,

I believe this is from an old 1978 poster that IBM released dealing with virtual memory. It is sometimes attributed to Scott Hammer, who worked at William and Mary before I got here as a graduate student. Here is him explaining that this is the first time he saw it: http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/92q3/seeit.html

Hope that helps.

Sincerely,

Nabeel Siddiqui

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 11:02 AM, James Cortada <jcortada@umn.edu> wrote:

By the way, Mike is alive and well. Mike can you pipe in and confirm. This is a fabulous insight and expression. It should be quoted frequently!!

Cheers.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 9:24 AM, David Hemmendinger <hemmendd@union.edu> wrote:

...

I heard it from Mike Williams, when he had his professor of computer science hat on! Here's how he said it:

If it is there, but you can't see it, it is transparent. If it isn't there, but you see it, it is virtual. If it is there, and you see it, it is real.

For the purposes of symmetry, what if something is not there and you can't see it?

If it isn't there and you can't see it, you're ok.

David _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members

--

James W. Cortada

Senior Research Fellow

Charles Babbage Institute

University of Minnesota

jcortada@umn.edu

608-274-6382

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members

--

matthew battles associate director, metaLAB (at) harvard <http://metalab.harvard.edu/> fellow, berkman center for internet and society <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu>

twitter = @matthewbattles <http://twitter.com/matthewbattles>

[image: Image removed by sender.]

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members

This has been an interesting and useful discussion. I'll add to the mutation comments by noting that optical metaphors have long been a feature of Anglo-European political thought since the "Enlightenment," but in the United States "transparent government" seems in many cases to have become a euphemism for "small government." While the term transparency might have entered political discourse in the 1960s or maybe during the Progressive Era, the idea that government can only be trusted when under vigilant surveillance by citizen-auditors has been a feature of U.S. politics for a time. Rex Troumbley, PhD Candidate Department of Political Science University of Hawaii at Manoa On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Allan Olley <allan.olley@utoronto.ca> wrote:

Hello, I'm struck that transparency as making the inner workings of something apparent is a very old and I thought very common metaphor in various phrases. For example the phrase "I saw right through him" to indicate you saw through deception and divined someone's true motives and plans. So when you see right through him you actually see him better than when you see him in the normal mode, just as when you understand a political process better when it is transparent. This goes back to at least 1856 (and presumably far earlier but this was the earliest use I found on google books). Although arguably it suggests that we see right through someone's dissembling, lies etc. rather than through him, but it seems like a natural metaphor. http://books.google.ca/books?id=OjEZAAAAYAAJ&dq=%22I%20saw% 20right%20through%20him%22&pg=PA287#v=onepage&q=%22I%20saw% 20right%20through%20him%22&f=false Looking at some old usages I think the metaphor using the exact word "transparent" to mean "obvious" is pretty old also. So "my patriotic American ears burned with shame as I heard how an American had been gulled by such a simple and transparent operation." The transparency of the operation indicates that it is an obvious scam not a indiscernable one. http://books.google.ca/books?id=5GNEAAAAIAAJ&dq=% 22transparent%20operation%22&pg=PA94#v=onepage&q=% 22transparent%20operation%22&f=false Perhaps, the word "clear" provides a case of the metaphor going the other way, since (according to etymological dictionary I checked http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=clear ) it starts by meaning something obvious ("bright"), keeps that meaning, but also means not blocking/encumbering light/vision and so means transparent (a clear day, clear water etc.). Not sure I can justify it exactly, but I would have said transparency as a metaphor for divining inner workings is the inutive metaphor and that the CS metaphor making it synonymous with invisible or seamless is actually the less intuitive one (although it is still intelligible as a metaphor). To me transparency connotes something you can see through but that still makes its presence known, the opposite of transparency is opaqueness or obscurity, whereas the opposite of invisibility is simply visibility.

--

Yours Truly, Allan Olley, PhD

http://individual.utoronto.ca/fofound/

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014, Andrew Meade McGee wrote:

Putting on my hat as someone trained as a political historian: Tom's

...

point on the divergent meaning is an interesting one. I've enjoyed this thread. As I understand the derivation of transparency in a U.S. political context, the origins lie with a metaphor centered on doors and windows, open versus closed. Traditional machine politics -- Tammany Hall, smoke-filled back rooms, handshake deals out of sight of voters, reporters, etc. -- is obscured to the external observer by walls. Transparency here is akin to the Progressive-Era notion of a window permitting light to stream through. What you're making permeable to vision is the barrier external scrutiny, revealing the innerworkings. In government, optimal transparency means you're supposed to see the workings as they're in motion, but you are still outside the structure. I'd liken Henri Bergson's thirties-era theorization of an "open society" as the "glass-bottom boat model of democracy." In a truly open society, the citizen can see all the fishies but doesn't have to get wet. --AMM

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Andrew Meade McGee Corcoran Department of History University of Virginia PO Box 400180 - Nau Hall Charlottesville, VA 22904

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:23 AM, Thomas Haigh <thaigh@computer.org> wrote:

It is actually the policy version of “transparency” that prompted me to remember the quote. (Thanks to all those who responded). Journalism sociologist/historian Michael Schudson from Columbia University was visiting our Social Studies of Information group at UWM last week and speaking on the “Origins of Transparency” which he located in the 1960s/70s developments of the Freedom of Information Act, public disclosure of EPA impact statements, etc.

However, contrary to Matthew’s point, it seemed to me that the meanings are actually opposite in the two areas. Something that is “transparent” in CS is invisible – you look right through it without seeing it. In the political sense, a “transparent” process is one where all the details are visible to the public.

It seems to me that the CS sense is a more intuitive use of the metaphor. Making a political process transparent would literally mean that you see straight through it to whatever is behind it, but also that the process itself is invisible. When we talk about making the workings of government transparent the metaphor somehow seems to have mutated to mean the opposite.

Tom

From: matthew.battles@gmail.com [mailto:matthew.battles@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Matthew Battles Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 5:26 AM To: Nabeel Siddiqui Cc: James Cortada; thaigh@computer.org; sigcis Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Virtuality versus transprency -- trying to locate a quote about the difference

All this does have me wondering about the internet-and-society field's interest in, and advocacy for, a certain kind of "transparency" in civil discourse shares lineage with transparency in the comp-sci sense, to the effect that transparency (in the sense of openness and publicness of bureaucratic or deliberative decision-making process) is a quality that can be produced and modified computationally. There is an ideological disposition there to see government as a kind of social UTM upon which different norms, beliefs, and commitments may be run like so many lines of code...

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Nabeel Siddiqui < nasiddiqui@email.wm.edu> wrote:

Dear Tom,

I believe this is from an old 1978 poster that IBM released dealing with virtual memory. It is sometimes attributed to Scott Hammer, who worked at William and Mary before I got here as a graduate student. Here is him explaining that this is the first time he saw it: http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/92q3/seeit.html

Hope that helps.

Sincerely,

Nabeel Siddiqui

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 11:02 AM, James Cortada <jcortada@umn.edu> wrote:

By the way, Mike is alive and well. Mike can you pipe in and confirm. This is a fabulous insight and expression. It should be quoted frequently!!

Cheers.

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 9:24 AM, David Hemmendinger <hemmendd@union.edu> wrote:

...

I heard it from Mike Williams, when he had his professor of computer science hat on! Here's how he said it:

If it is there, but you can't see it, it is transparent. If it isn't there, but you see it, it is virtual. If it is there, and you see it, it is real.

For the purposes of symmetry, what if something is not there and you can't see it?

If it isn't there and you can't see it, you're ok.

David _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members

--

James W. Cortada

Senior Research Fellow

Charles Babbage Institute

University of Minnesota

jcortada@umn.edu

608-274-6382

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members

--

matthew battles associate director, metaLAB (at) harvard fellow, berkman center for internet and society

twitter = @matthewbattles

Image removed by sender.

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members

Since Mike Williams didn’t say it, this site gives this origin: http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~ravenben/humor/csfunny If it's there and you can see it - it's real. If it's not there and you can see it - it's virtual. If it's there and you can't see it - it's transparent. If it's not there and you can't see it - you erased it! -- Old IBM VM Statement (Scott Hammer) Sharon Irish FemTechNet Co-Facilitator, 2014-16 Graduate School of Library and Information Science University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign 501 East Daniel Street, MC-493 Champaign, Illinois 61820 USA slirish@illinois.edu<mailto:slirish@illinois.edu> sharonirish.org femtechnet.org From: <Ceruzzi>, Paul <CeruzziP@si.edu<mailto:CeruzziP@si.edu>> Date: Thursday, October 30, 2014 at 8:12 AM To: "'thaigh@computer.org<mailto:'thaigh@computer.org>'" <thaigh@computer.org<mailto:thaigh@computer.org>>, "members@sigcis.org<mailto:members@sigcis.org>" <members@sigcis.org<mailto:members@sigcis.org>> Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Virtuality versus transprency -- trying to locate a quote about the difference I heard it from Mike Williams, when he had his professor of computer science hat on! Here’s how he said it: If it is there, but you can’t see it, it is transparent. If it isn’t there, but you see it, it is virtual. If it is there, and you see it, it is real. For the purposes of symmetry, what if something is not there and you can’t see it? Paul From: members-bounces@sigcis.org<mailto:members-bounces@sigcis.org> [mailto:members-bounces@sigcis.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Haigh Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 7:01 PM To: members@sigcis.org<mailto:members@sigcis.org> Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Virtuality versus transprency -- trying to locate a quote about the difference Hello SIGCIS, I am trying to locate a quote I remember reading circa 1998. It is something along the lines of “Something virtual isn’t really there but looks as if it is. Something transparent is really there but looks as if it isn’t.” That is of course the computer science sense of transparency as making the work of software invisible a user or process – for example how the network stack shields applications from whatever network media the data is travelling over to present the illusion of a connection. Google is not helping me. Does anybody know the source and correct wording? Thanks, Tom