== The Impossibility of Controlling Information ==
Someone’s Been Siphoning Data Through a Huge Security Hole in the Internet: Earlier this year, researchers say, someone mysteriously hijacked internet traffic headed to government agencies, corporate offices and other recipients in the U.S. and elsewhere and redirected it to Belarus and Iceland, before sending it on its way to its legitimate destinations. They did so repeatedly over several months. But luckily someone did notice. One more example of how it is simply insane to base your most vital security upon “controlling information.” Not once in 30 years have I seen a single blithe assurance of security proved.
There is another way, which is to strive ever onward on two levels. TACTICALLY to play and wage the serious game, trying to make our security better while penetrating “theirs.” Sure. Has to be done, and I do not fault our civil servants for trying to do it well.
But it will be ultimately and utterly futile (hello? Edward Snowden?) unless accompanied by a STRATEGIC dedication to maintaining a strong, secular trend toward an ever more open world.
Think… America may not remain top-dog. Fine, so long as the general Enlightenment that emphasizes individual rights, maximized opportunity, self-reinvention, science, pragmatism, tolerance, diversity, flat-open playing fields for vibrant competition… these things can prevent us from being just one more failed species in the cosmos, trapped on a forever-feudal world. Right now, the odds are against such an unlikely thing surviving, as oligarchy fights to return to its 6000 year dominance.
Only dig this well… all of the enemies of that Star Trek-like civilization are fatally allergic to light. Go ahead and think of any such foe. Light is deadly to them all, but it is only bracing and invigorating to… the Enlightenment. This makes it clear. A secular trend toward a more open and transparent world is the one trend in which “we” … people who want all those fine-open-opportunities … win.
== Other “mavens” start to “get it” ==
From Evgeny Morozov: Let’s Make the NSA’s Data Available for Public Use: “Search without Google is like social networking without Facebook: unimaginable. But superb proprietary algorithms and extremely talented employees only partially explain why both fields are dominated by just one firm. The real reason is that both Google and Facebook got into their fields early on, accumulated troves of data about their users, and are now aggressively exploiting that data to offer unique services that their data-poor contenders simply cannot match, no matter how innovative their business models.”
I know this to be true, since I have patents for human interface innovations that would blow clunky Facebook away! But there is no way we’d start on a level playing field, let alone planet.
“The NSA has all this data, and it’s not going away. (If anything, the much-discussed data storage center that the NSA is building in Utah suggests otherwise.) It would be a colossal mistake not to come up with a global institutional arrangement that would make at least chunks of that data available for public use. At the very (utopian) minimum, it should be possible to produce a rudimentary social graph and make it globally available—to be supervised by a civil agency, perhaps within the United Nations. The United States, which has always preached free markets to the rest of the world, can, perhaps, take the lead in making markets for search and social networking more competitive.”
Object? Out of reflex? He continues: “In other words, the real choice that we face right now is between a future in which Google and Facebook continue to dominate their core markets, collecting more and more data on their users, and a future in which the power of those companies is held in check by competition. At the moment, the users have little choice but to stick with Google and Facebook, as the user data that they already have does produce better search results and richer social connections.”
==Sousveillance vs Surveillance ==
An insightful essay, Sousveillance Turns the Tables on Surveillance, by Jerry Brito, in Reason Magazine discusses the arrival of cheap lapel cameras that will upload whatever you confront, every few minutes, to the Cloud. The future is here. With strenuous effort we might stymie a transparent society and all of its (mixed) benefits. When various powers try to get us to do that, follow the money.
SONY is betting we’ll want to bypass Google Glass and go straight to the “smart wig” that lets you wear a vast array of sensors , some of them deployable and extendable, plus actuators and… well… you can see the whole idea in far more advanced form, in 2045, in my novel EXISTENCE, illustrated by this image of my character, Tor Povlov (by artist Patrick Farley):
You can read her adventure, saving a zeppelin, using just such an array of sensors, etc. in a stand-alone excerpt called “The Smartest Mob.”
Oh, here’s the link to an article about the “smart wig.” And if it ain’t true, then it will be!
In his Scientific American article: “A Modest Proposal: Google Glass Neighborhood Watch” Charles Q. Choi refers to EARTH in predicting that tools like Google Glass (head-mounted cameras) will both make our streets safer and bring problems of their own as (in this case) young people react to old folks who stare while maintaining vigilante vision patrols against crime. Here’s an excerpt that he chose to clip from the novel.
“Watching, all the time watching… goggle-eye geeks… rotten old apples that sit an’ stink and stare atcha…”
Huh. Swap out a “g” and you almost have my character saying “google-eye.”
And. On io9: The Ten Rules of Surveillance Dystopia. Number One: You wear location trackers that relay your every movement to corporate headquarters….Number Two: Your television is watching you; Number Three: All of your purchases are tracked using small plastic cards you carry everywhere you go….
Should we encrypt the world? Internet architects seeking to revise the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) propose encrypting all the world’s web traffic.
== Penetrating the Bubble ==
In my novel EARTH (1989) I spoke about the problem of user bubbles… where internet inhabitants inevitably create filters that allow in materials that agree with their preconceptions and prejudices and exclude inconveniences, even clear refutations. In the novel, this is portrayed as extremely dangerous to a democratic society, creating little Nuremberg Rallies that reinforce strong dogmas and undermine our native abilities to see the other side, to negotiate and learn from each other. In EARTH, a community of hackers has responded with wall-penetrating programs that slip in the inconvenient fact, from time to time…
Alas that forecasts in science fiction novels get little credit. Today, this “newly discovered” phenomenon is called “the filter bubble”—being surrounded only by people you like and content that you agree with.” Still, have a look at this clever suggested partial solution: How to Burst the Filter Bubble that Protects us from Opposing Views: “They also say that challenging people with new ideas makes them generally more receptive to change. That has important implications for social media sites. There is good evidence that users can sometimes become so resistant to change than any form of redesign dramatically reduces the popularity of the service. Giving them a greater range of content could change that.”
==A Digital Bill of Rights==
The Digital Bill of Rights, by Matthew Katz, is a fun “updating” of the US Bill of Rights takes the core meaning and language of each of the original ten amendments and updates it for the internet/online/social-media world. This document proposes Freedom of Access and Expression, the Right to a Voice, Open Access to Cookies and Spyware use…. It is an interesting and thought provoking first stab, though also a bit too assured that things directly translate. For example, what about anonymity and the bad behavior it sometimes spawns?
The original Bill of Rights is about accountability and the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee that individuals can compel speech from unwilling witnesses is something that net transcendentalists strive hard not to think about.
And what about pseudonymity? Can our pseudonyms get partial rights? Any provisions for AI? A problematic step, since information-based entities can be duplicated at infinitum, so do they vote? Given that duplication ability, some of the provisions in the Digital Bill of Rights might be irrelevant or counterproductive. This is only the start of a long conversation… that ought to begin.
== And the future overwhelms… even sci fi ==
Charles Stross has announced that there won’t be a third book in the Halting State trilogy because reality has caught up to him too fast The last straw was the news that the NSA planted spies in networked games like World of Warcraft. Heh, well, Charlie needs to get used to this professional occupational hazard!