Exploring the Information Highway

[voyager307]

The Brave New World of IoT

[sarap2015-blog]

Interesting thoughts on the potential of crowdsourcing, I’m interested in learning more about its potential. Recently, I’ve read a few studies that suggest that crowdsourcing can be slightly unreliable, or doesn’t always lead to the best outcomes. Mostly, this relates to crowdsourcing for some kind of output, like metadata, but I believe there is some evidence to suggest that crowdsourcing can be intentionally manipulated and that social influences can play a larger role than originally thought in the outcomes.

Again we are faced with the who owns/handles the mountains of data issue. I think this may be the primary thread that runs through all the topics we have covered. On the one hand, this data is valuable, but on the other, it’s also costly to manage. At some point, we will have to grapple with the responsibilities that come with these systems, who has the rights, who has the responsibilities, and what are the paths to achieving trust and reliability. Honestly, this class had made me feel really uneasy about, what I view is, a collective apathy around this policy issue. 

I wholeheartedly agree with your last statement, the future is coming whether we are ready for it or not. In fact, In many ways, it’s here. 

[voyager307]

You make some excellent points about the possible shortcomings of crowdsourcing. I suppose my somewhat pollyanna attitude about it is rooted in my experiences in the practical world. In my last agency job, I had the opportunity to work with a start-up company that was built on the idea of crowdsourcing capital to help pay for important local commercial real estate projects. The company, called Groundfloor (www.groundfloor.us) used the recent passage of the JOBS (Jumpstart our Business Startups) Act to clear SEC legal hurdles and offer regular citizens an opportunity to invest as little as $10 to help get new commercial real estate projects started in their own communities. They’re now in about 10 states and still growing. In this case, it’s clear that crowdsourcing is not only helping to bring some worthwhile projects to life, but also paying their investors much better interest rates than they could hope to earn from any bank. 

Whether this same approach of crowdsourcing solutions to complex policy issues would work is probably a little unrealistic. Although I do think that some sort of network where people could share problems, ideas, and solutions would have some merit.

[frametasy]

Tonight, I stand before the Washington Square Arch and join all of you around the world in silence. 🇫🇷 I strongly believe that this does not break us apart. Instead, it unites us and brings out the best of humanity. From New York to Paris, and every corner in the world: my heart goes out to all those countless individuals who have been affected by the tragedy. #prayforparis (at Washington Square Park)

[sarap2015-blog]

The Internet of Things

[bingut]

I am glad you pointed out Accountability. One of my researches is focusing on vision based control. My understanding is that if the self-driving car is close to the navigation directions, then the vision system on the car cannot detect the navigation directions due to physical properties of the cameras. Therefore, I think it’s the technology we used on the self-driving car is not mature enough instead of the software or the mapping system the software is relaying on should be responsible for the accident. I agree with you that this will bring the insurance company to rethink their insurance decisions and remake their insurance policies.

Although IoT has been with us in some form and under different names for many years, the it is suddenly the thing. The ability to connect, communicate with, and remotely manage an incalculable number of networked, automated devices via the Internet is becoming pervasive, from the factory floor to the hospital operating room to the residential basement. The transition from closed networks to enterprise IT networks to the public Internet is accelerating at an alarming pace—and justly raising alarms about security. As we become increasingly reliant on intelligent, interconnected devices in every aspect of our lives, how do we protect potentially billions of them from intrusions and interference that could compromise personal privacy or threaten public safety?

[voyager307]

I agree that accountability is a critical issue and one that, quite frankly, I hadn’t given much thought to until reading this book. Ironically I was walking my dog around Lake Mueller (in East Austin) earlier today and saw one of the Google self-driving cars. There wasn’t a driver on board, but I noticed another Google car (with a driver on board) following closely behind monitoring how the self-driving car was managing in the complex traffic. When I came home, I did some research on these vehicles and found an interesting NPR story from last Friday.  http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/11/13/455891720/googles-traffic-stop-a-crash-course-in-self-driving-concerns

The article talks about how these cars, although very safe and reliable, are not currently designed to adapt to unexpected occurrences, such as being pulled over by a policeman for disrupting traffic. In responding to the story, Google was quick to point out that, to date, the self driving cars have never been ticketed, despite logging 1.2 million miles of autonomous driving. Of all the IoT ideas covered in our reading this week, self-driving cars was the one that most appealed to me. I would love nothing more than to get into my car, type in a location, and sit back and read or listen to music while the car safely gets me to where I want to go. And no standing in the scorching sun or flooding rain waiting for the bus!

[voyager307]

The Brave New World of IoT

[sarap2015-blog]

ICT4D

[voyager307]

I agree with you that it’s difficult to imagine any society that isn’t dependent in some part on information. We may use different platforms to access and process the information available to us (depending on our local infrastructure), but most civilizations have long been dependent on some forms of information in order to function.

I’m also glad to see you agree with my perspective about the ambitious goals outlined in the SDG report. That’s not to say that I don’t believe all of the stated goals are worthy of discussion and consideration! However I don’t think it’s realistic to think we can simply solve many problems that have plagued our society for generations by simply by harnessing the power of ICTs. I took a interesting class last semester on Communication and Technology, and our professor described this type of mindset as Technological Determinism. That is, believing that the latest technology has the ability to solve many of society’s ills. This point of view has been espoused since the invention of printing press (or probably even earlier), and I’ve read similar utopian declarations from early advocates consumed with the potential transformative power of electricity, the telegraph, wireless radio, broadcast television, cable TV, etc. etc. I don’t mean to sound overly cynical, but many of these ideas have been raised before in conjunction with whatever new technology that was evolving in previous generations. I guess only time will if ICTs have the power to truly transform society where other “new” technologies have failed.

[jakethefakesnake-blog]

Internet and the Developing World

Very interesting report, for a couple of different reasons - it called forth for action steps governments around the world should take, just like a couple of us are doing in our projects, and it assumed that the reader is already a supporter of the Sustainable Development Goals.  That second one is non-trivial, I think.  Probably all of us in the class agree with them as worthy goals for 2030, but it’s not too hard to think of a couple of governments that don’t want to support SDG # 5: Gender Equality, at all (Saudi Arabia, for instance).  And the priority list seems a little off to me, could definitely be argued over.

           I had a couple of real problems with the methodology of the report, especially the ridiculous graph showing the “Business As Usual” path (what does that even mean?) and how it wouldn’t be good enough to achieve the “Sustainable Development Goals” path.  That chart was completely meaningless and there was nothing to back it up.  I also didn’t like how the report called for action steps without any serious mention of the funding required to achieve them.  It’s a major oversimplification of the situation.  If governments spend money on the action steps called for by the report, that means that there is less money to spend on other projects.  Those opportunity costs need to be taken into account.  

           The biggest red flag for me was the potential conflict between SDG #s 7, 11, and 13 and the rest.  The Information and Communication Technology recommendations put forth by the report would, at least in the short term, drastically increase the carbon emissions and other environmental problems of the nations that adopted them.  Sure, the report points out that eventually fast technology sharing leads to increased efficiency in systems.  We’re about at that point in Europe and the United States, where appliances and automobiles are getting ever more efficient.  But there are problems that we haven’t even come close to solving yet, like what in the world are we going to do with these lithium ion batteries that are too toxic to safely put in landfills and that are quickly becoming one of the most ubiquitous items in our waste stream.  

I enjoyed one of the later links, the one to the State Department’s Technology Salon, a lot more. Articles on that page (when I read it) were about African women having access to broadband, and how that can be accomplished.  There was also an advertisement for a talk hosted by Wayan Vota on which medium to invest in for sustainable development, mobile phones or cheap laptops.  The headline, “Mobile Phones vs. Computers: a False ICT4D Choice?” implies that it doesn’t really matter, but I think that’s a straw man argument.  It’s gotta be laptops or desktops all the way, because laptops can be used for creation whereas mobile phones are designed for consumption.  I’m not much of a coder, but I know enough that it would be excrutiating to consider designing any piece of software, or even a web page, on a phone.  Remember that one of the theses of the ICT report is that greater access to communications technology helps everyone through sharing of ideas.  But women in Africa or any other developing region will need to be able to create their own content as well as access others.  To say otherwise, I think, is to risk devaluing their own potential contributions and propping up existing thoughts.

Also!  A little bit of a tangent here, but I thought you all would enjoy reading this article about social media ranking in China:  http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/how-china-wants-to-rate-its-citizens?intcid=mod-yml

Sample quote:  

   “Alibaba, the world’s biggest online shopping platform, creates an incentive for customers to use its own payment service (also part of Alipay) by raising the Sesame scores of those who do. The company makes no secret of its interest in accessing the payment history of its four hundred million users, to make judgments about their creditworthiness and character. “Someone who plays video games for ten hours a day, for example, would be considered an idle person, and someone who frequently buys diapers would be considered as probably a parent, who on balance is more likely to have a sense of responsibility,” Li Yingyun, Sesame’s technology director, told Caixin, a Chinese magazine. In some ways, Tencent’s credit system goes further, tapping into users’ social networks and mining data about their contacts, for example, in order to determine their social-credit score.”

[hunterk1516]

I think you raise some interesting points in your post.  First, I think your observation about the potential conflict between the climate change-oriented goals and the other stated goals (particularly, as I see it, #8: “Decent Work and Economic Growth” and #9: “Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure”) is a good one.  China comes to mind when thinking about rapid industrialization and the possible side-effects thereof, and as we probably all know, environmental issues are certainly a challenge that is being faced there.  Really, unless we see major breakthroughs in battery, wind, and/or solar power over the next 15 years, I’m not sure I see any path around this potential conflict.  I hadn’t really thought about this dimension of the issue previously, so I’m glad you brought it up.

I also appreciated your perspective on the question of investing in mobile phones or laptops in the developing world.  I think your comment about the consumer/producer divide between these two technologies is on point, and I agree that possessing the devices with easily utilizable “creative” potential is an important step in helping to foster innovation.  If mobile phones continue to be the dominant source of connectivity, however, it will be interesting to see whether new creative platforms begin to emerge in unexpected ways in spite of this constraint.  Granted, I have a hard time imagining how an activity such as coding could ever be made as efficient (or enjoyable) on a small device like a mobile phone as it is on a laptop or desktop, but perhaps there is the potential for some “hack” or paradigm for the mobile environment that will help foster creative applications such as coding that we have just not yet unearthed due to a lack of necessity.  And who knows, perhaps cellularly connected tablets will end up winning the day by presenting a compromise between the benefits of phones and laptops.

[voyager307]

You raise some excellent points, Jake. I’m so focused on my own research interests (related to information privacy) that I didn’t give as much thought as I probably should have to the trade offs associated with some of the other sustainable development goals (SDGs) raised in The Earth Institute paper. For example, drastically increasing carbon emissions would certainly be a deterrent for the adoption of the SDGs related to climate action and affordable, clean energy. Also, SDG #16 (peace and justice) is such a subjective goal. I’m sure the Israelis and the Palestinians would have vastly different perspectives on what peace and justice would look like in the Middle East!

It occurs to me as we progress through our studies this semester that many of the policy issues we grapple with as students, citizens and researchers require compromise and trade offs. Is it reasonable to think there are absolute right and good perspectives that we can all agree on? 

[voyager307]

ICTs and HCIs FTW!?

[voyager307]

Social Physics or Social Engineering?

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21677198-technology-behind-bitcoin-could-transform-how-economy-works-trust-machine?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/thetrustmachine

http://www.eoht.info/page/Social+physics

[aksullyopinions-blog]

I’m glad I’m not the only person who by the end of the book was like “I get it, your a professor at MIT and you think its great” - which is really off putting to try to read the ideas when dodging the authors ego. I did not realize how long the concept of social psychics has been around so thanks for the link.

I agree that there are aspects of social physics that can work well in a city. For instance, people who collectively use Wave know its a handy addition to any drive. But it is a voluntary action. I’m not sold on the idea of using Big Data to manage cities myself. Its really unsettling to think about what the information collection he describes being used to shape and manipulate a city. I don’t think that is the “right” use of this type of information [although notably I am not a big fan of analyzing data with the goal of changing human behavior - I think its a really slippery slope] 

I’m surprised that he doesn’t focus more attention on the abuse that can arise for his ideas about managing cities. I felt that his “New Deal on Data” really didn’t dive into this area enough. Instead, I felt like he glossed over any big potential problems. 

[voyager307]

I’m glad you brought up the “New Deal on Data” topic because I meant to address that in my post as well. Pentland does recognize the potential harm of allowing individuals’ private data to be continually collected and aggregated by various organization and calls for action to be taken in this area. I was excited to read his suggestions related to the “New Deal” and what steps we as a society can take to better protect and control our own data. However, as you said, he didn’t spent much time outlining the specifics of how this might be accomplished. Another book I’ve mentioned previously, “The Intention Economy” (written by Doc Searls at Harvard’s Berkman Center) does deal directly with this topic. 

[voyager307]

Social Physics or Social Engineering?

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21677198-technology-behind-bitcoin-could-transform-how-economy-works-trust-machine?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/thetrustmachine

http://www.eoht.info/page/Social+physics

[hunterk1516]

I share some of your unease about the “social engineering” implications of all of this.  While I thought it was interesting to hear about some of the studies that the author (alongside others) had performed, a lot of this begs the question of how far is too far and at what point helpful guidance becomes manipulation.  Of course, cited objectives such as reducing poverty in cities or increasing productivity in a work setting are good things, and I understand the draw in trying to foster situations that help achieve such goals, but I do think that it involves walking a fine line in how we view and treat people.

There also exists the question of how ready people will be to accept such a shift in how we try to manage society.  I was reminded of a recent study by Facebook that received backlash for how it involved manipulating the positivity/negativity of the content on a person’s News Feed in order to study how people would respond to such changes (see here).  If such an experiment by a private company receives a good amount of backlash, then it seems likely that the state (with all of the power that it commands) will need to tread very lightly in how it tries to make use of these techniques.

[voyager307]

Interesting that you would bring up the recent emotional manipulation experiment by Facebook. I think for many people (or at least those who were paying attention), that story was the turning point in realizing just how much control those who have access to our data can potentially have over our lives. And the fact that decision makers at Facebook did all of it without any oversight by an IRB or other government body makes it all the more astounding. Try conducting your own research study of unwitting subjects without IRB approval or informed consent and see what happens! 

But as the article you posted brought up, the most frightening aspect of that whole experiment is it shows the potential exists to manipulate people’s emotions on a mass scale using their own data. It’s one thing for advertisers to try to convince people to buy their product or service (and as I’ve mentioned previously, I’m not entirely comfortable with that idea either); but it’s quite another to try to manipulate peoples’ emotions in order to influence elections, public policy, etc. Who gets to decide what the outcome should be? 

[voyager307]

Social Physics or Social Engineering?

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21677198-technology-behind-bitcoin-could-transform-how-economy-works-trust-machine?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/thetrustmachine

http://www.eoht.info/page/Social+physics

[sarap2015-blog]

Cyberwar

[aksullyopinions-blog]

Its interesting see you and a few others mention how the mentality around a cyber ware reminds them of the Cold War and how things were handled then.  Admittedly, I don’t know much about the Cold War outside of whats taught in basic history courses. 

I think you bring up an interesting point about the international aspect. We have “war crimes” but we don’t mention anything regarding cyber war crimes [as far as I know] but as we settle more and more into an internet age, these cyber crimes become more and more devastating. But how should we start addressing this now? How do international countries come together to address this growing threat? Which leads to the second point you’ve mentioned - having an open conversation about how cyber war should be handled. I agree that on the surface it seems counter-intuitive. “Lets just announce our thoughts on a national security issue” but I think that its a complex issue - much like the other topics of our course. Its going to take a bunch of people with unique perspectives to fully understand the issue and help produce a solid set of guidelines and suggested actions. 

Additionally, I think there is a good reason to be internationally focused: the internet isn’t an isolated by country entity. It connects anyone who has access across the global. As such, our policies are going to have to be adaptive to this new type of environment - and I think that includes our policies on cyber war - to a degree.

[voyager307]

My understanding from reading Clarke’s introduction is that the connection between Cyber War and the Cold War was intentional. He spends several pages describing how much he and a band of other military thought leaders learned from their mentor, William (Bill) Kaufmann during the cold war period. He goes as far as to say that “Bill and his colleagues probably prevented a global nuclear war by not underestimating our foes, and being willing to do whatever was required to prepare our country both offensively and defensively. 

Further, he also makes it a point to describe how he warned our military leadership about the potential for the 9/11 attacks (but that his warnings were not heeded). He uses the failure of 9/11 (in juxtaposition to the “success” of the cold war tactics) to impress upon the reader that we should not take this topic lightly. Maybe it’s because I lived through and remember the cold war period as well as 9/11 that Clarke’s warnings resonate with me. Again, I’m curious as to where things stand now (over 5 years after this book was published) and sincerely hope we are in a better position.

[musingsoninformationpolicy]

The Art of War

Information and espionage have been an integral part of warfare right from the beginning of time - be it the Trojan Horse the Greeks used in the fall of Troy, or the courageous use of fake documents to rescue American hostages from war torn Tehran (as depicted in the Ben Affleck film Argo). If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles - this is perhaps the most famous quote from Sun Tzu’s ancient treatise on military strategy, ‘The Art of War’. The fact that this was written over 2000 years ago and is still considered essential reading on military strategy gives me one clear message - even though our weapons and the scale at which we conduct war have changed, the basic ideas behind warfare essentially remain the same.

Information is the basis of warfare, and it has been so for millennia. Whichever side is successful in hiding more of its own information while at the same time acquiring accurate information about the enemy’s plans typically wins the war. This is what happened during World War 2 - the Nazis were winning the war until the Enigma cipher was finally broken at Bletchley Park, and the tide finally turned in favor of the allied forces.

I decided to write such a detailed introduction to the importance of knowledge in military strategy because on reading the introduction to “Cyber War: The Next Threat to National Security and What to Do About It”, I got the sense that the authors wanted to impress upon their readers how much things have changed in terms of how war is waged, even since the days of the cold war. I disagree with this point of view - war is still about the control of information and resources.

While the authors bring out some interesting talking points, and definitely succeed in raising general awareness about the issue, the writing of the book is a bit too dramatic in my opinion. An event such as a cyber-9/11, something that brings death and desolation in its wake, seems a bit far-fetched. Our cyber systems have been in existence for a number of years now, and they’re surely only getting better, as vulnerabilities keep getting discovered, and more secure software written. Is software perfect? Pick up any high profile security breach from the last 2 years, and you’ll have the answer to that question. It’s an emphatic no. But, are we aware of the danger? Yes. And, are we getting better at cyber security? I believe so.

To me, the essence of the discussion on cyber war is this - the core principles of war remain the same, but in today’s world war is being waged on multiple, new battlefields. The key takeaway is that we need to be able to defend ourselves against threats in the cyberspace, while also being capable of mounting our own offensive on these new battlefields.

[markmgray-blog]

Quoting Sun Tzu, I approve! There is nothing fundamentally different about how war is waged now as it was then. The differences are simply the tools we use and the scale at which we are capable of destroying ourselves and our enemies. I also agree that a cyber-9/11 is an unlikely event, not simply because our systems are being improved daily, but for the fact that the base-line security in many regards is not elementary to begin with. I understand how a group of wanna-be hackers could crash a government site by using a botnet to DDoS the hosting server, but this is simply and inconvenience. The truth is many of our critical systems, such as the power grid, are not on a public facing network. This in and of itself would be a security risk! As for your key takeaway, I believe we are able to do both of those. We were able to plant Stuxnet in the Iran nuclear program and thwart their efforts to gain a nuclear weapon. While also able to protect ourselves from many zero-day viruses that have been found.

[voyager307]

I agree with your premise that the cyber threats we face today are really old battles being fought on new battlefields. Although it seems to me that increasingly sophisticated technology now enables much more far reaching repercussions than what we have had to deal with in the past. Much like the tank, airplane and nuclear bomb significantly expanded our ability to inflict devastation on our foes at the time they were introduced, so cyber threats offer potentially devastating damage that can quickly and easily be unleashed on the unsuspecting and unprepared. Shutting down our power grid via a cyber attack would severely disable our communication and transportation systems, denying us access to many of the necessities we’ve come to expect for survival. While this seems a bit “dramatic” it is clearly within the realm of possibility. Consequently, we would be wise to have safety measures in place even as we look for ways to protect ourselves from such a doomsday scenario. 

[voyager307]

Cyber War Threats: Waning or Gaining?

[infopolicyanw-blog]

Interop: The Promise and Perils of Highly Interconnected Systems

Standardization is extremely important. When companies, entities, etc. can agree on a standard, the system itself expands as its network isn’t bound by a conflict amongst pieces. However, as the book mentions, connectivity can be overwhelming. A lot of data flows through these systems and introduces vulnerabilities.

In other situations, having better connectivity can be efficient and useful. For example, I was able to go to the Consumer Electronic Show in January 2015 and saw huge systems, touting the Internet of Everything idea. Qualcomm, Intel, LG, and GE were all advertising their newest tech that involved connecting to your phone, your other appliances, etc. Lowe’s had a huge display which was literally a house built inside the convention hall. They had a system that interconnected almost everything in the home. It was overwhelming, a bit reminiscent of Skynet, but still the innovation was exciting. However, Lowe’s does not work with Qualcomm’s, Intel’s does not work with LG, and so on. Therefore, while their own proprietary systems have a large amount of connectivity and interoperability amongst themselves, they do not have it amongst the different companies. It makes it a huge risk, therefore, to adopt one company’s system when it may go out of business or doesn’t get updated if a competitor is doing better in the market. However, if users were able to connect the different company’s pieces, it wouldn’t be such a risk.

I find the case studies to be quite interesting. They touch on various innovations that we take for granted and how standardization affected its development and adoption. How many amazing ideas were crafted and were subsequently dropped because they didn’t tap into the benefits of interoperability? Then again, how many products felt forced into a standard to be adopted by consumers?

[barelyopinionated]

I find the idea of a smart home interesting. I don’t think the level of connectivity with the internet that many smart devices have is good, though. It introduces a vulnerability to the house which didn’t exist before… someone hacks into your system and turns off the heat while it’s freezing and you’re on vacation = bad news. But another problem is that if a company goes out of business or stops updating software, your smart-house could be left with security vulnerabilities.

Device companies already have a hard time keeping phones up to date. I can’t imagine buying a new refrigerator every couple of years just to keep pace with emerging technology and so my fridge will work with my pantry, my smartphone, and my thermostat. I may be a little bit of a pessimist with the IoT movement. I do, however, want a standalone smart thermostat!

[voyager307]

I’ve also been hearing a lot about The Internet of Things and how it is projected to impact (and enhance) the advertising industry. As a matter of fact, one of my favorite industry news sources, MediaPost recently launched a new daily column covering all of the latest IoT news, specifically focusing on how these various technologies can be leveraged to advertise products and services to consumers. One particular story that caught my attention was related to using IoT to advertise to people while they are in the shower. Some of the suggested uses included encouraging water conservation (in real time!), promoting body wash and other personal grooming products, and even offering coupons for coffee. I don’t even want to think about the potential security concerns that might present themselves in this context! Here’s a link to the story and the column if anyone else is interested:

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/259570/targeted-advertising-in-the-shower.html

[barelyopinionated]

A Little on Interop in Modern Computing:

The book Interop by John Palfrey and Urs Gasser is a fascinating book. I will admit that a lot of my interest came from reading about technologies that were very popular three to five years ago and pretty much no longer exist. Reading about AIM, VHS, iPods supplied a healthy amount of nostalgia. It also shows how fast technology is moving. A book written less than 5 years ago (2012) is talking about technology and programs that are hardly used now and have been largely replaced by other technologies. That technologies and popular programs change so quickly yet still are interoperable is a very impressive feat. One of the fastest changing areas is in mobile computing. Also, this is an entertaining story on a software programmer’s perspective on the AIM vs. MSN Messenger interop fight. It’s sad this doesn’t seem to happen more often now.

Interop in mobile technology has become an interesting battle. It seems we have 3 companies that are moving to high vertical interop for mobile devices: Apple, Google, and Microsoft. Apple is very vertically integrated and doesn’t support other operating systems and devices very well compared to its own products. Google started off very horizontally interoperable but seems to be becoming less so as it moves core parts of the android OS into its Play Store. Android currently seems to be the most horizontally interoperable system. Microsoft seems to be moving toward vertical interop but at the same time is has been making steps to support other systems such as Office being available on both Android and iOS or recently open sourcing parts of its .NET environment. It will be interesting seeing how these different companies handle interop on a hardware and software level. I think this is an example where it isn’t clear how interop will affect innovation. As a consumer, I’d definitely prefer more interop, though.

There is another extreme to interop: Linux. Recently I’ve fallen into using open source software and I can’t get out. Linux is highly interoperable. You can find a program or configuration that will let you do almost anything. Recently for my work, I have been experimenting with automation tools. I’ve found out that I can automate tasks on my computer with simple commands. The downside to this is though there is high interop, there is also high complexity. For each tool available, I seem to learn a new programming language. I can do almost anything with the system but figuring out how to do it can be difficult. I’m pointing Linux out because it has thrived on high interop among its various programs. Because a lot of the programs used on Linux are open source, other programmers can write programs which interact nicely with existing programs or even build improved versions of existing programs. The internet is largely run on Linux and a large part of that is probably its high interoperability (well being free to use is nice).

[aksullyopinions-blog]

Considering Microsofts history - everyone remembers when they were accused of being a monopoly and had to help Apple out- I think its amusing that out of all the companies, its Mircosoft that is at least opening a window to interoperability. That said, I don’t know too many people with “Windows phones” so that may be a strategy of theirs. However, as a consumer, I do feel like currently the smart phone market is divided up into these isolated segments. The only common bridge is when developers produce an app for multiple devices; however, even then, sometimes you cannot connect across companies lines unless you go through something like “Facebook” All in all, it’ll be interesting to see what degree of interoperability arises. 

I use Linux daily for my research. Its true that for the stuff I need to do, writing a script is the best option and the tools are just smoother on Linux or only exist the way I need them on Linux. I think the high degree of interoperability is an interesting aspect to Linux as a whole. I thinks its also something that can be really intimidating to new users. Even when you get the more “user friendly” distributions such as Ubuntu, people can get uneasy about the degree of customization and how much of the operating system you are now exposed to. At the same time, its that openness that makes Linux attractive [well that and as you mentioned its free].

[voyager307]

I had the same nostalgic feelings as you while reading about some of the older technologies Palfrey & Gasser cited in their case studies. One I particularly remember from when I was a child was the whole battle of the video recorders. My parents bought a BetaMax system based on what all of the experts were saying about its superior technology (my father was an engineer). But over time, we found it increasingly difficult to find BetaMax tapes to rent (which was our main form of entertainment on weekends back in those days), so eventually, they gave in and bought a VHS recorder. 

Regarding the semi-dated perspective in some areas of the book, I did a little digging on its origins, and learned that it is based on a study the authors did in 2005 entitled “Breaking Down Digital Barriers: When and How Information and ICT Interoperability Drives Innovation”. Given the 10 year gap between their initial research and publication of this book, it’s understandable that some of the cases and opinions were a bit out of synch with the most recent technology. In all honesty, despite its interesting subject matter, I did not enjoy this book nearly as much as I did Palfrey & Gasser’s better-known book, Born Digital.

[voyager307]

Interop: Striking a balance between the promises & perils of interconnected systems

[barelyopinionated]

On Data, Your Data, and Their Data

Data and Goliath: The Hidden Battles to Collect Your Data and Control Your World is a really lengthy and ominous title. It also fairly accurately sets the tone for the state of data privacy. In this post, I’m going to purposefully sidestep talking about the government’s data collection and focus on corporate and private collection of data. I’m still trying to figure out what I think about Schneier’s comments. Since, as this book describes, data doesn’t disappear, I’d rather not post a half-thought post about that online.

“If you aren’t doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide…”

I’ve definitely heard this in conversation. I sadly admit that I’ve used this phrase. (As far as I know I haven’t done anything noteworthily wrong.) Not only is this used in relation to the government, it is also used a lot with corporations. There are two problems with this idea:

1. Privacy is something people need to flourish. When we’re unsure if we have privacy or plain know we don’t, we act differently. I am less free with what I do or with what I say. Sometimes that is a positive thing. Often it’s just stressful. And then what if I/we don’t know if we are being watched? Then we go about our business as normal. Except then there is no oversight of the watchers - so they’re free to push boundaries however they want. I don’t want corporations pushing boundaries when it comes to watching me. It also opens up doors to unknown manipulation. I’d rather not be at a sort of commodity for a company. And if/when it comes to light that we have been watched, it’s somewhat psychologically traumatic. At absolute least, I know finding out that someone has been snooping on me hurts my trust in that person. But hey, it doesn’t matter if we trust the corporations that have our data, right? A lot of them got it without my knowledge and I can’t ask for it back.

2. Everyone has at least something to hide (legal or illegal). And if it isn’t illegal now (which is sometimes difficult given the number of obscure laws), it may be illegal in the future. Since data is often stored for a very long time, anything I’ve done online can become subject to a lot of scrutiny. Or, my information can be misused to harm me. This could happen through theft of my information or just plain selling my information. The book mentioned a company which sold a list of people who had applied for payday loans to another company so those people could be targeted. The companies got in trouble. But this is a rather simple correlation. As our data mining apparatus gets more efficient (perhaps it already is?), it isn’t unreasonable to imagine that people in financially risky situations will be targeted using non-financial data.

I find it odd that we build giant computer systems that collect a data profile of the user and then use that profile to make money… which seems to involve leveraging that information to persuade me to buy something.

“Worrying about a computer reading your e-mail is like worrying about your dog seeing you naked…”

This is really the best quote (actually a quote of a quote). I found Schneier’s argument against this quote very convincing. Ultimately it comes down to what the purpose of the computer is. If it is able to relay information to people, then it isn’t the same. Somebody can’t read your dog’s log files and find out what she thinks about you. Your dog also can’t tell others what you did yesterday. The computer reading your emails might be able to tell someone not only what you did yesterday but also everyone you’ve talked to or mentioned in your email.

I, however, think that there is room for a computer to read my email. Just because a computer is seeing it, doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s an invasion of privacy. If the computer is designed specifically not to leak information about the user while it performs some useful task, then it doesn’t seem to harm privacy. I think that a computer can be used as a machine and not as an information gathering apparatus. But it has to be designed not to gather information. And it can be hard to build a program that is both useful and doesn’t leak information about the user.

And this book reminds me of this: http://www.theonion.com/video/google-opt-out-feature-lets-users-protect-privacy–14358

[voyager307]

I’m glad you brought up the metaphor about a computer reading our email is like our dog seeing us naked. That is how corporate and government entities who are collecting and monitoring our data hope that we will see the current situation. However, as Schneier (and many other authors) have pointed out, the sophisticated aggregation tools that exist today are what make the innocent, minor pieces of data collected here and there so threatening to all of us as individuals. We are lulled into feeling unconcerned about the collection of this seemingly benign data. However, as we’ve seen in countless examples, our supposedly non-personally identifiable information from numerous sources can now be aggregated to paint a clear picture of who we are - and from relatively few data points. And once that picture is painted, it’s nearly impossible for us to erase it. The European Union is currently arguing “the right to be forgotten”, and I suspect that once the American public is more aware of the level of data collection and aggregation we are truly being subjected to, this issue will come to the forefront in our political realm as well.