Brave New Internet of Things

We have not yet established the rules of engagement for an Internet of things, and the ethics of mass connectivity are still being moulded. How then can it be a good idea to live in a world of 7 trillion objects that are all communicating with each other? Call me old fashioned, but I just can’t identify the void that says we should implant RFID chips in inanimate objects, rendering them not so inanimate. There are a number of problems and benefits that have been identified, however when it is being argued that an Internet of Thing will increase efficiency I cannot be blamed for being skeptical.

Over the last 50 years nearly every piece of technology that has been invented has been done so in the name of efficiency. And yet, 6 million children die every year from starvation, media moguls get exponentially richer while the other 99% live day to day, corruption, greed and selfishness have not ceased to be part of human nature, dictators still rule, racism thrives, women are still mistreated in many countries… this list goes on. Basically, what I’m trying to say is that efficiency is not the answer. It won’t solve the fundamental problems that we’re already struggling with. If anything, it sounds putting in place this kind of network will intensify the already present rift between dfferent socio-economic groups of people. Gerald Santucci explains that power relations will be change and the Internet of things “enables growing groups of media and sensor literate individuals to organise themselves through the Internet and through new data gained from smart objects endowed with sensing and actuating capabilities.” In other words, those with the resources to can exploit the power of the information gleaned from this network.

Ted asked the question in the lecture about what all this means to being human? I think if we got to the stage that ‘David’ is at in video, our experience of being human would be profoundly altered, our reliance on so technology so intrinsic that our connection to nature would be severed. I don’t know about you, but it sounds too much like a Brave New World.

The Apple-Android debate

At the heart of the rivalry between Apple and Google, the forerunners in the Silicon Valley competition for the digital empire, lies their fundamentally opposing business models: open source vs. total control.

The underlying philosophy that drives the open source software model, and the reason Google chose this platform for their Android phones in an attempt to compete with Apple, is the possibility for constant innovation. The success Apple has enjoyed from the development of its iPhone is unarguable, so when Roth states in his article that “Apple's device was an end in itself”, I don’t think he is speaking in strictly economic terms. It therefore seems that Google’s decision for adopting the open source business model speaks less to the their drive for profit (though this shouldn’t be overlooked) and more to an ideological motivation: the desire to emulate the network effect of the Internet and the free flow of information, a source of ultimate inspiration.

But who cares about qualms and competition of two near superpowers, they can look after themselves right? What matters from the users perspective is of course user experience. Jason Hiner dissects the weaknesses of both operating systems. For Apple these include software inflexibility, productivity limitations in terms of content production by the user and few hardware choices. From an Adroidian’s perspective ecosystem chaos, inconsistent experiences with different hardware leading to confusion and a leadership vacuum are the main downfalls. It seems you can’t separate philosophy from experience. The business models that have made each company successful also lend to those products their inherent weaknesses. From the shortcomings of each one can begin to predict how Apple and Google will strive to outdo themselves and each other in the future. It is also interesting to consider that no matter who is winning the rat race, our drive for Smartphone’s is insatiable, and so I begin to hear the not-so-dulcet tones of the ‘Liquid Life’ anthem playing somewhere not-so-far-off.

Worldwide Revolution

Frankly, I find the criticisms that deem social media an ‘organising tool at best’ rather ironic. When it comes to mobilising the masses for a large-scale protest, what one function would serve you better than the capacity to organise millions of people quickly and cheaply? No one can deny that the socio-political landscape in many countries across the Arab Spring was ripe for revolution, but every uprising needs a catalyst.  In Tunisia and Egypt, the catalysts for the uprisings were localised events that spread like wildfire through the social media networks of the region, subsequently drawing attention from neighbouring countries and the rest of the world.  Media convergence, particularly the ability to upload videos and pictures from a mobile phone has been sited as “vital tool” used by citizens during the Arab Spring.

Journalist Deborah Amos says that in the Arab social media gave people a collective conscience, a group mentality that helped them feel responsible and prompted them to share information. Technology enabled what she calls “social imagination”, and the desire to spread activism with other citizens using the tools of social media.

What was the role of technology in the Arab uprisings?

While these demonstrations are happening on a smaller scale, it is pertinent to also analyse social media’s role in the current ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement, which has relied on Twitter and Facebook to spread its message.  Ben Rattray, founder of Change.org, says that social change is about how people use the tools available to them, and that social media should be “supporting, not supplanting, existing strategies”. People in different cities were able to share the progress of their separate movements in real-time,  

Our Revolution

Be subversive!

TWEET NOW:

#tedrevolution

Week 9 - Ultimate transparency

The questions of whether Wikileaks is ‘the press’, and whether its goal of ultimate transparency is a positive thing is one of the most critical debates of our time. Benkler (2011, p. 2) addresses hypocrisy of the U.S government’s claims that Wikileaks is a major threat to “a peaceful world under U.S leadership”, highlighting numerous politicians’ comments that Assange needs to be “neutralised”. Since Wikileaks released Collateral Damage, the government has been systematically trying to discredit and delegitimize the work of Julian Assange using a compliant mass media base. I believe this compliance speaks to the need of an independent body like Wikileaks to break the tough stories that many press institutions wouldn’t report on.

Jason Pontin, editor of Technology Review, speculates that the positives of Wikileaks are as an innovator. He says that the secure drop box, “a platform from which leaks cannot be traced and cannot be censored”, is a technology that would benefit traditional media institutions as well as less politically threatening sites. 

The hacker’s creed is that all information should be free. I guess the question that that must be asked is whether our government requires secrecy to operate effectively? As individuals we demand certain levels of privacy. Should our institutions be granted these same rights?  In my opinion, no. I think it conflicts with the principles of a true democracy.   

To finish off, here are a couple of interesting sites:

Oslo Freedom Forum shows videos from a three day conference. The speakers, including Julian Assange, were comprised of advocates for human rights, innovators, public intellectuals, and survivors of tyranny and oppression.

openDemocracy is dedicated to facilitating a global culture of views, and Crabtree is an associate editor.