Archive for August, 2008

I’m a huge fan of Google. I advocate for many of their products and have converted many friends to GMail (the most recent declared her soulmate status with the web mail service only 1 day after leaving Apple Mail). But for every new user, the power that Google wields increases. An increasing number of critics are surfacing and calling for regulatory oversight (see the proposal for a Federal Search Commission), user-based push back (see TrackMeNot) or even writing a whole book about their worries (see Siva’s Googlization of Everything). Many of these concerns were outlined in a recent article by the Boston Globe about the opponents of Google.

For a number of reasons I don’t have the desire to outline, I think many of these concerns are overstated and the proposed solutions are misplaced, but it is worthwhile to have people question such an important institution in today’s world. The one concern I have about Google isn’t really a problem from their end, but really a result of a market-based decision by users to search with the familiar company. Google’s share of searches tops 60% and, in turn, they shape the public perception of truth and knowledge. I was reminded just how potent they were by a recent blog post about the design choices they make on the search engine results pages (SERPs). Decisions as apparently minor as typography, spacing and color have profound effects on the results searchers click on. In turn, people experience different information than otherwise.

Because users are choosing this, and because Google has an interest in providing the best results, and because I’m not convinced this is worse than in the past, I’m not overly concerned about their power. But it is important to bear in mind the effects of search engines in today’s world.

In recent weeks, the iPhone has made quite a stir because of the regulatory decisions made by Apple. Jonathan Zittrain raised this worry in his book, The Future of the Internet, where he cautioned that generativity – the nature of systems to accept input from everyone – was being traded for sterile appliances – devices which do only simple tasks (GPS, TiVo).

The iPhone has led a new way, called contingent generativity, that makes generativity dependent upon an intermediary. Apple gets to decide whose Apps are available for download and though Steve Jobs had claimed that they would only block apps that were malicious, pornographic, bandwidth hogs, illegal or threats to privacy, that hasn’t proven true in practice. As I noted at Techdirt, Apple is becoming a Soviet ministry price-setting intermediary that decided the “I Am Rich” application wasn’t allowable even though it didn’t seem to break any rules. “I Am Rich” isn’t alone; other apps which provide additional functionality have been pulled with little to no explanation.

But being an ex-ante regulator isn’t enough. Apple, which is famously closed in character, also has the ability to regulate apps already on a user’s iPhone or iPod Touch. The so-called kill switch was not disclosed to the public until a curious user uncovered the capability. Only then did Steve Jobs admit the functionality existed, saying Apple needed the capability but “Hopefully we never have to pull that lever, but we would be irresponsible not to have a lever like that to pull.”

This position raises a number of questions, many well articulated around the web, not the least of which is why Apple thinks it needs a kill switch an the iPhone and not it’s Mac computers. The issues raised and trend shown by the iPhone’s kill switch is worrying and, as you might expect, some clever engineers have found a way to disable it for jailbroken iPhones, but a thread on the Free Culture mailing list got me wondering if there was a better way to solve this conundrum.

I think there is and I think it should draw on the scholarship of Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler in their book I recently reviewed, Nudge. For the uninitiated, Nudge is a book about “libertarian paternalism” which aims to create situations where it is easier to make the best choice while not limiting other options. Through architecting designs that enable better decisions, or nudges, libertarian paternalism provides a middle ground between freedom and mandates.

Apple has the opportunity to do so with the iPhone kill switch. The intentions of the regulatory function are good: many users are, for whatever reason, unable to avoid or fix security compromises. Apple has experts who can help these users, but a mandatory kill switch is not the best option. It treats all users the same and removes their ability to run applications they desire, regardless of potential hazards. Asheesh Laroia suggested that Apple allow users to permanently opt-out of the system.

I would go one step further towards openness and make the kill switch an opt-in feature. Call it AppleCare Pro for iPhone or something less awkward. Heck, Apple could even charge for it! Make it a prominent decision in the set-up process and allow users to revisit the option when they desire. Provide nudges towards it when the user downloads an App which might be dangerous (similar to how Google warns searchers they may be entering a nasty page).

This would give the worried or non-experts the ability to have Apple’s paternalistic reach extend to their phones without compromising the autonomy of those who want independence. Parker Higgins worries that those who need Apple’s protection are those likely to ignore the warnings, but I think Apple could architect a system where they are nudged towards better decision-making without a presumption of ignorance.

In doing this all, Apple should remain aware that openness and honesty is the best option. The fact that they hid the kill switch until outsiders found it is reminiscent of Comcast’s deceptive practices regarding BitTorrent throttling.

RAND, the American think-tank, has released a systematic study of historical fights against terrorist organizations ranging from the Oklahoma City bombers to Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers to Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The examination concludes that a “war on terror” is a mistaken approach to beat a distributed, insurgent enemy. Instead, in most scenarios a policy of smart policing and intelligence gathering is the best to defeat terrorism.

According to the analysis, overwhelming military might is only effective “Where opponents are large, organised like armies and occupy territory, military methods are likely to be more effective.” Such cases as Colombia’s FARC deserve traditional battle techniques, but only 20% of insurgencies are beaten through military assaults.

Forty-three percent, the largest quantity, of terrorist entities which ended their violence did so due to acceptance into the political process. Forty percent were beaten through traditional police and intelligence work.

This supports the analysis done in “The Starfish and the Spider” which recognizes that distributed networks cannot be beaten through centralized attacks. Current American counter-terror policies, however, try to do just that. The report’s authors suggest that the United States treat the terrorists as criminals, not warriors. “”The United States has the necessary instruments to defeat al Qaida, it just needs to shift its strategy and keep in mind that terrorist groups are not eradicated overnight.”

The program in which I am at Georgetown, the School of Foreign Service, is famous for the required course entitled “Map of the Modern World.” The “course designed to provide regional overviews of the evolution of the world political map since 1800, including major nationalist, ethnic, boundary, and territorial conflicts and regional tension areas.” With only one grade, much of the course comes down to freshman SFSers huddled around tables quizzing each other on obscure countries, their colonial histories and territorial disputes. (What is the significance of Angola’s bifurcation?”) To the best of my knowledge, the course is unique in its scope and leaves students with a holistic understanding of the world’s geopolitical setting.

One of the defining questions of geopolitics, and international relations more generally, is national sovereignty. The idea that nations are bounded regions beholden to justifiable self-governance is fundamental to the international system. Yet, it is not universally and consistently recognized. In an op-ed for the LA Times, two graduate students, point out the incongruous application of sovereignty by the United States. We support separatist movements in Kosovo, but condemn them in South Ossetia.

If the United States wishes to avoid [Russia's regional aggression] like this in the future, we need to be more consistent about how we treat fledgling independence movements. Beyond Kosovo and South Ossetia, why do we encourage the independence of the southern Sudanese but condemn the uprisings of the Kurds in eastern Turkey? Why do we speak up for the Tibetans in China but tune out the Basques in Spain?

The authors point out that our approach seeks to weaken competitors (Russia), while supporting allies (Spain). While this approach (realism) seems to make sense, it weakens our principled stance for sovereignty. Self-determinism movements around the world play close attention to how major powers approach other separatists. For example, Taiwan is known to be an ardent supporter of self-determination due to their relationship with China. Canada, on the other hand, wants to avoid a precedent which will see Ontario Quebec go its own way.

In the end, the authors argue for partitioning existing states as only a last resort. Good-faith efforts at bringing minorities into the government are much safer options. History shows that new states lead to more disputes, locally and abroad.

And, besides, an entire class of SFS students don’t want to memorize a whole new nation for their test.

On Thursday, John McCain, the Republican candidate for President, unveiled his official policy position on technology and innovation. He has come under fire in recent months for his technological illiteracy, but the extent of his wrong-headedness was not clear until his campaign presented the policy. Like many issues, it differs drastically from Barack Obama’s positions which have been public for months. While I have written in the past that getting technology policy right is not just an issue of being in touch with America, it is essential to the modern economy, what have others to say about McCain’s approach?

First, let’s take a look at the Wall Street Journal, who I’ve criticized in the past for confusing the issue at hand. Their article on McCain’s policy lacks real balance and is essentially just rephrasing his policy without substantive critiques. But when you read technology experts, it is clear that they think McCain is woefully incorrect.

David Weinberger, one of the smartest philosophers on the meaning of the Internet, compiles a list of words you won’t find in McCain’s policy. He points out that McCain sees the Internet as a broadcast medium, not an interactive communicative tool.

Harvard computer science professor Harry Lewis says of the policy, “It’s mostly vague, aspirational statements, many of which are in flat contradiction with each other.”

Craig Newmark, founder of craigslist, has been a driving force behind making the net what it is today. He says in reaction to McCain’s positions, “Obama embraces the Internet as a means of cleaning Washington up, but McCain/Bush sees it as a threat which might make them accountable.”

Harold Feld, the tech policy wonk, calls the policy “a joke.”

David Isenberg, a Berkman fellow, says “to McCain, the Internet is yet another technology by which America can compete against the world.”

Former FCC Chairman, Reed Hundt, lists numerous problems.

Wharton Professor Kevin Werbach calls it a “non-plan.”

OneWebDay organizer and ICANN member, Susan Crawford, notes “This isn’t vision.  It’s more like a wistful memoir about times gone by.”

The list goes on, but it is important to note that these are the people who understand the Internet better than anyone. Many of them have been fundamentally involved in the development of the Internet. They are on the front lines, so to speak, and McCain is admittedly nowhere near them in expertise. If technology and innovation is something important to you, then the choice seems clear in November.

Update: Lessig weighs in via video.

I remember the first time I saw Hans Rosling present his Gapminder project. In a TED video he wowed the crowd by bringing boring tables of statistics to life through stunning animations. His innovative presentation of data dispelled myths and misconceptions. By making statistics something we could visualize, Rosling showed me the power of a good visualization.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w]

That is why a new project called GeoCommons is so exciting. GeoCommons is the consumer product that includes “Finder!” and “Maker!”. They allow, as you might expect, anyone to find or make stunning maps of geo-coded data. Data sets are easily exportable to mapping services like Google Earth or Microsoft Virtual Earth. When they unveil Maker! in the coming weeks, expect it to do for geo-visualization what the Google Maps API did for geo-mashups. Take, for example, the map below.

According to TechCrunch who covered GeoCommons today, the orange circles represent carbon emmissions while the darker shaded regions show heavier population densities. Because of this map the amorphous issue of air quality in China is reified. The possibilities are endless and hundreds are already available for examination.

I am incredibly excited to see what geographical data people are able to make concrete. Data is only as good as it is understandable and tools like GeoCommons and Gapminder make data understandable at a glance. They reveal the truth more than a spreadsheet ever could.

It seems the media likes nothing better than a good symbol and nothing says “Rise of China” like the Beijing Olympics. Picking up on the theme, David Brooks has an article on collectivism versus individualism where he provokes that China’s rise through collectivism is a threat to the power of the American dream.

Touching on a topic I mentioned a while back, Brooks explains the fundamental differences in worldview held by Asia and the West. While the West values individuals and their success, Asians seem to prioritize collective harmony. For example, show a fish tank to an American and he sees the biggest fish and its actions. An Asian, on the other hand, sees the relationships between the fish. In experiment after experiment, “Americans usually see individuals; Chinese and other Asians see contexts.”

For much of history, individualist societies excelled economically, but Brooks thinks the rise of China may point to a change in that narrative.

“But what happens if collectivist societies snap out of their economic stagnation? What happens if collectivist societies, especially those in Asia, rise economically and come to rival the West? A new sort of global conversation develops.

The opening ceremony in Beijing was a statement in that conversation. It was part of China’s assertion that development doesn’t come only through Western, liberal means, but also through Eastern and collective ones.”

However, I think Brooks is missing a key point. I’m not an expert on either economics or China, but my understanding of the rise of China is that it hinged upon economic liberalization led by Deng Xiaoping. By opening up to international trade and moving towards a market system, China paved the way to the double-digit growth which has characterized its recent years.

What Brooks alleges, then, is that China has embraced capitalism while maintaining a collectivist spirit. In Ted Koppel’s recent miniseries entitled “The People’s Republic of Capitalism,” he interviewed a Western-educated Chinese youth who thought government censorship and repression was acceptable because it was bringing China out of poverty and improving millions of lives. Brooks sees this sentiment, which I believe is widespread, as a collectivist capitalism.

I disagree. I think it is driven by self-interest; it is individualistic. Those suppressed are not supporting the suppression. They don’t think collective harmony for growth is good, like Brooks supposes. The Koppel interview shows citizens who are being personally benefited by markets – the selfishly driven interaction of individuals. The rise of China – an economic phenomenon of GDP growth – comes with increased individualism. My intuition is that while it may masquerade as collectivism (“all of China is benefiting from this system, so suppression of dissent is okay”), it is really individuals seeing themselves benefit and liking it. Brooks thesis, as I understand it, would be supported by an active Falun Gong member supporting his suppression because his family is richer than last year. And, although I haven’t looked hard, I don’t think that is happening.

[Image credit]

A new type of narrative is taking hold among the coverage of the military conflict between Russia and Georgia. A number of sites are writing about the “cyberwarfare” being waged by pro-Russian forces against the Georgian government. It seems that, like Estonia a year ago, entities evoking the ire of Russia must be forced to combat widespread botnet-based DDoS attacks. I think there is little doubt that such occurrences will be increasingly part of real-world conflicts, but people are rushing into framing this as warfare, which will only lead to military-based reactions – something I fear.

But before we irrevocably frame the issue as one of war, we need to ask if it even is so. Last year during the Estonia attacks, Tim Lee wrote a post arguing that what was happening was little more than petty vandalism. While the media reported that the government, banks and media in Estonia were being targeted, it was really only their public websites. He asked, would the average American even notice if Congress’s website was down?

“I suppose it would be a bit of a pain if I wasn’t able to check CNN or my bank account balance. But that’s not “cyber war.” It’s petty vandalism. It deserves the attention of network security experts at the companies whose websites were targetted, of course, but it’s ridiculous to get NATO involved or to act as though Russia engaging in this kind of “cyber warfare” is even remotely on par with Russia launching cruise missiles against Estonian targets.”

Although in Georgia, obviously, real war is taking place, the cyberattacks don’t seem to be taking down critical infrastructure. Instead, the websites of government ministries have been compromised. In response, the Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has created a blog using Google’s hosted service. With Google’s network engineers protecting the integrity of the site, the ministry can use it to provide information updates. Will other governments come to depend on hosted solutions for their websites? So far consumers and commerce have taken to cloud computing with a vengeance, and one wonders if government, too, will do so. The same benefits of outsourcing internal IT will make it useful for governments to host their websites at specialized hosting services.

In recent days, there have been a number of cool translation-related initiatives which have come through my feed reader. In the past, I’ve mentioned how translation is going to be important to avoid the fragmentation of the world wide web, and these developments are welcome solutions.

The first are the hints of a new service from Google called Translation Center. Google knows that its mission of making all the world’s information universally accessible requires widespread, accurate translation. The new service, uncovered at Google Blogoscoped, will bring together translators and those seeking translation. Volunteers and professional translators can bring web content into other languages through a manual translation effort through tools provided by Google. It is unclear if this will be a marketplace with payment or just voluntary exchanges. This development comes 7 years after Google offered volunteers the ability to translate Google services into their native language through Google In Your Language. This effort has seen the explosion of more than 100 localized versions of their site.

Secondly, TechCrunch reports that VoIP provider Jajah has introduced JAJAH.Babel which provides instant Chinese-to-English translation through a phone. Users call a number, speak Mandarin or English into the phone, and a few seconds later the translated version is read back. Apparently the technology works pretty well and could come to replace in-person translators who accompany business people, diplomats and others around the world. I’m surprised that the service works with Mandarin which I would have thought we be a more difficult language to translate, so I hope they expand it to other languages soon. Imagine the help this will be to tourists in China who now have a phone number which can explain to the natives what they need, in their own language.

Finally, a post from the recent iSummit held by iCommons explains the difficulties and promises of multilingualism online.

While statistics are difficult to get, it appears that less than a third of the web’s users use English as a first language, and only a third of all websites are in English. Unfortunately, building a multilingual web is more complex than simply using an automated translation service. Computers have yet to understand local contexts, cultural references, and do not have a proper grasp of grammar… Translation is extremely difficult, especially in a distributed context. For example, when translating from English to Chinese, one has to decide whether Traditional or Simplified Chinese will be used. Furthermore, a volunteer from Taiwan may use different characters or metaphors to describe events than a volunteer from Beijing. As such, volunteer management is often more structured and complex than one would initially assume.

These questions will certainly loom large for Google as they embark upon the Translation Center, but hopefully they can create a compelling product which motivates people to lend their language skills to bridging the gap between societies.

Update: Google now has Google Translate for iPhone.

Last night I wrote the following piece for Techdirt:

Someone has created a simple iPhone application called “I Am Rich” which sells for $999.99 and simply makes the screen grow ruby red and offers “a secret mantra.” But more shocking than this apparent waste of bytes and money is a number of prominent blogs which are calling for Apple to block the application. This is ludicrous. If someone wants to part with a grand for a glowing screen, who is Apple to stop them? The application developer is honest and clearly states that there “is no hidden function.” It is not malicious, pornographic, a bandwidth hog, illegal or a threat to privacy.

And do these pro-regulation bloggers really want to have Apple assume the role of a Soviet ministry – designating appropriate prices for applications? Should Steve Jobs and company really determine the price of Super Monkey Ball? One commenter suggests that this application is an “insult to all the well-meaning developers that Apple made wait/are still waiting to get into the iPhone developer program.” The problem of slow approval is not a single application, but the way in which Apple is playing gatekeeper to the iPhone. Again, these complaints are asking Apple to decide which applications should receive priority review and approval – a slippery slope which places arbitrary values on applications. And by advocating that Apple makes the iPhone a more closed system, these opponents of the “I Am Rich” application may in fact be pushing Apple away from a business model that succeeds – openness.

Now, it seems the “I Am Rich” application has disappeared from the App Store. It isn’t clear if the developer removed it or Apple did, but the scenario points to a worrying trend. If Apple pulled it, they are becoming the intermediaries of Soviety style that Zittrain fears. If the developer removed the application due to the pressure of the protesting bloggers, I think it’s even more scary – a new mob of haughty, paternalistic bloggers are interfering with the market. No one stopped pet rocks, why “I Am Rich”?

Update: Apple has now pulled the application even though there was consumer interest in it.