Posts Tagged ‘Technology’

Thanks largely to a course on infrastructure studies, my thinking about the role of technology in society has evolved greatly in 2010. I used to be convinced that digital technologies were just tools, capable of good or bad uses. Now, I’m more likely to find that they do exert some sort of pressure towards society, but that the ultimate effect is still a result of mixing with larger societal forces (see domestication theory).

These are issues that are receiving a lot of attention – Jaron Lanier is getting big-time media attention for saying that the Internet is taking us all to hell in a hand-basket in his new book, You Are Not a Gadget, the public is being led to ask questions about the effect of Google and the Internet on cognition, etc. But what is missing, in my opinion, from these discussions are the productive ways in which willing individuals can use specific technologies to change the supposed direction of our networked milieu.

For example, by nature of being a limited-purpose device, as opposed to the iPad’s more generalized capabilites, the Amazon Kindle has, at least anecdotally, allowed far more people to focus on reading long-form writing. Another option, and one that I use when writing longer papers, is Freedom for Mac, a simple software tool for OSX that disables wifi connectivity allowing me to avoid distractedly slipping into the series of tubes. Or take the advances in audio technology which limit external interference.

Sure, these are ways to “drop-out” of the technological world. And sure, Freedom for Mac isn’t as granular as I’d like (i.e. block Facebook but not LexisNexis), but these tools don’t need to be perfect, they just need to nudge people towards behavior that is more conducive to the good life. They need to just slightly alter any potential downsides of “being digital” to make the good parts easier. Unfortunately, the debate surrounding this all-to-often assumes that the trajectory is set and that we cannot change it through the use of innovative tools.

Aldous Huxley

I recently stumbled upon Aldous Huxley’s 1946 essay entitled Science, Liberty and Peace which is a remarkable piece of writing. In it, he argues that science and technology has, throughout history, been one of the main causes of the centralization of power and decline of liberty.

“All that is being maintained here is that progressive science is one of the causative factors involved in the progressive decline of liberty and the progressive centralization of power, which have occurred during the twentieth century.”

It has done this through a number of ways, but the two most potent were coercion and persuasion.

Coercion

“In the course of the past two or three generations science and technology have equipped the political bosses who control the various national states with unprecedentedly efficient instruments of coercion. The tank, the flame-thrower and the bomber – to mention but a few of the instruments – have made nonsense of the old techniques of popular revolt. A the same time, the recent revolutionary improvements in the means of transport and communications have vastly strengthened the hands of the police.”

Huxley was obviously highly pessimistic about the actions of the authorities; after all, he had just witnessed the Second World War and the specter of the atomic bomb looms high in this essay. Because the war-making power of the state is so great against internal dissent, Huxley looks to the nonviolent leadership of Ghandi as an example of how to use new techniques in the face of new technology.

“In the past, personal and political liberty depended to a considerable extent upon governmental inefficiency. The spirit of tyranny was always more than willing; but its organization and material equipment were generally weak.”

Huxley was right then, as Evgeny Morozov is right now, to point out that oppressive governments are always willing to use the newest technological tools to limit liberty; however, this misses the ways in which dissidents can mobilize with technology, as well.

“[F]or in any armed conflict, the side which has the tanks, planes and flame-throwers cannot fail to defeat the side which is armed at the very best only with small arms and hand grenades.”

Really? Then how did napalm, fighter jets and M-16s fail to bring America victory in Vietnam? Or why have million dollar helicopters been brought down by decades old armaments in Somalia? Asymmetric fighting and differing motivations can do much to overcome the technological advances of governments.

Persuasion

But Huxley knows that out-right military advantage is unlikely to be the only deciding factor.

“The pen and the voice are at least as might as the sword; for the sword is wielded in obedience to the spoken or written word.”

The economics of the printing press and radio did much to concentrate political power. Newspapers and radio need either the support of advertisers (“the people who control centralized finance and large-scale, mass-producing and mass-distributing industry” in the words of Huxley) or the support of the government, and their influential writing is biased as such.

Of course, not all ICTs are the same, and the promise of digital technologies, as Yochai Benkler has so eloquently explained in The Wealth of Networks, is in their ability to distribute power and production.

Instability and Progress

Huxley also saw science and technology as profoundly destabilizing for the daily-lives of the common man. Although he didn’t foresee it, he would have seen the recent expansion of government’s role in the financial markets as indicative of what happens when innovations (this time, financial), disrupt livelihoods so much that people turn to government for support.

“A highly progressive technology entails incessant and often very rapid and startling changes of economic, political and ethical state; and such changes tend to keep the societies subjected to them in a chronically uncomfortable and unstable condition. Some day, perhaps, social scientists will be able to tell us what is the optimum rate of change, and what the optimum amount of it at any one time. For the present, Western societies remain at the mercy of their progressive technologies, to the intense discomfort of everybody concerned. Man as a moral, social and political being is sacrificed to homo faber, or man the smith, the inventor and forger of new gadgets.”

He went further, arguing that the mentality of “progress” is a new concept – where our ancestors saw the world in decline, even after the Great Depression and two world wars, the common sentiment at the time of writing was one of optimism and inevitable progress.

“The belief in all-around progress is based upon the wishful dream that one can get something for nothing. Its underlying assumption is that gains in one field do not have to be paid for by losses in other fields.”

I think he misses the point on this one. In seeing the world as zero-sum, Huxley doesn’t realize that growth can be nonzero and lead to widespread gains (without equal and opposite losses). In fact, since economic growth really only began with the industrial revolution, it makes sense for our ancestors to have seen the world as more of a zero-sum game.

War and a Steps to Avoid It

Huxley believed that the presence of deadly weapons and the structure of our global economy inevitably led to war. The temptation was too great for the power-wielders for whom he had little respect. Rejecting what would later come to be known as Mutually Assured Destruction, he wrote:

“Whenever progressive science has produced some strikingly more efficient instrument of slaughter, hopes have been voices, and facts and figures marshaled to prove, that henceforth war would be too expensive in life, suffering and money to be worth waging. Nevertheless wars have still be fought. Methods of defense against the destructive weapons are devised and yet more efficient instruments of counterattack are invented. Advances in technology do not abolish the institution of war; they merely modify its manifestations.”

He has two major suggestions on how to avoid such destructive conflicts as the ones which shaped his thinking. To begin he wants,

“a restatement of the Emersonian of self-reliance – a restatement, not abstract and general, but fully documented with an account of all the presently available techniques for achieving independence within a localized, co-operative community.”

With the presence of nationalism, global trade, for Huxley, was naturally exploitative and led to conflicts over resources. Local self-sufficiency was a path out of international friction. I fear, though, that by supporting isolationism, the jingoism he detested would never be overcome through cross-cultural exchange. Even more, Huxley advocated advances in science to promote the supply of food, but as the experience of genetically modified foods shows, scientific advances to end resource scarcity can promote centralization of power even more.

His other remedy addressed scientists directly. There were three ways he saw scientists acting:

1. Refuse to work on armaments and that which centralizes power;
2. Pool dangerous knowledge and form an international inspectorate; and
3. Create a professional code to apply science in man’s interest.

The problem is that technology, so often, is just a tool that can be used for good or for evil. Huxley noted that basic research is worthwhile, even though it is difficult to understand its uses down-the-line, but the same is true for much applied science (just think of Alfred Noble’s horror at learning that his mining invention was used to kill).

Science, Liberty and Peace by Huxley isn’t easy to find – I’m lucky to have access to a major research university – but if you can get your hands on it, I recommend taking the couple hours to read through it and be challenged by his thinking from more than half a century ago.

[Image credit: WikiMedia]

I recently joined the Editorial Board of The Hoya, Georgetown’s student newspaper. Although the articles are edited collaboratively between the five members, the first piece I substantially wrote was a response to Mark Bauerlein’s “The Dumbest Generation“:

“Bauerlein apparently fails to see that there are two sides to every coin. By using the technology at our disposal, we have found means of engaging in society at ages during which young people were formerly kept out of public discourse. Kids, well, they’ll be kids: The ones who ignored Cronkite’s drone 30 years ago will no more pay attention in class today. But what has changed is the ability to mobilize many to engage and discuss — in the classroom, the public sphere or simply with peers… Digital technology, when accompanied by a little bit of curiosity, unleashes intellectual potential in new and exciting ways.”

Check out the rest of it (including a response from Bauerlein) here.

Update: MacArthur Foundation reports that Internet use develops important skills.

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.

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.

Occasionally my dad will come home with a pile of eclectic publications I’ve never seen before (or since he last did this), and I will stack them with the rest of my planned reading. A couple of days ago he gave me, among others, the Summer 2008 issue of the Stanford Social Innovation Review which could very well turn out to be my newest subscription.

One article which spurred a bunch of thoughts was entitled “Less is More” and available here behind a registration wall (when will publishers learn?). In it, the authors point out what major actors in the development field often fail to remember: necessity is the mother of all invention.

Lissa Valikangas and Michael Gibbert see scarcity not as a barrier which must be overcome through massive amounts of aid. Instead, it induces creative innovations which very well may become marketable designs. As development economist William Easterly is famous for extolling: billions of dollars of aid have been spent and the poor nations supposedly helped have seen little progress or, in certain cases, reversals of fortune. In fact, external aid can severely distort markets and even cause “Dutch Disease,” the term economists use to describe the negative effects of resource exploitation.

What Valikangas and Gibbert propose is a refocusing of aid to “build on local tinkering that already exists and supply the often minimal extra resources needed to scale them up.” To them, resource constraints present an opportunity to foster innovation.

Similarly, Amy Smith of MIT proposes cheap technological fixes to the problems of the developing world. Technology, understood in this way, is more similar to the Greek origin of “craft.” It is not computers or large scale networks. Smith designs simple tools that ease daily concerns. In her interview at the New Yorker conference, she shows off rough metal objects which significantly reduce the time and effort needed to make charcoal or shell corn. The extra time or product can be used for other activities previously off-limits to the inhabitants of a resource poor area.

In times of grand thinking, it is often the most simple ideas which really reduce the burden of living on less than a dollar per day. Understanding these burdens requires a intimate knowledge of the developing world, one that comes from outside the classroom and beyond books. So what are you waiting for?