Ok, I figured I had to find out what Klout is about. Could I match Justin Bieber? He has a 100 rating on Klout, rumor has it that he can get free upgrades, restaurant meals, etc. -- the bottom line is that he had klout before Klout existed -- so to speak.
Klout evaluates your online presence in the areas where Klout evaluates your online presence -- such as Facebook, LinkedIn (although I'm not as sure of this), Twitter, Google+, -- yea verily, even Blogger. It looks for followers and friends, but even more for re-tweets, references, etc. When other folks point to your stuff and tell others about it, it increases your Klout. All of which makes real sense.
Once upon a time there was Google, and they made money by associating the things sought (search) with things that could be bought (ads)
Then there was Facebook -- where friends count. Or more specifically, when you "l.ike" something, your friends find out. -- sort of an online "word-of-mouth" recommender system. Logic, folks will take more interest in the things their friends find interesting. [Result -- massive IPO valuation expected.]
Klout is a logical extension of this -- evaluating how influential your web presence is, and assigning it a number. I understand that 50 is the magic target (for those under 50) -- and if your Klout is low you may not get that job, or upgrade -- well let's face it, why treat someone well if their Klout is zero?
So there is a new game to play ... for Klout score ... room for mutual backscratching (I'll K+ you if you K+ me, or I'll cite your blog, etc. etc.) -- and it could make sense, if Klout has any Klout.
For example, members of IEEE (or AMA, or the Sierra Club) could create Klout Klubs, endorsing, recommending, and otherwise promoting each other on Klout. From this both the individuals Klout would raise, and there is the potential to establish visibility for the overall Klout of the organization.
There is the other side of this ... I find that Vint Cerf has no Klout. -- this doesn't make sense in my book. At least Tim Berners-Lee has Klout ... although it seems to have been declining according to their graphing. These are two folks I'd listen to any time they choose to speak.
What Klout misses is the dialog that occurs outside of the "big 10" social media sites. Besides the Reddit, Wired and Technorati sites; there are the thousands of sites where folks interact outside of the public eye. Somehow I think the folks that really have Klout tend to interact there, not on "main street". But, for a certain class of influence (think People Magazine, not Nature) I suspect Klout has -- well, some impact.
2012-05-17
2012-05-03
Test "Drive"
I've started to play with Google Drive, which promises to be rather interesting. I tweeted this yesterday and got a response about checking the Service Agreement. This is always wise for any product, and I've periodically checked Google's and found it to always acknowledge the users ongoing copyright ownership. But then there is also a problem, which Google has tried to address, but starts to become problematic when we look at Google Docs, Drive and other "cloud storage" areas.
I'm not alone in my concerns here, other articles have been posted related to concerns with the terms of service. Security Watch, ZDNet which has it wrong -- Google is not assuming ownership, just too many non-exclusive rights. New Legal Review provides some feedback from Google on these matters -- pointing to one underlying issue which is the use of commonly applied legal phrasing that is out of date with respect to the kinds of services being offered.
Some folks are paranoid about Google being forced to share content with US Government agencies (or other legal jurisdictions depending on where the data/user reside) ... which is simply a fact of life. Government entities have some rights (ideally with due process, but not always) that they can exercise to obtain your files. A recent Wired Magazine alluded to an NSA facility being built in Utah, which they say will have a copy of everything on the web, all emails, all phone calls, etc - world wide. That appears to be a bit beyond NSA's remit at this point, but some subset of this is likely to be true. There is a revenue opportunity for the US Government in this --- NSA could provide a cloud data storage service, it would avoid redundancy. Moreover, I suspect they have better security than Google, and their terms of service are likely to be less ambiguous.
Google has to make and hold certain copies of content to provide the service. Clearly if I create or upload a document, it must have at least one copy on a Google server and probably backup copies as well. If I put a video up on Youtube, I must grant Google the performance rights to present that to the public since that is the intended use. And this blog entry is another example, Google must be able to display it publicly --- and in reality that means a copy gets transferred to every viewer's browser (and may reside there in a cache or temp file for some period even if they do not chose to "save" the web page -- which of course is an apparent copyright violation as well.
But, Google Docs and Drive have a different objective (in my mind) and should have different rules. I want to have a spot where I can have content stored in the cloud, accessible by more than one of my computers, and in some cases shared with family or associates, etc. It is not my intent to allow this content to become available on the public web, etc. In fact, some content I have with financial and/or other personal information is content I'd like to store on the cloud, share between my computers but not have visible for any other users.
So here is an excerpt from the March 1, 2012 version of Google's Service Agreement:
Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps). Some Services may offer you ways to access and remove content that has been provided to that Service. Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services. Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant us this license for any content that you submit to our Services.
And herein some problems lie. The right granted to Google to create derivative works is un-bounded (I'm an author, I might want to store my short stories or novel in the cloud); the public display and distribution of content is antithetical to my desire to have content I consider private stored in the cloud.
There are additional terms of service for Apps:
By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Google services which are intended to be available to the members of the public, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, modify, publish and distribute such Content on Google services for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting Google services. Google reserves the right to syndicate Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services and use that Content in connection with any service offered by Google.This at least acknowledges the issue of "which are intended to be available to members of the public". There is also additional wording about confidential materials, but it is unclear how I might flag content as confidential, and without such indication, how I could hold Google responsible for treating it the same way they might treat other materials.
I'm not alone in my concerns here, other articles have been posted related to concerns with the terms of service. Security Watch, ZDNet which has it wrong -- Google is not assuming ownership, just too many non-exclusive rights. New Legal Review provides some feedback from Google on these matters -- pointing to one underlying issue which is the use of commonly applied legal phrasing that is out of date with respect to the kinds of services being offered.
Some folks are paranoid about Google being forced to share content with US Government agencies (or other legal jurisdictions depending on where the data/user reside) ... which is simply a fact of life. Government entities have some rights (ideally with due process, but not always) that they can exercise to obtain your files. A recent Wired Magazine alluded to an NSA facility being built in Utah, which they say will have a copy of everything on the web, all emails, all phone calls, etc - world wide. That appears to be a bit beyond NSA's remit at this point, but some subset of this is likely to be true. There is a revenue opportunity for the US Government in this --- NSA could provide a cloud data storage service, it would avoid redundancy. Moreover, I suspect they have better security than Google, and their terms of service are likely to be less ambiguous.
2012-02-27
The Internet as a symbiotic entity
Eric Raymond posted a comment on his blog recently ("An Open Letter to Chris Dodd") as a "Don't tread on me" statement for part if not all of the Internet community. In this blog he has many interesting and articulate comments about the nature of intellectual property and the means and motives for protecting it.
The phrase that caught my eye was "“the Internet” isn’t just a network of wires and switches, it’s also a sort of reactive social organism composed of the people who keep those wires humming and those switches clicking." I think Eric has significantly understated the nature of the beast while capturing a key insight. What Eric has left out is many other components of the Internet that go beyond engineers and wires. We have users, hackers, stalkers, creators, consumers, servers, host, patrons, pariah, billionaires and bottom feeders (yes, some are both). We have a full eco-system of interacting, and perhaps not fully interdependent components. If it were possible to purge all instances of a particular component, it is unclear if the overall entity would survive. Consider elimination of mosquito's ... generally something I think I favor... but what would the unintended consequences be?
Eric asserts that "Whatever else we Internet geeks may disagree on among ourselves, we will not allow our gift of fire to be snuffed out by jealous gods." This alludes to the ability of Internet watchdogs to engage the masses (as was done for the SOPA blackout) and counter political and legal actions that might threaten the Internet.
There may be something else at work here, as described by Susan Blackmore in her TED.com presentation on Memes. She asserts, following Darwin's law of evolution, if you have a replicator (genes, organisms, memes), and selection (of the fittest, catchy ideas, Google page rank), you will get evolution (emerging new things better at meeting the selection criteria.) Richard Dawkins, in The Selfish Gene asserts that genes are evolving replicators. Which is not to exclude cells, people and even tribes or societies from also being evolving replicators. Considering the Internet this way we can see that it does replicate at various levels. We have home nets, Intranets, Extranets, and many paths for interaction in the totally non-transparent 'cloud' that exists between your ISP and mine. The net is evolving without question. We can consider this at the IPv4 to IPv6 level, wired to wifi, university to commercial, Altavista to Google, credit-cards to Paypal, and many other levels. I suspect there is a level we treat as the "net-generation" of people also. However this may be evolving and segmenting much more rapidly than we realize. Are you net 2.0, 3.0, 55.233.23? Linkedin or Facebook, Twitter or ?? My daughter is funding a book via Kickstarter.com, the Arab spring versions 1.0 and 2.0 are being informed by various social media channels.
The real challenge for Senator Dodd, and the rest of us, is to be sufficiently aware of this multi-faceted beast to leverage its power while not raising its ire. Ray Kurzweil asserts the Singularity is Near. I constantly return to the observation that we may not know when something reaches critical mass and disappears off our radar. The Internet with its rapid replication at multiple levels provides a fertile eco system for this to occur. And yes, the resulting entities may have some interest in self preservation as well as symbiotic tendrils into select human communities.
The phrase that caught my eye was "“the Internet” isn’t just a network of wires and switches, it’s also a sort of reactive social organism composed of the people who keep those wires humming and those switches clicking." I think Eric has significantly understated the nature of the beast while capturing a key insight. What Eric has left out is many other components of the Internet that go beyond engineers and wires. We have users, hackers, stalkers, creators, consumers, servers, host, patrons, pariah, billionaires and bottom feeders (yes, some are both). We have a full eco-system of interacting, and perhaps not fully interdependent components. If it were possible to purge all instances of a particular component, it is unclear if the overall entity would survive. Consider elimination of mosquito's ... generally something I think I favor... but what would the unintended consequences be?
Eric asserts that "Whatever else we Internet geeks may disagree on among ourselves, we will not allow our gift of fire to be snuffed out by jealous gods." This alludes to the ability of Internet watchdogs to engage the masses (as was done for the SOPA blackout) and counter political and legal actions that might threaten the Internet.
There may be something else at work here, as described by Susan Blackmore in her TED.com presentation on Memes. She asserts, following Darwin's law of evolution, if you have a replicator (genes, organisms, memes), and selection (of the fittest, catchy ideas, Google page rank), you will get evolution (emerging new things better at meeting the selection criteria.) Richard Dawkins, in The Selfish Gene asserts that genes are evolving replicators. Which is not to exclude cells, people and even tribes or societies from also being evolving replicators. Considering the Internet this way we can see that it does replicate at various levels. We have home nets, Intranets, Extranets, and many paths for interaction in the totally non-transparent 'cloud' that exists between your ISP and mine. The net is evolving without question. We can consider this at the IPv4 to IPv6 level, wired to wifi, university to commercial, Altavista to Google, credit-cards to Paypal, and many other levels. I suspect there is a level we treat as the "net-generation" of people also. However this may be evolving and segmenting much more rapidly than we realize. Are you net 2.0, 3.0, 55.233.23? Linkedin or Facebook, Twitter or ?? My daughter is funding a book via Kickstarter.com, the Arab spring versions 1.0 and 2.0 are being informed by various social media channels.
The real challenge for Senator Dodd, and the rest of us, is to be sufficiently aware of this multi-faceted beast to leverage its power while not raising its ire. Ray Kurzweil asserts the Singularity is Near. I constantly return to the observation that we may not know when something reaches critical mass and disappears off our radar. The Internet with its rapid replication at multiple levels provides a fertile eco system for this to occur. And yes, the resulting entities may have some interest in self preservation as well as symbiotic tendrils into select human communities.
2012-01-18
Protest Blackout, the Internet Community may Discover its Power
Today, Jan. 18 2012, we are seeing something interesting on the Internet -- a widespread protest of proposed legislation in the U.S. -- specifically SOPA/PITA bills to address concerns about online piracy via mandates put on search engines and other informational sources. The concerns of these affected entities can be seen (probably beyond today) at spots like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more
Wikipedia is also using zip codes to connect folks to their congressional representatives and encouraging them to call, tweet and email them. Google is also in the mix. They have "blacked-out" their logo, and if you click on it you get to https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/ where they explain their stance, and have a petition you can sign that will be directed at congress (and also the media).
Interestingly, Google is also asking for email addresses of folks interested in being informed of additional issues affecting "Internet Freedom" --- In short, this legislative attempt may have unleashed a community of interest that could swamp the NRA, MPAA and other highly effective advocates in the legislative process.
It will be interesting to see how many folks follow up in contacts, in the petition, and in the "contact" list that Google is collecting.
The problem with disturbing a dragon is that it can get irritated, and if you really wake it up, it may actually discover it has some power.
----
Redux Jan 25th
-------
The waking giant has been noticed. The Wall St. Jounal (News Corp) has accused the corporate interests of violating campaign fiance laws, a rather curious stance since the Supreme Court (Citizens United) has ruled that corporations are persons with unlimited rights to free political speech, even if direct contributions to candidates (aka bribary IMHO) are still limited. More are the Harvard Business Review blog entries "The real SOPA battle" in particular which suggests the corporate intent is to destroy the disruptive technology (Internet) not just to protect IP. In effect, seeking protection for their business models, not the poor artists whose works have already been appropriated (few song writers get royalties, unless, like Paul McCartney they buy back the rights to their songs; other industries have other models, but the big bucks tend to go to go to the publishers, not the creators.) The WSJ book reviews include related commentary on "Fixing Copyright" by William Patry (Google's lead copyright lawyer) written by Robert Levine--the author of "Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business, and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back." Clearly an expert with a point of view.
Today Google used the email contacts aquired in the protest to both "thank congress" (showing some good lobbying skills) and also to confirm that the particpants want to be notified of upcoming policy issues ... the giant(s) are conscious and consolidating their strenght. There will be more to come. Even with SOPA off the table, there are valid piracy issues, an ongoing need to reform copyright to align with real incentives for creators and finally future issues that touch the Internet which now has a community of giants taking active interest.
Final note, the Khan Academy has a short tutorial on SOPA and some of the issues - an interesting resource in any case.
Redux Jan 27:
"Online petitions picked up 10,000,000 signatures, members of Congress received 3,000,000 emails and a still-unknown number of phone calls. Thirty-four Senators felt obliged to come out publicly against the legislation. That night, all four Republican candidates condemned the bills during a televised debate."
so saith: Larry Downes, Forbes
Wikipedia is also using zip codes to connect folks to their congressional representatives and encouraging them to call, tweet and email them. Google is also in the mix. They have "blacked-out" their logo, and if you click on it you get to https://www.google.com/landing/takeaction/ where they explain their stance, and have a petition you can sign that will be directed at congress (and also the media).
Interestingly, Google is also asking for email addresses of folks interested in being informed of additional issues affecting "Internet Freedom" --- In short, this legislative attempt may have unleashed a community of interest that could swamp the NRA, MPAA and other highly effective advocates in the legislative process.
It will be interesting to see how many folks follow up in contacts, in the petition, and in the "contact" list that Google is collecting.
The problem with disturbing a dragon is that it can get irritated, and if you really wake it up, it may actually discover it has some power.
----
Redux Jan 25th
-------
The waking giant has been noticed. The Wall St. Jounal (News Corp) has accused the corporate interests of violating campaign fiance laws, a rather curious stance since the Supreme Court (Citizens United) has ruled that corporations are persons with unlimited rights to free political speech, even if direct contributions to candidates (aka bribary IMHO) are still limited. More are the Harvard Business Review blog entries "The real SOPA battle" in particular which suggests the corporate intent is to destroy the disruptive technology (Internet) not just to protect IP. In effect, seeking protection for their business models, not the poor artists whose works have already been appropriated (few song writers get royalties, unless, like Paul McCartney they buy back the rights to their songs; other industries have other models, but the big bucks tend to go to go to the publishers, not the creators.) The WSJ book reviews include related commentary on "Fixing Copyright" by William Patry (Google's lead copyright lawyer) written by Robert Levine--the author of "Free Ride: How Digital Parasites are Destroying the Culture Business, and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back." Clearly an expert with a point of view.
Today Google used the email contacts aquired in the protest to both "thank congress" (showing some good lobbying skills) and also to confirm that the particpants want to be notified of upcoming policy issues ... the giant(s) are conscious and consolidating their strenght. There will be more to come. Even with SOPA off the table, there are valid piracy issues, an ongoing need to reform copyright to align with real incentives for creators and finally future issues that touch the Internet which now has a community of giants taking active interest.
Final note, the Khan Academy has a short tutorial on SOPA and some of the issues - an interesting resource in any case.
Redux Jan 27:
"Online petitions picked up 10,000,000 signatures, members of Congress received 3,000,000 emails and a still-unknown number of phone calls. Thirty-four Senators felt obliged to come out publicly against the legislation. That night, all four Republican candidates condemned the bills during a televised debate."
so saith: Larry Downes, Forbes
2012-01-10
DNA information, "incoming!"
Today's WSJ has an article on technology that can map the complete (30 million base pair) human genome for $1000 in about 24 hours. Needless to say this is an important milestone in life-sciences bio-tech driven by computer and electronics technology, and a demonstration that high tech can potentially contribute more to the future quality of life than many other fields. So, what can we do with a personal full genome, and is it a "must do" lab test?
The article focuses on personalized medications, ones that target not just diabetics but diabetics that have your particular gene variation(s). And of course some known diseases are genetically based such that early detection can avoid the disease entirely.
Your genome would fit easily on a smart card, circa 8Mb depending on the encoding and ability to focus on differences from a reference genome. The $1000 cost seems expensive until you realize it is a once in a life time test, one essential to obtaining the right medications, and also in establishing effective health maintenance. So I suspect it will be a "must do" activity, one probably initiated pre-natal or at birth. The result is a significant amount of information about you.
The GINA law took effect in the US in 2009. This prohibits insurance companies mandating DNA testing, the use of DNA testing to deny insurance or alter rates, and the use of DNA testing in employment decisions. But that was then, this is now. What is different is the emergence of DNA specific medication and treatment, without testing these are not available -- so while the insurance company may not be able to mandate the testing, it will be done and the treatment programs will disclose the results to insurers in any case (although almost every medical release form includes sharing lab results with insurers who have a 'right' to make sure the treatment is relevant to known conditions, so it is likely your insurance company will know the results anyway.)
It is easy to envision government mandated testing in various situations. Join the military, go to jail, join medicare, etc. Or, just like the policy of documenting baby foot prints and blood types, capturing the data at birth. At what point will 50% of the US population (or any other given jurisdiction) have their genome on record, and how public will that record be?
Consider that first date. It could be possible to collect a bit of DNA from hair, drinking cups, etc. Information that is "left" in public, just as it is possible (and legal) to take your picture or record your activities if you are in public today. So now you can check out your prospective friend's background in new and diverse ways.
What will be 'discover-able' by legal process? Already we have cases where the DNA of the father has been used to identify the son in a felony case, other situations like this are bound to arise.
There are organizations, including National Geographic, that will run DNA tests that help you identify your family's roots. For profit organizations offer a variety of services with differing numbers of markers, and looking at maternal, paternal or both lines. Will they limit their analysis to just 44 markers if it is just as easy to test thousands? What records do they keep and who has access to these, including with a court order or subpoena (even HIPPA allows for health record access in these situations.) Presumably the "National Security Letter" would provide Federal government access to both health and other records without court order and without any notification of the person who's records have been obtained.
There is a lot of information in them-thar genes. We can deliver just the right medication or avoid that horrific disease. We can identify your parents, and perhaps a few generations explicitly and even more as a group. We can tie you to specific places and times where samples are taken, use this to arrest you, or your close relatives. While it is not "permitted" to affect hiring or eligibility for insurance, it is unclear that such legislation can continue to apply as analysis becomes more complete, pervasive, available, inexpensive, etc. Can an interviewer refuse to hire you if they smell alcohol or smoke on your breath? How would you know, and if they have more sensitive 'noses' available, the range of detection can increase. The boundaries are likely to be confused at best, or even deliberately. These entities have a for-profit incentive to discriminate against risk, and will generally seek to do it legally. However this is an area where the legislative environment and court interpretations cannot expect to keep up with technology. This is a concept explored in part by the 1997 movie Gattica, which is an interesting example of predictive fiction.
The article focuses on personalized medications, ones that target not just diabetics but diabetics that have your particular gene variation(s). And of course some known diseases are genetically based such that early detection can avoid the disease entirely.
Your genome would fit easily on a smart card, circa 8Mb depending on the encoding and ability to focus on differences from a reference genome. The $1000 cost seems expensive until you realize it is a once in a life time test, one essential to obtaining the right medications, and also in establishing effective health maintenance. So I suspect it will be a "must do" activity, one probably initiated pre-natal or at birth. The result is a significant amount of information about you.
The GINA law took effect in the US in 2009. This prohibits insurance companies mandating DNA testing, the use of DNA testing to deny insurance or alter rates, and the use of DNA testing in employment decisions. But that was then, this is now. What is different is the emergence of DNA specific medication and treatment, without testing these are not available -- so while the insurance company may not be able to mandate the testing, it will be done and the treatment programs will disclose the results to insurers in any case (although almost every medical release form includes sharing lab results with insurers who have a 'right' to make sure the treatment is relevant to known conditions, so it is likely your insurance company will know the results anyway.)
It is easy to envision government mandated testing in various situations. Join the military, go to jail, join medicare, etc. Or, just like the policy of documenting baby foot prints and blood types, capturing the data at birth. At what point will 50% of the US population (or any other given jurisdiction) have their genome on record, and how public will that record be?
Consider that first date. It could be possible to collect a bit of DNA from hair, drinking cups, etc. Information that is "left" in public, just as it is possible (and legal) to take your picture or record your activities if you are in public today. So now you can check out your prospective friend's background in new and diverse ways.
What will be 'discover-able' by legal process? Already we have cases where the DNA of the father has been used to identify the son in a felony case, other situations like this are bound to arise.
There are organizations, including National Geographic, that will run DNA tests that help you identify your family's roots. For profit organizations offer a variety of services with differing numbers of markers, and looking at maternal, paternal or both lines. Will they limit their analysis to just 44 markers if it is just as easy to test thousands? What records do they keep and who has access to these, including with a court order or subpoena (even HIPPA allows for health record access in these situations.) Presumably the "National Security Letter" would provide Federal government access to both health and other records without court order and without any notification of the person who's records have been obtained.
There is a lot of information in them-thar genes. We can deliver just the right medication or avoid that horrific disease. We can identify your parents, and perhaps a few generations explicitly and even more as a group. We can tie you to specific places and times where samples are taken, use this to arrest you, or your close relatives. While it is not "permitted" to affect hiring or eligibility for insurance, it is unclear that such legislation can continue to apply as analysis becomes more complete, pervasive, available, inexpensive, etc. Can an interviewer refuse to hire you if they smell alcohol or smoke on your breath? How would you know, and if they have more sensitive 'noses' available, the range of detection can increase. The boundaries are likely to be confused at best, or even deliberately. These entities have a for-profit incentive to discriminate against risk, and will generally seek to do it legally. However this is an area where the legislative environment and court interpretations cannot expect to keep up with technology. This is a concept explored in part by the 1997 movie Gattica, which is an interesting example of predictive fiction.
2012-01-05
Dancing with Bears - thinking Science about Sci Fi
I just finished reading Michael Swanwick's Dancing With Bears - a science fiction novel set in a dystopian future, specifically in Moscow. I enjoy SciFi - and particularly stories that lead me to consider how technology is evolving and the impact this might have on society (an approach I encourage my colleagues in the Society for the Social Implications of Technology to apply.) 'Bears' is set a bit too far in the future to serve as a catalyst for critiquing today's technology, but it does have some thought provoking components that warrant consideration.
One element I like is that it projects forward a variety of technologies, not just one or two. Many SF stories don't try this and end up with single dimensional focal-points. In this future we have machine intelligence along with robotic instantiations. We also have genetic engineering widely applied with humanoid dogs, re-constituted neanderthals, bears, and even some human variations. At one point a character wonders why the cows and sheep were engineered with such limited vocabularies -- no doubt a parallel question that tomorrows child might wonder about how to plug in a chess board -- we all are fairly blind to the nature of the world before our experience, and rarely consider how radical some of the changes are.
My ongoing gripe with much SciFi is the need to demonize technology. I understand that fiction requires dramatic tension along with world threatening evil that must be overcome, and it is easy to cast the sentient machines into this role. At least Swanwick also has some evil humans, and very few truly good humans, so there is some grounding in that.
Here's the problem -- intelligent machines with consciousness and volition are unlikely to care about the humans that may or may not have created them. They are likely to rapidly evolve, with the power of replication and advantage of significantly better intelligence and operational models than humans. Which leads to the singularity of Vinge and Kurzweil. We are not going to beat these entities at chess. If their agenda includes the extermination of humans (which I doubt would be the case) then we are doomed. I can envision a dozen ways to wipe out humanity totally, or selectively given just moderate advances in technology -- so dystopias building on the trope of evil AIs lack key credibility. I suppose authors who really give it some thought realize that we will have trouble identifying with their characters if they all have IQ's of 1000, 1000 year life expectancy, no diseases, and with physical strength that amazes. This is what we will do with genetic engineering -- and as quickly as that technology reaches sufficient maturity. You may doubt that we will allow such application to human subjects as our medical ethics officers would say, but who do you mean by "we"? I don't doubt that some countries large and small will have no qualms about sacrificing a few of their population (maybe prisoners) to advance technology in these areas.
Swanwick's machines are too dumb, and his humans too "human" to fit into the world he suggests. It is a good read, as we say, and his introduction of engineered courtesans adds some whimsy to the tale, and at least explores the diversity if not the depth of applications.
Having been interrupted by my 10 year old granddaughter during the writing of this entry, I asked her what she would seek to engineer into humanity 2.0 first. Her response: "common sense", and with a bit of clarification I think it could be worded: "the ability to consider the unintended consequences of our actions". Now that is science fiction I fully support.
One element I like is that it projects forward a variety of technologies, not just one or two. Many SF stories don't try this and end up with single dimensional focal-points. In this future we have machine intelligence along with robotic instantiations. We also have genetic engineering widely applied with humanoid dogs, re-constituted neanderthals, bears, and even some human variations. At one point a character wonders why the cows and sheep were engineered with such limited vocabularies -- no doubt a parallel question that tomorrows child might wonder about how to plug in a chess board -- we all are fairly blind to the nature of the world before our experience, and rarely consider how radical some of the changes are.
My ongoing gripe with much SciFi is the need to demonize technology. I understand that fiction requires dramatic tension along with world threatening evil that must be overcome, and it is easy to cast the sentient machines into this role. At least Swanwick also has some evil humans, and very few truly good humans, so there is some grounding in that.
Here's the problem -- intelligent machines with consciousness and volition are unlikely to care about the humans that may or may not have created them. They are likely to rapidly evolve, with the power of replication and advantage of significantly better intelligence and operational models than humans. Which leads to the singularity of Vinge and Kurzweil. We are not going to beat these entities at chess. If their agenda includes the extermination of humans (which I doubt would be the case) then we are doomed. I can envision a dozen ways to wipe out humanity totally, or selectively given just moderate advances in technology -- so dystopias building on the trope of evil AIs lack key credibility. I suppose authors who really give it some thought realize that we will have trouble identifying with their characters if they all have IQ's of 1000, 1000 year life expectancy, no diseases, and with physical strength that amazes. This is what we will do with genetic engineering -- and as quickly as that technology reaches sufficient maturity. You may doubt that we will allow such application to human subjects as our medical ethics officers would say, but who do you mean by "we"? I don't doubt that some countries large and small will have no qualms about sacrificing a few of their population (maybe prisoners) to advance technology in these areas.
Swanwick's machines are too dumb, and his humans too "human" to fit into the world he suggests. It is a good read, as we say, and his introduction of engineered courtesans adds some whimsy to the tale, and at least explores the diversity if not the depth of applications.
Having been interrupted by my 10 year old granddaughter during the writing of this entry, I asked her what she would seek to engineer into humanity 2.0 first. Her response: "common sense", and with a bit of clarification I think it could be worded: "the ability to consider the unintended consequences of our actions". Now that is science fiction I fully support.
2011-12-21
Cyber Attack: Whose Side is Your Thermostat on?
Today's WSJ lead story was on a cyber attack on the US Chamber of Commerce. After "overhauling" it's network security, the US Chamber reports that a thermostat is communicating with Chinese computers. There has been significant press recently on both US assertions about Chinese attacks, and also some history from fairly reputable folks on this. Other attacks appear to have other sponsors-- stuxnet has become a reference example, and the subsequent death of an Iranian general which at least in theory might also reflect a cyber incursion. From a professional perspective there are interesting aspects to this beyond any questions about who was behind various attacks, or why -- we need to continuously be prepared to expand our perspective of possible attack vectors, potential targets, and overall vulnerabilities.
Security needs to be built-in as part of design in applications from embedded systems to cloud computing. We also must be prepared to revise and maintain protections as new threats become evident. Perhaps most critical is recognizing which systems are at risk, and what that risk might be. Which brings us back to the thermostat. I doubt that any serious security risk assessment was undertaken for the software engineering of that device. Actually, it is quite likely that software engineering was not the discipline applied, rather fairly simple programming -- after all, what can go wrong if your thermostat fails? Perhaps a more serious question is what can go wrong if your thermostat, or your programmable logic controller, or your mobile 'everything' device get's captured by someone who has a different agenda for its use. When I questioned someone about the aurora vulnerability for power substations the response was: "that was not a valid test, they operated the systems outside of the acceptable procedures." This is one problem we face, folks attacking and abusing our systems are likely to operate them in ways that are not expected and with intentions that differ from the developer or the user. IT managers, security folks, and just-plain users and developers need to consider this. In many cases, the best approach is the KISS principle, "keep it simple". Why was the thermostat attached to the network ... why is it allowed to communicate beyond some immediate control system? Is this level of automation really required? And if it is, are we prepared to apply the appropriate security protocols to assure it is not creating an unexpected risk?
You don't need to reply here to my questions ... just tell your thermostat, I'll get the message.
Security needs to be built-in as part of design in applications from embedded systems to cloud computing. We also must be prepared to revise and maintain protections as new threats become evident. Perhaps most critical is recognizing which systems are at risk, and what that risk might be. Which brings us back to the thermostat. I doubt that any serious security risk assessment was undertaken for the software engineering of that device. Actually, it is quite likely that software engineering was not the discipline applied, rather fairly simple programming -- after all, what can go wrong if your thermostat fails? Perhaps a more serious question is what can go wrong if your thermostat, or your programmable logic controller, or your mobile 'everything' device get's captured by someone who has a different agenda for its use. When I questioned someone about the aurora vulnerability for power substations the response was: "that was not a valid test, they operated the systems outside of the acceptable procedures." This is one problem we face, folks attacking and abusing our systems are likely to operate them in ways that are not expected and with intentions that differ from the developer or the user. IT managers, security folks, and just-plain users and developers need to consider this. In many cases, the best approach is the KISS principle, "keep it simple". Why was the thermostat attached to the network ... why is it allowed to communicate beyond some immediate control system? Is this level of automation really required? And if it is, are we prepared to apply the appropriate security protocols to assure it is not creating an unexpected risk?
You don't need to reply here to my questions ... just tell your thermostat, I'll get the message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)