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.

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

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.

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.

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.

What Technology Wants

This is the title of a 2010 book by Kevin Kelly , a regular presenter at TED (past editor of Wired) and commentator on the evolution of technology in any case. This book received reviews in various publications I read, and aligns with some of the topics in my OLLI class this fall on Technology and Magic.

Kelly promotes the term "technium" to reflect the entirety of technology (bees building hives, DNA building bodies, etc.) as opposed to the modern  "what engineers build" concept (or Alan Kay's concept of "technology is anything that wasn't around when you were born"). He then proceeds to argue that technology is an evolving thing, somewhat independently of sapiens (as he likes to call the current crop of self-aware, conscious entities of which most of us are instances.) So you can see the book has deep roots (actually back to the big bang) and points towards long term impacts and considerations.

Kelly shares some of Ted Kaczynski's (the Unibomber) perspective on the domination that "the system" (including technology) has over people, but does not share his paranoia or methodologies. Rather, Kelly sees the inevitable progression of technology as increasing the options for people, and as such something that will be marginally better than where things were before. I just returned from Peru where many folks living off the land (farming plus shepherding lamas, guinea pigs, etc.) found their children opting to move to the cities (and live marginally unemployed in the slums.) Kelly's assertion that this is attractive, because it provides more options and greater freedom is a reasonable argument for this trend. It also explains why many of the folks remaining in the country have cell-phones as one of the few technologies. Folks on the floating islands of lake Titicaca have solar panels to charge their TV, with few other technologies evident (in a tourist supported community.)

So the glacier of technology continues to move our way (actually at the speed of Moore's law and it's many corollaries which Kelly outlines as well) -- but un-avoidable. This leaves two questions (at least) ... what do we do about it, and can we predict where it is headed?


What can we do?
 Here I summarize Kelly's perspective:

1. Anticipate where things are going (I like "predictive fiction" as an option here.)
2. Maintain eternal vigilance ... we will be surprised, so minimize the response time (and recognize not everything will be good)
3. Prioritize risks -- basement bio-engineering labs may have some higher risks than Steve Job's (we will miss you Steve) Cupertino garage.
4. Rapid correction of harm (this one is challenging if the technology is popular, or supported by corporate or governmental interests)
5. Don't prohibit, rather re-direct -- ban's are not effective, but re-focusing on beneficial applications can work (bombs vs power plants)

These are non-trivial challenges, ones we may not be able to track in any organized way.  The web may help ... is there a site "Incoming"? Those of us in the current technology community may want to establish something along this line.


What does technology want?
 Here's Kelly's ultimate (and admittedly incomplete list) "technology wants what life wants":

• Efficiency - doing it 'better' tends to have an advantage
• Opportunity -- which is why we will go along
• Emergence and Complexity (these tend to go together, and yield unexpected results)
• Diversity - over time, more and varied things rather than less
• Specialization - tied to diversity, as each thing becomes more specific(environmental niches)
• Ubiquity - this is sort of a 'selfish gene' or perhaps 'meme' aspect of things, evolution of replicators (as Susan Blackmore  will point out)  some will surface as 'winners', which rise to the highest level of dissemination they can.
• Freedom - as in free will. Evolving systems tend to operate with motives more successfully than mandates.
• Mutualism - things are better together, genes join to form DNA, cells to form bodies, humans to create civilizations, computers to create networks ... and in many cases these reflect diversity, specialization,   and foster symbiotic relationships.
• Beauty - or perhaps "elegance" in the way it is used in engineering where highly efficient forms often are coupled with a simplicity.
• Sentience - sensing and using information is an inherent aspect of technology -- from our white-cells that learn how to eliminate bacteria, to Watson as it find's it's way to winning at Jeopardy. 
• Structure - is technology's response to entropy, while the universe moves towards heat death, technology is constantly increasing the structure of the available materials and information.
• Evolvability - Blackmore would argue that any replicator in an environment over time will evolve, and Kelly asserts that technology is just such a beast.

Basic message: we can't beat it, so join it ... see if we can't shift the balance towards beneficial and away from "ooops!".

Augmented Reality

Ok, I got a new toy: an Acer Icona Tab A500 (I'd point you to a specs page but those I checked do not list facilities like GPS!) -- with built-in GPS, camera and a variety of free aps that combine these things (sorry Apple, the open Android environment is the big win, no more being limited to the Aps that Apple approves ... some security in that, but also managed by profit motives as well.) These devices are the tip of the iceberg for the emerging area of augmented reality.

Where you are (physically, or virtually) are index points for information relevant to that place. An obvious example is any mapping software that uses where you are (via GPS, Cell triangulation, or Google's index of wifi MAC addresses) and positions you on the map. Combine with Street View or Microsoft's Street Slide and you can see where you are looking from pictures posted by others. Merge this with the image from the outward facing camera, and you now see the reality, augmented by overlays from sources you select. Simple examples from my recent vacation in Colorado include: an overlay looking at the Rocky Mountain National Park peaks from Trail Ridge Road that names the peaks, perhaps provides elevation and distance information. Try the same thing at Mesa Verde National Park and you could have text or audio of about the ancient Puebloian cliff dwelling you are viewing from a simple "Junior Ranger" view to an in-depth discussion from experts (anthropologists or the modern Puebloian perspective.) We are a short time-frame away from overlaid video sequences that can animate history in historical sites, or even fantasy stories that operate with 'boots on the ground'.

Folks like Blair MacIntyre, at Georgia Tech have been doing research for a while, and are looking to establish standards that open the door for platform independent AR content. It looks like W3C may take up this cause building on KML (ARML, KARML) -- with likely competing commercial interests that could delay things for a few years.

While the devices that will make this environment "essential" (see Vernor Vinge's Rainbows End) may include goggles/headsets or implants; in the short term we can get significant impact with the next generation pocket device (as cell phones, GPS units, cameras, tablets, et al converge) ... an interesting question is what components will be needed in said device?

An initial list - camera, display screen, GPS, wifi/bluetooth (optional phone link -- cell phones are an expensive channel for AR aps (IMHO) and won't work in many interesting locations), sensors for positioning (you are here, but where are you looking?), sound output ---- and of course the inner workings that will make it click. My A500 is a bit big for portable use in this context. You need memory to store the anticipated content elements given that you may not have online access as you move though a park or remote situation. I can envision parks adding bluetooth or wifi transmitters, as they now have 'cell' phone ones and/or have had AM radio points of interest to provide local content in some situations.

We need to consider how services evolve for this as well. Wikitude is more of an augmented map than an overlay on reality, but it does give us a sense for location based browsing. Many of the elements near my location have no value ... which is like web search unfortunately. If you want to track a given author/source, or look for history or geological or some other characterization of content -- this is not the tool. Just as we have web sites that link a set of logical pages together, similarly there is a value in having a linked AR facility as well.