The convergence of communication and control

As of late, many companies have been merging access control and building automation to the internet.  I spent a day this week linking a car wash to an access control system so that it may be operated from anyplace on the planet as well as keep records of its use.  We are seeing similar models coming form security firms such as ADT with its Pulse offering and individual pieces such as Craftsman's internet enabled garage door.

I see this as a step in an interesting direction.  We have the technology in place for web enabled devices.  It is only a matter of time before these companies integrate them with social media to provide the ultimate in convenience.  Imagine that you can share your photos on Facebook directly from your camera and when a relative sees them they can click them and add them to a farmville-esq layout of their home in a digital photo frame.

There are downsides in both privacy and security because, of course, it is only a matter of time before some teenage hacker finds a way to display penises on your grandmas photo frame but I think that the trade off is certainly worth it.  Also, those who create these devices have access to very sensitive data.  New smart phones track our every move and can share our private photos with any company or any government agency without violating the law.

  I think all of the technology convergence is related, so any discussion doesn't follow any logical line of devices that should be related.  I mean, what else do a car wash, a garage door, a red light, and a photo frame have in common.

Another issue is in this world of software as a service and other licensing models. It is easy to see a company "bricking" your home device because you did something the company or government didn't approve of.  We have heard of this in the "Smart Grid" area of things.  Government policy could control your thermostat and control other device usage.  It is easy to dismiss those possibilities as far-off fantasies but in this world of increasing regulation it really is a possibility.  We have already seen similar devices used to enforce traffic laws.

Anyway, I think that the technology itself is neutral but it has the potential for exploitation, so it is very important that we stay vigilant and not fall for the old strategy of increasing legislation and giving someone else power thinking it is better for us or better for society.

It just occurred to me today that several private corporations have huge a huge opportunity to improve our representative democracy.  Perhaps, we do as well.  One of the difficulties in a representative democracy is the literacy level of the electorate.  I constantly hear impassioned pleas from people online for us to vote a certain way or donate to a charity.  Most of these posts are disappointing in that they are simple forwards that someone decided to agree with on their basic surface emotional appeal.

Here is my proposal:
When one of these "help the poor children in some random place" comments comes in, in order to "like" or "repost", the user should be required to explain exactly what aid efforts are in place, who the key players are and what the intended and likely outcomes of their actions are.  If they are unable to find the information or don't care, they shouldn't be able to forward on the post.

This should be the same with political posts, it is a simple thing to parse a post for the words "federal reserve" and then require a few multiple choice questions about what the federal reserve is and does or the monetary system in general before passing on a post with a factual label.  I don't think this should be the place of the government but instead should be something that we take the initiative to do as individuals.  The number of people who blindly comply with emotional appeals or vote in line with the most likable character is far too high to get functional results in our society.

I think that we could code a simple app for this, it might surprise people how little they actually know about civics and perhaps persuade them that one more uninformed vote probably will not be helpful to our society.

Communication Technologies have changed things but not the things you think

I hear over and over that technology has changed the way that we fundamentally communicate and that we are better or worse for it.  I have seen people posting comments that there is no longer a respect for true debate and that the world isn't as great as it once was.  I also hear that new communication has enabled coups and improved lives.  Each time I hear these claims, it is as nails on a chalkboard.

The one thing that technology has not changed is the nature of the human psyche.  The reason that we drill the classics into undergraduates is so that they can possibly realize that their egocentric view of the universe where all human achievement has culminated with them can be shattered.  We are intended to learn that philosophy and the same questions and issues have plagued mankind since the beginning of time.  There has been a human network as long as human beings have been able to communicate.  Information has always been disseminated and the alacrity with which it moves is a surprising thing.  Anyone who is a fan of Kevin Bacon knows just how interconnected we all are.   There have been movements, coups and revolutions as long as there has been government even without the marvel that is twitter and Facebook.  In fact, people amassing on the streets rather than behind their screens obviously provides for more of a connection to get things moving.

Also, claims that things are getting worse due to technology has been the cry since the beginning of time.  I can envision a caveman now discovering that he could club a thing and kill it rather than the usual backing it off a cliff and being immediately met by the rest of the group with suspicion that now he thought he could rule the group and that the club ruined the good old days of just running after an animal until it tired.

What technology has done is allow more people to exist in a given place and improve the living standards across the board.  Communication technology does play a role in this arena.  Our ability to predict and transmit information about weather, climate has certainly helped but the biggest change is our ability to manage huge markets.  We are able to transmit value over communication channels to take virtual ownership of products.  We can purchase "futures" of produce before it comes to market.  Certainly, this was done before modern mass communication technologies but not on the scale that we have now.  This technology has made it possible to coordinate planting and harvesting in a way that we hardly know what famine or want actually is.  We are able to coordinate the timely delivery of produce that simply would not have been possible in the past.

We have also been able to more directly be involved in this process.  Before new technologies, if you wanted to purchase stocks, bonds or futures, you had to go to a broker and it was left to those who had this as a primary business.  Now much investment is done online allowing direct ownership and control by the average citizen.  We have seen some negative aspects of this as with the tech boom and bust and the housing boom and bust, and this is certain to continue but at the same time, at no time in history has so many of the people had so much control over the primary factors of production.

There are many other ways that communications and technology has affected our lives but it is still the simple ones being trotted out to reward those supporting often misguided movements.  The cry of "you have helped the movement with Twitter and Facebook", is being used to make people feel more empowered and support movements but has little to do with the true effects of communication and more about getting people to rally behind the movements.

What is left of privacy?

Just the other day, I had the unfortunate event of aging another year which apparently called my ability to drive into question.  I attempted to renew my license online when I discovered that in order to regain the privileged of driving I must, once again, prove my ability to navigate bureaucracy.  I went in and waited the required half-day in the government approved holding area that denies you a number that is in chronological order so that it frees you from having to calculate your long wait time and saves you the hassle of leaving and coming back or doing something else while waiting.  When I was called to the window of my friendly government inspector, I felt a bit self-satisfied knowing that I brought my birth certificate, passport, existing driver's license, social security card and several other government issued ID cards and licenses.  I even brought a lancet, in case I was asked to sign in blood.  See, I knew ahead of time that the government had increased our security by requiring more documentation to avoid identity theft and making a single trip and thought I would bring all identification I could think of.  It was to my surprise, that apparently although I had the correct paperwork to enter other countries, carry concealed weapons, enter secured airport areas, cash checks, transact any other type of business. Apparently, I couldn't sufficiently prove my current home address because it was only on several of my IDs.  So, I was granted a temporary license to drive (which was just a piece of paper printed out) until I can come back with a few bills to prove that I am a good quiet bill paying citizen and that I actually live where I say and that I am not, in fact, secretly living in an undocumented location.

I tried to think long and hard how this new requirement could be used to protect the public or how it in any way helps to determine one's eligibility to drive a car.  Realistically, the only thing that I could come up with was that it may help to track down deadbeat fathers or help track criminals.  It was actually a strange moment where my understanding of the fundamental philosophy of our country changed.  It was my understanding that one was innocent until proven guilty and that our country was founded on the fundamental rights of people to certain things like the ability to travel and to conduct commerce.  I have seen these things eroded to some extent but there have always been certain lines that people have drawn.  One of those lines was tracking private citizens and requiring paperwork to travel within our own country.  It was such an issue that many people had a huge issue when social security cards were issued over the fear that it would become a de facto national ID card.  

Many may not see the possible downside to this sort of thing and not understand why it might be a big deal.  They may think, "well, I'm not a criminal, so it isn't a bad thing".  What they aren't understanding is that law is not always black and white and it can change quickly and it is very easy for this sort of intrusion to be part of a draconian system that becomes extremely oppressive.  Take, for example, vice laws and laws concerning obscenity.  Obscenity is defined as whatever isn't found acceptable within the community.  We are getting very close to a place where saying the wrong thing can get you scooped up and held.  Tracking of people by the "real ID" act along with requirements for recording just about everything on the internet and a camera on every corner is beginning to make 1984 seem like more of a reality but with even more methods of information gathering.  The government has found that we don't need others to inform on us when they can track us when we want to drive or communicate over the internet.

It is becoming increasingly easy to identify with those who were once fringe conspiracy theorists who were worried that they were being watched.  When you add this to the picture of everything being immediately accessible by government from your medical records to the photos you share with friends and all communications, it makes you wonder in what ways it is all being used and how it will be used in the future.

I love online petitions

Back in the old days, I would always get a good chuckle at those going about amassing signatures for some issue that there was no hope that a petition would solve.  Such as signatures to end hunger or change a policy in some other country.  You actually gain some insight into the electorate by seeing what they will actually sign.  The petition has now evolved online and is even endorsed by our federal government.  Never has it been so easy to gather people to an absolutely meaningless cause.

Now when I see someone posting a silly online petition, it reminds me to go back to the page of their petition to look at other petitions just to have a good laugh.

There is a sad side to all of this fun.  In Florida, we have a representative democracy where enough signatures can create law.  This means that we could veto budgeting issues.  We could require responsibility and accountability in government.  We could make regulation on certain industries less protectionist, etc etc.  But instead, we want to save the kittens.

Please click here to go piss into the wind.