Are We Ready for Post Scarcity? Part 3

So technology has brought us a new world.  The new technologies developed in the 20th and 21st centuries have created a world with changes as drastic as the invention of agriculture over 10 millenia ago.  This new world is awe inspiring in its productive capabilities.  Like the soviets upon seeing American grocery stores or backyard pools, those of us from the old worlds look in disbelief on the abundance the highly automated modern world offers.  Will that disbelief be an awestruck hopeful wonderment, or a horrified cringing at the dystopian nightmare on display?

What becomes of the human being, the individual in the post-scarcity world?  While objectively unanswerable, for now, science fiction and current trends can give us an idea.  Star Trek provides the most hopeful vision, a humanity that devotes itself to self improvement and growth, bravely venturing out to explore the universe or just starting a small restaurant to share the joy of old family recipes (like Joseph Sisko from DS9).  People engage in their passions and become the greatest captains, scientists, or chefs that they can thanks to the freedom from desire and from the struggle for the basic necessities of life.  While this optimism is one of the reasons we love Star Trek it doesn't strike us as realistic.

On the other side of the spectrum we see the 'dystopian,' or broken utopia, genre of fiction.  The lack of scarcity in information and communication enabled by the internet has made government surveillance and monitoring so easy that the protections for citizens seem to come only from law these days.  And that can easily fail, as the victory of the ACLU against ongoing programs of the NSA showed.  The NSA's activities have many shouting that, "1984 was not an instruction manual."  A conversation from the video game Deus Ex indicates another interesting, and all to realistic, future:

JC Denton: Some people just don't understand the dangers of indiscriminate surveillance

Morpheus (an AI system who is 'a prototype for a larger system'): The need to observed and understood was once satisfied by God.  Now we can implement the same functionality with data-mining algorithms.

JC Denton: Electronic surveillance hardly inspires reverence.  Perhaps fear and obedience, but not reverence.

Huxley's Brave New World gives us one vision of a post scarcity world that's also terrifying.  People are raised from conception to death to fill a certain role, with much of the population raised to lack mental faculty and drive so that they can be contented with menial jobs.  Innovation is suppressed if the rulers decide it doesn't support the economy.  The population is essentially drugged into compliance and acceptance of the system that promotes nothing but the status quo ad infinitum.  At least everyone has a job, though.

These uncomfortable futures are just fiction, for now, but sadly they seem to strike us as truer to reality.  One of the consequences of post-scarcity living is that power can evaporate.  It can also become much more concentrated.  Abuses by law enforcement that were once prevented by their sheer infeasibility now need laws in place to protect citizens (the supreme court decision on GPS tracking is a good example of this to add to the NSA's recent abuses of power).  However when laws are needed the question inevitably arises of who will write them.

The genius of American government is the idea of the powerful individual, that every citizen has strength enough to make their voice resonate in the halls of power.  The idea has caught on so strongly that it's easy to forgot how revolutionary and unthinkable this idea would be only 500 or so years ago when monarchs were the norm, and for basically all of human history before that when the strong took what they wanted without regard for whether or not the man they were taking it from cared to give it up.

The same power of technology that can eliminate scarcity could also conceivably eliminate freedom.  Corporate influence over lawmakers could barely be necessary if companies like John Deere, Apple, and Comcast continue along their trajectories.  Imagine the power the tractor company would hold if they were able to dictate whether or not their machinery were allowed to be repaired or you would just have to buy a new one to continue sowing grain.  Consider the power of a company with similar power over electronics and personal computers.  All the innovation and creativity in the world doesn't mean a thing if a company controlling the means of distribution for new products and stories can decide to refuse their service.

How can we dilute these powers, without only strengthening centralized government power, and while still providing opportunity and daily bread for the individual?  I don't know.  I have some ideas, but truly I can't say what I'd really do if I were ruler of the world, or even just the US.  What I can say is that no one else really can either.  There's a dearth of ideas and solutions floating around out there because we're not addressing the issue.

The idea of a post-scarcity economy and society is so revolutionary that it doesn't sound real.  Talking about robotics and computing replacing human beings as the driving force in the economy sounds like science fiction, despite the fact that we continually experience it as reality.  The whole issue is so massive and so out there that it's not addressed seriously in politics, and rarely in thoughtful conversation.  If this continues we'll find ourselves in a world clinging to obsolete social mores and struggling to make them fit in the modern world.  We can't let that happen, so let's think about getting ready for post-scarcity.

Technology, cheating, and the Augmented Mind

As a student I've been taking plenty of tests lately.  My university has a pretty good testing system and convenient testing centers and I'm a pretty good test taker so none of this really bothers me, but I have found the testing center policies interesting.  The fact that I have to remove my hat before going in is one.  Recently they've also disallowed the wearing of a wristwatch, almost certainly in response to the new smart-watch technology coming out.  While this is the right thing to do, it does indicate a need for much grander changes in both the way we do things as well as our thinking, probably especially in education.  Changes we are woefully unprepared for.

Let's consider the testing center again, perhaps as if you were the director of these.  We made the change for smart-watches so that they won't be used for cheating.  What will we do if Google Glass, or a similar project where data is displayed on a pair of glasses worn by the user, takes off and starts showing up?  If that technology becomes integrated into people's prescription lenses?  What about if those smart watches become smart tattoos?  What about when students start having direct neural interfaces integrating computers into the brain?  These problems are coming, and I think we can quickly see there's no easy solution, and maybe no solution at all to make a our current testing systems compatible with the existence of these technologies.

As my neuroscience teacher put it, most testing today is a simple demonstration of declarative memory.  This is to say tests usually require a simple recalling of facts, figures, or other basic knowledge.  However, the need for this to be done in the human brain is dwindling.  Facts can be more easily stored, more quickly recalled, and more reliably maintained in computer systems than in nervous tissue.  Why would we keep using cerebral circuits (that weren't really designed to do this in the first place) when we can use electronic ones?  The go to example is memorizing phone numbers, something many of us remember doing before technology made it an exercise in pointless exertion of energy.

Lest you think this is the pie in the sky omphaloskepsis of a futurist and science fiction fan, let me relay a story I heard from one parent.  He wanted to have his daughter writing letters, and specifically to do so using some specific vocabulary.  Shortly after he heard his daughter speaking out loud while alone in her room writing the letter.  Listening closer he realized she was using the voice recognition feature of the tablet/smartphone to simply ask for the spelling of the appropriate words.  This was much to his disappointment, as he was expecting her to look the words up when writing them and learn the definition along with the spelling.  That's how big a change something as simple as voice recognition is making.

A future where traditional testing is pointless seems on the horizon.  How education will or even can deal with this is unclear.  The problem with leaving our traditional testing is that other methods require more work to evaluate, and usually are less objective which can be a big problem for admissions tests like the MCAT.  The only solution I've thought of is an increase in internships and apprentice work, but whether or not this is feasible is unclear.  I know the major reason the radiology or medical laboratory programs at my school can't admit more than about 40% of applicant students is because they only have so many slots for clinical rotations available.  It could be damaging to the economy to have the influx of cheap or free labor that having five interns or apprentices to every one trained employee might mean.  The problem is a big one, and sadly I haven't seen it given all that much attention.  Let's hope for and work toward that changing sometime soon.

From an Aspiring Medical Professional

I've always been a scientist.  Some of my earliest memories are wanting to use beakers, test tubes, & microscopes in school.  My mother tells me that one of my favorite toys as a child was an old radio I was allowed to disassemble and rebuild, being fascinated at how the pieces fit together.  I've always seen science as exciting and fun.  For most of the time that I understood the concept I've seen it as a noble pursuit as well.  "The glory of God is intelligence," I was taught, and science is a rigorous pursuit of understanding.

I've learned since then about the very human nature of this endeavor.  Learned things like how Newton's preference for a 'corpuscular' or particle theory of light, rather than the wave theory which works better, probably set back the field of optics a century or two, but few wanted to propose ideas that would dare contradict the great and powerful Newton.  I've learned this about religion, philosophy, sports, families, and just about everything else humans do as well, though.  These days science may have trouble acknowledging its limitations, but it does good and improves the human condition.  And yet the ranks of those who share this view are suffering loses.

This seems mostly in the field of medicinal and health sciences.  This rarely used to bother me, but it is more and more lately.  Maybe it's because I'm getting older and the issues are closer to affecting me and involving choices I'll have to make.  Maybe it's just because things that were more fringe in the past are getting talked about more these days.  Maybe it's because part of me agrees that this field of science is a lot more blurry than the physics and mathematics I originally studied, but entering into the field I'm seeing the strength of the science.  I'd be remiss not to have mentioned these possibilities in a writing about science, rigor, and emotion, but I don't think they're the reason.  At least not the primary one.

I am an aspiring medical professional.  I'm going into radiography or clinical laboratory science, depending on which program accepts me and a few other factors.  I feel like scientific thinkers, which would include many medical professionals and certainly myself, rarely make effective arguments that would entice someone not scientifically inclined to rethink their ideas.  This is likely because anecdotes, emotional pleas, and pithy quips will not change the fundamental forces of nature and therefore aren't the first thing reached for in scientists' mental toolboxes.  So it feels odd for me to speak about my emotional and personal reactions in the context of understanding biomedical science, but it may be just what some need to hear.

There always seems to be an edge of accusation toward the medical profession by those that eschew its methods.  It's difficult for me to say this as I don't believe it's intentional, but it is the truth.  The message is that the medical profession, and therefore medical professionals, is a bumbling ignoramus unwilling to understand the simple truths that should be instinctively understood, a shadowy or scaremongering elite seeking only power and control, or an uncaring power more interested in processing patients to collect their checks than healing them.  It may be some combination of the three, but these are the primary narratives with their implications laid bare and made plain.

I believe they are all wrong, but moreover I know they are all insulting.  I think this might be why I've been more affected by those who leave the ranks of accepted science for other conceptions of fulfilling medicine.  The secret message in those actions, words, and thoughts are that I don't care about my patients.  I do care about my patients, and I don't even have any yet.  I study hard and ensure I understand the concepts of my classes because I worry about making the wrong call and endangering someone's health.  I've listened to opposing views, considered the ideas, and always been unconvinced that those methods and practices would best serve the sick or the healthy.  I want to get paid for application of the skills I'm acquiring, sure, but I did when I worked other customer service positions as well and was still driven to serve the client.  When I see someone taking medical risks I'm annoyed because so often those risks are unnecessary, and I care about them.  So, from an aspiring medical professional, please reexamine your ideas if you're forgoing modern medicine.  Please give me and my ilk the benefit of the doubt and some level of trust.  We're absolutely doing our best to deserve that much.

Ownership in the Modern Age

We all subscribe to several services today.  Streaming video, e-books, music, and probably any other media you can think of come from a third party.  These providers are replacing the traditional physical media which end users purchased to enjoy a song or show.  I personally don't really care to buy DVDs anymore, even though I used to enjoy buying them to watch great TV shows or movies.  This prompts an interesting question; what do I own with these services?

The answer is, nothing.  This is very clear in the legal documentation of these service providers.  They own the content, we own a very limited license to rent it on an ongoing basis.  I don't own anything, and oddly I seem to be OK with this.  Is the very concept of ownership changing, possibly for the first time in human history?

Ownership was very straightforward for a long time.  An object, if I owned it, was mine and this meant only I could access and use it without having to ask permission.  This was all well and good when what we traded was objects, which was true for pretty much all of human history up until the last 50 years or so.  Information couldn't be encoded usefully into anything without directly changing the structure of that object in such a way that they were inextricably connected (writing something down changed a slab of stone to an engraved slab of stone, or paper into an ink stained paper, for instance).  Reproducing a piece of information was even harder.  In the modern age the exact opposite is true, computers take in gigabytes of information effortlessly with only minor changes to how the computer is assembled (magnetic sectors or electric cells in hard disks or solid state memory changing slightly) and this can be changed again with a simple word of instruction.  Reproducing this information to copy somewhere else or play back for our enjoyment is trivial.

What will this mean to our concept of ownership?  Especially as even the 'personal computer' gives way more and more to cell phones and tablets that store much of their media 'in the cloud,' and even the defining characteristic of whether or not it was something we had physical possession of fades away?  I'm most interested in what the rising generation will come to understand about ownership.

Traditional ownership will still apply to clothes (at least until we install the self adjusting nano-fiber network in our bodies that can become any outfit possible that's been programmed in) I guess, but books, movies, media - which is so important in shaping our culture - will start to be something that we don't own ourselves, but is doled out to us by 'service providers.'  Even the devices we view this on may continue to fall into trends of two year, yearly, or more frequent upgrades.  I would be more sanguine about these possibilities if our copyright law were more reasonable and our relationship with convenience less like an addiction.  The phrase, "It's not on netflix" already seems to be finding it's way into culture as synonymous with, "I can't get access to it."

A common piece of wisdom is that individuals are, or at least can be, intelligent but large groups are almost always lacking in reason.  This may be part of the genius of the founding fathers framing of America as a country where the individual citizen has power and the government at large is limited.  I think this is why I don't want to see traditional ownership fade away.  The less we can possess media, the less we're able to work with, exploit, and use it for our own means and the more we are at the mercy of corporations, governments, and other large groups- that may be lacking in reason - to engage with the media that informs our life and culture.

Sadly, The Porn Must Flow

There's been a white house petition going around lately that I've been saddened to see many friends of mine supporting.  The petition is promoting a measure similar to one that was proposed a while back in the UK, that internet service providers be required to block pornography by default.  I remember hearing this news back then and thinking of it as an oddity of British politics, and feeling thankful that we weren't foolish enough and that the American spirit had principles of liberty well enough ingrained that we wouldn't support something similar here in the US.  Sadly, it seems I'm being proven wrong.

I'm no lover of pornography.  Well, I mean, I'm a normal red-blooded heterosexual male so there's the obvious vulgar desire to check it out, but I do avoid it and would counsel anyone to do the same.  I actually block pornography on my home network using OpenDNS, which has proved to be a fantastic solution.  Make no mistake, my objection is not pro-porn, I object on the grounds that what we'll lose if we try this will be greater than any gains.

So what do we have to lose, except our pornography?  The fact that this question needs to be asked is part of what saddens me.  It bespeaks a naivete in our society that borders on, if not diving all the way into, a dangerous area.  Pornography is very hard to define.  Any reasonable person will admit that not all nudity is pornographic.  Once this is acknowledged the waters immediately muddle quite a bit.  Some might try to avoid this difficulty by saying that our efforts only need to filter out 'the worst kinds of porn' or 'extreme and hardcore pornography' but that only pushes that very hazy line back in hopes that it will reach an area where enough people feel shameful about being on the wrong side of it that they avoid being anywhere near it.

That approach doesn't help when we're talking about electronic content filtering.  Our computers, networking routers, or servers aren't like our parents that can look at us and tell when we think something might not be right and ask us in a stern voice if we're really making the correct decision right now.  The petition states as one of its concerns that, "Parents and individuals have to go to great lengths to install Internet filters that often don't weed out all porn."  I'll get to the first part (oh believe you me I'll get to it), but let's look at the worry that they "don't weed out all porn."  Short answer, that's because they can't.  Let's get into the two ways to filter pornography (or really anything, the same methods can and are used for your computer's anti-virus): blacklisting, whitelisting and heuristics.

Blacklists are a list that's been built of sites known to be pornographic that are blocked.  The obvious flaw with this is that new pornographic sites arise everyday, and there's a delay before these would be added to the blacklist.  The less obvious flaw is that it will inevitably be based on the opinions of people making decisions about whether a site is pornographic or not, and your opinion may not agree with the blacklist makers.  I'll go into this more after explaining the counterpart to the blacklist, the whitelist.

 Whitelists are the inverse of blacklists, building a list of known safe and OK sites that don't contain objectionable material and only allowing a user to visit those sites.  It should be fairly apparent that this essentially reduces the internet to barely useful, but then again in certain contexts may be a good solution.  Parents installing a whitelisting program on their home computer or network for their children, requiring them to get parental approval before visiting a site, or non-technical users that only use a relatively small amount of web applications (i.e. only visiting facebook, youtube, amazon, and one or two other web applications related to their job).  That's not what this petition is about though, and whitelisting would be far too restrictive for an ISP to ever implement for a solution to their customers.

So neither are a good solution for a government mandated ISP pornography filter as they either 'don't weed out all porn' or throw the baby out with the bathwater and cause huge gaps in service in an effort to do so.  Again, though, the issue of what porn is comes up.  One pornography filter I installed, K9 web protection, was absurdly restrictive for me and blocked sites like facebook and youtube (though admittedly I think this might have been for reasons other than porn).  I had to disable these filters while leaving the rest in place.  There is some pretty saucy content on these sites, though, and some parents might not want their kids exposed to that.  Would you want your ISP to block youtube, since after all you can see videos of girls in bikinis and lingerie or lesbians kissing (albeit that media is often behind youtube's own adult content protections) and then if you wanted to watch a youtube video be forced to tell you ISP to 'turn off their porn blocking' for you?  Are you OK with never using facebook since, after all, if an attractive woman who is 'friends' with you posts a picture of her in a bikini or otherwise scantily clad it might as well be porn?

Maybe our final method, heuristics, can help us out.  Heuristics will inspect data and websites for specific behaviors, content, or properties and then block it if they meet certain qualifications.  Heuristics can easily get false positives, a popular example being filters that scan images for exposed skin or genitals blocking medical journals for having instructional images when examining a disorder.  This leads to similar problems as before, either too much is blocked because it might be porn, or not all porn is weeded out.  Heuristics also have the problem of requiring much more processing power and access to your information.

The first concern means a huge investment in equipment for ISPs, which will effectively pass on the cost of porn filtering to customers that may not want it.  Is it really fair to force people to pay for a service they don't want?  The second means it's tricky to impossible for connections that are properly secured to be filtered. It's entirely accurate to say that for an ISP to comply with any law created from this petition they might be within their rights to say, "This traffic is encrypted and has been blocked as possible pornography," when you're accessing your bank or other financial institution's website.  Lest you consider this an extreme example of hyperbole to make my point there is precedent for this; the NSA in its data collection efforts collect all encrypted communications they come across despite the fact that they're prohibited from collecting communications from American citizens saying that encrypted communications are essentially by definition unable to be verifiable as between Americans.  If you allow the ISP to allow encrypted connections you've approved to connect normally you've short circuited the system, and disabling heuristic filtering for certain approved sites with secure, encrypted connections increases the overhead requiring even more costly processing power.

What can the government and ISPs do to block pornography, then?  Well, here's the thing, we still haven't defined what pornography is.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints actually provides what I believe is a very accurate definition in their manual True to the Faith, "Pornography is any material depicting or describing the human body or sexual conduct in a way that arouses sexual feelings."  The question here is, how do we know what arouses sexual feelings?  To some a painting such as the Venus de Milo might seem sexual, while to others it might not.  Pornography, like so much involved with sexuality, is a deeply personal thing, and as such is hard to define, let alone regulate, effectively.  Regarding pornography Justice Potter Stewart famously couldn't give a definition other than "I know it when I see it." (and, interestingly, the film referred to in the case where he said that was not, according to him, obscene).  We may know indecent content when we see it, but computers don't so any hope of creating a computer system that will block all that out for us is doomed to fail.

Choosing Style & Convenience Over Principles

Consider which of the following philosophies you agree with more:

A central authority will control every aspect possible.

or

As much as possible will be made available in its entirety for public inspection and involvement.

With that in mind consider this: are you more willing to use Apple or Linux computers?  I know, I know "It just works."  "I'm not a 'techie,' and don't want to have to deal with all that complicated stuff"  "The way the little book opens is just so cute."  I've heard it all before.  I recognize that Apple has abstracted more of the functions for the user and produced very powerful, stable, efficient (though you wouldn't know if from their pricing) technology solutions, but you're missing the point.  I don't want to talk about Apple per se.  I want to talk about the choices we make, especially in technology.

Our choice in technology tends to be surprisingly shallow when we consider the depth of the effect technology has on us.  We decide based on what looks nice, has the coolest features, or sometimes (usually if we're a little more informed) runs well and has the most processing power.  For something that is so rapidly changing the way we interact, work, and quite arguably think this seems like pretty arbitrary criteria.  Will it cause me to seek large amounts of less intimate relationships more efficiently?  Will I ponder issues less in favor of looking up a quick and easy answer from a third party source in the most sleek and stylish way?  These are the kind of questions we're asking, when we could be asking ourselves questions like, "Will I be engaging in and contributing to a infrastructure that promotes openness and individual freedom?"

If I may be candid for a moment let me admit my smug tech nerd ways.  I used to be a little annoyed, mostly due to the immaturity one has early in life that others know different things than you do, when people didn't know how a computer's file system worked, the difference between a program and a text file, or why they couldn't get on the internet.  I'm quickly becoming less annoyed by these people, but that annoyance is being replaced by fear.

I'm afraid because I know that market forces drive technology, and it's terrifying to see the market choose flashy, easy, and restrictive items over empowering items that might make them work a little harder.  I'm afraid because working in tech support I've seen just how helpless people are when their technology breaks, how helpless many people are when it comes to fixing their technological problems, and how earnestly industry is working to make sure that problems may come up less at the expense of being fixable without being invited into a company's inner circle to error codes and access controls.  I worry about living in a world where a relatively small conglomerate of programmers, advertisers, and businessmen are making sweeping decisions on how people live their lives, and the people are relatively powerless to and even uninterested in changing that.

Many are afraid of the effect technology is having on the human psyche and sociological structures.  It's easy to blame the technology for this, but I feel that's misguided.  If our minds or societies are becoming corrupted it's not thanks to the internet, smartphones, or video games.  It's because we're using these poorly.  And why wouldn't we if most of us don't know how they work at all, and only know what they do as the company making it presents that to us?

Studying mathematics and physics where most modern research is done with the aid of computers I'm perhaps blessed to have been taught in a tradition that specifically points out where computers are helpful and where our own intellect should be applied.  Questions of what's computable and what isn't are addressed directly, as well as questions of the best way to compute that which we would indeed like to compute.

I worry a lot about my tone here.  As I recently found out when reading a book on obesity, it's sadly easy to dismiss those presenting information and ideas about something as, "Oh, they're one of those type of people.  That explains why they would say that."  It would be so easy to end up being that "smugly superior" guy who'll criticize folk for having different views on technology or not knowing as much as he does about computers.  As the comic below illustrates thouygh, sooner or later we'll be uncomfortable with how the technology we use works, and if unless we develop the appropriate infrastructure we'll be unable to change it.

The Fourth Amendment in the Information Age

In my last post I mused on the nature of data and how the information about us defines who we are.  I was spurned to write this and finished off the post presenting disappoint with Verizon, my cell carrier, and their failure to protect users' privacy and respect their charge in holding data about us.  Lately Verizon has been in the news for handing over call records to the NSA, so the wound has had salt thrown in it rather than had time to heal, so to speak.  In my investigations into jumping ship from a company so cavalier about it's responsibility to protect who I am in the form my data I've had some interesting experiences.

I sent an email to Sprint asking if their company does anything to protect users' data and privacy.  Their response was,

Sprint as a company is not commenting on this report. We do not have 

any information to share, and that Sprint will not be commenting on the 

subject. 

which I found alarmingly curt and evasive.  Don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting anything terribly profound or telling, I was expecting a sorta non-committal PR department generated canned response along the lines of, "Sprint is committed to protecting customers' data and ensuring their privacy, however we still must comply with any lawful U.S. Government agency request."  There's no real way to peer behind the curtain and discern why they responded with the air of, "Oh geez I don't want to talk about this please don't make me say anything why are you doing this to me?"  My speculation on the subject, which I feel such a curious response deserves, would be that either Sprint is just as uncaring when it comes to customers' data and privacy and can provide no unembarrassing response to a customer asking these type of questions, or that they are actually fearful of what might happen should they take a stand.

Both could of course be true, in fact the latter may be the cause and the former the effect.  I find the latter more interesting, though.  It's easy to dismiss concern with how a company protects (or more often fails to protect) our information as unfounded worry about "government conspiracies" (in fact, that's exactly who a T-Mobile salesperson ended up characterizing my concern when asking about it at a store location).  While the fact that most citizens probably won't be much affected is true and the majority of people (including myself with all my seditious comments coming out on this blog) aren't interesting, influential, or dangerous enough for the government to take the effort to spy on, the issue is far from unimportant for everyone save a few security advocates, legal scholars, and tech enthusiasts.

As I pointed out in my last post we're seeing the importance of the physical diminish.  The things that are important to us are increasingly in the form of data accessed in a number of different ways?  As these changes in the way we communicate, work, and create emerge so the laws which will govern these new methods of living.  And they are being changed.

"The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause."  This worked well for many years when communication took place between two people in the form of physical letters that they could keep on their property and evidence showed up as physical items that, again, could be held on someone's property. These laws are essentially being re-written as more and more of what's important to us has a digital presence.

The fourth amendment seems to grow out of the presumption of innocence.  We aren't to be observed, investigated, or seized until some degree of proof of guilt can be obtained.  This is what's being eroded by modern electronic surveillance.  It echos the complaints by so many in gaming when considering many invasive digital rights management (DRM) systems, "I'm being treated like a criminal when I haven't done anything wrong.  They're just assuming I'm going to steal things."

Privacy and the internet is always, and may always be, a thorny issue.  There's many conflicting theories, ranging from the internet being a surveillance state, to the assumption of privacy which is continually being shown to be unsupported, to complex privacy policies written by lawyers and mostly ignored by users, to understanding that privacy is only there when one takes the steps to encrypt their data and secure their connections.  The internet is increasingly how we live our lives-in both private and public contexts-and after fighting for our rights and freedoms in the physical world we need to take up the fight once more for cyberspace, whether that means holding elected officials accountable, suffering the inconvenience of using security software, or considering privacy and data security when selecting service providers.

Our Data is Who We Are

 The physical is becoming less and less important in the modern world.  Sure, there will always be a need for physical mediums (after all "There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter"), but information is what reigns supreme in importance.  This has always been true, in many ways.  As Carl Sagan said, "The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, it's the way those atoms are put together."  In another way, humanity has been marching toward this for ages; Since the invention of writing a stone could be transformed into the law of the land or God, a history of a people, or an agreement between two parties.  The invention and standardization of money intensified this.

The idiom that you can find out a lot about a person by going through their trash may still be true, but it's been found that with a handful of data readily made available people can know exactly who we are (in this study 4 locational data points were enough to identify 95% of participants).  While it's (probably) true that you wouldn't be you without your physical body, too often we forget that we wouldn't be who we are without our memories, habits, and interpersonal connections-all of which computers are increasingly involved in and therefore archiving.

As a Verizon wireless customer I was devastated to see this report from the Electronic Frontier Foundation surveying different companies and what measures they were taking to protect users' privacy.  I've known for a while that Verizon was kind of a scumbag company, managing to continue living only because they've acquired a great deal of infrastructure.  When (also scumbag, when it comes to users' data) companies like Comcast and Facebook (I'm not including Google even though many might have worries about the amount of data they collect because they did manage to collect 5 out of 6 stars in this survey, and I genuinely appreciate the company) as well as the two lower end Apple and AT&T still manage to find some way in which they can protect users' data rights are still beating out my carrier, I worry.

I'm seriously considering leaving Verizon, and would probably side with Sprint.  The financial, coverage, and overall convenience implications makes me hesitate, but I really feel like making sure a company that isn't making any effort to protect my digital self shouldn't be supported by my money.  I'd love to leave Comcast for the same reason, and may look into campaigning within my complex to get a different service provider.  The power a service provider has in my life is unnerving, considering how important my data is to me.  After all, in a very real way the data about me is who I am.

Better to fail with honor than to succeed without it

Just a thought I had earlier, but surprisingly profound. We focus a great deal these days on success, be it in a career, academics, or even romance. How well do we remember honor? The size of communities might be a factor. People are less likely these days to know about your character or integrity so it's easier to throw out a job title or specific qualification when making introductions. Even when true, declaring oneself honest, diligent, or kind rings hollow without the actions to back it up.

The internet is no help either, with the famed (or infamous) "anonymity" allowing people to act reprehensibly with little to no repercussions. Maybe though, the internet can one day save honor in some small way. Consider if everyone had a sort of 'master online account' (similar to google or facebook accounts). If these had a 'integrity' score on them, which was easily viewable by anyone like an ebay or amazon seller scores. After interacting with many people integrity could be averaged and scored like so many other things are these days.

The possibilities (both good and bad) of a system like this are just barely blossoming in my mind, so maybe I'll let this simmer for a while and take the idea up again. To anyone reading, what do you think about being successful vs. being honorable, or having an integrity score indelibly linked to your name through the power of the internet?

Not excusable, but understandable

I have been thinking since for a little bit now on the title of this post. I suppose I should say that my thoughts about it might just barely crystallize here as I write them, or maybe not. It's an interesting thing to think about, and has meaning and importance, and it's about time for the monthly post here on my blog so here goes.

I think my idea here is what drives reformation. What drives one to become better? To leave bad habits and grow to be better. This is similar to my previous post on the idea of a PGF. My question here though focuses more on bad habits, or vices. I've been struggling with some of my own lately. Perhaps it may be better to say that a particular struggle has been highlighted recently, as I hope to be continually struggling with my vices and weakness always. Getting to the point, I see the poor decisions I make and I decide that they're not excusable, but sometimes understandable.

This means I seek to understand what drives me to do what my better judgment tells me not to. I look for the conditions and the reasons behind bad decisions, internal and external. I usually find them. I usually find a good explanation for why I don't do what I think I should. Knowing this empowers me to be better, to avoid those pitfalls in the future, and to build situations around and within me that will propel me to good rather than away from it.

Knowing what caused my iniquities, though, doesn't mean that they don't exist. It doesn't mean, to use my hated phrase, "I'm a good person." On the other hand, weeping and feeling sorrow for what I've done wrong won't help either. I can't live in the past, wishing I hadn't done what I've done. I can only accept my previous faults, and strive to make sure they do not become present faults.

Do you really want justice?

I've been thinking recently about a comic book that I'd like to write or something. I'm not a comic book writer and don't really have any connections so I probably won't, but that's not the point. The point is that I've got a cool concept, which I hereby submit to you for comment!
The idea is that a man after learning of horrible evils perpetrated be someone (I've been thinking date rape by some frat boy) wishes to set it straight but can't. He prays for the power to fulfill justice. An angel (though physically and visually just a guy), truth, appears and tells him that there's a slot open for angel of justice and that because of his prayer he'll get to take the position. The really interesting part then starts.
Truth tells this guy that he doesn't want to be justice. I've decided he'd say something along these lines, "To be a force so indiscriminate and powerful, a force so immovable and implacable that God sent His beloved son to suffer and die on earth in order to save the rest of His children from it, do you really think you can want to deal with such an overwhelming strength?"
Well, because it's a comic book he'd say yes, and then be turned into a an fiery, angelic, and vicious engine of punishment. I envision this angel inflicting horrible torture and suffering on those who've done wrong. The man when he comes to (that is to say when the spirit of justice withdraws from him) is horrified by what he's done, what he's become. Throughout the comic he tries to stop it, hold the spirit back, but never can because the burning wrath of justice will always fall upon the wicked!
Anyway, I write this not to say, "hey, wouldn't I make a good comic writer? Isn't this a cool idea?" (though your thoughts as per that subject are welcome) but rather to ask, "What is justice?" My idea for this comic isn't just a cool idea for a cool story, I see justice as an overpowering and indiscriminate force. I think if justice were to have an earthly incarnation it would go around dispensing horrific punishment to those who commit horrific crimes. In the end, her scales when weighted to one side with abominations and evils will demand of Lady Justice to bring down her sword on the other with the same force, won't they?
I see mercy, personally through Christ's atonement, as the only force to offset justice. Do people force mercy into their conceptions of justice? I wonder if this is tied to the decline of religious belief, as Deity can dispense perfect justice but man can't. Perhaps man, without deity's guidance redefines justice for himself so as to seek it in a humane way?
I certainly believe that justice and mercy must work together. A human justice system must allow for mercy to a much greater degree than what one's conception of pure justice may be. Perhaps, though, this is the core of super-heroes. We want to believe in justice, we want to believe that those who do wrong will be punished by a force beyond our mortal abilities (as individuals and a society). The religious have a real belief in such a power in their God, if they envision Him as just. What about the secular? I really don't know, if you read this and do, please leave a comment.