techtalkin

[techtalkin]

It's not just the algorithms, it's the people behind them.

Why "Coded Bias", a documentary film directed by Shalini Kantayya, should be added to your Netflix Watchlist.

CCTV's are everywhere. They've popped up in your streets, in shops, concerts, schools... it seems like there's no escaping their ever-present gaze.

And lately, these systems are getting smarter. They are being enhanced by artificial intelligence (’AI’) to become more efficient and 'reliable'.

Is there really anything much we can do about that? and if so, why should you bother? It’s for everyones safety after all! For public security.

Sure, while it’s especially helpful in deterring and mitigating instances of crime, it may also harm you in ways you wouldn't expect.

"Coded Bias" is one of those films that really makes you think, while also making you slightly scared of what the future holds. Especially for those that don't fit the nicely packaged box of white, male and cisgender in today’s ever-surveillance environment.

What this film highlights especially well is that it's not the codes and the algorithms within AI and facial recognition technology themselves that are the problem.

 It's those that set up and input information to the codes, that perpetuate harmful biases against individuals.

Curious? Janus Rose from VICE has more to say on this brilliantly crafted film (link below) and I can only recommend it.

Rose, J. (2021). “’Coded Bias’ Is the Most Important Film About AI You Can Watch Today” https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7v8mx/coded-bias-netflix-documentary-ai-ethics-surveil

*image sourced from Rutgers: The State University of New Jersey (2021) from Web Page ""Coded Bias" Screening and Conversation with Shalini Kantayya and Naomi Klein" https://www.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/styles/16x9_half_1024_2x/public/2021-03/event_coded-bias.jpg?h=b6717701&itok=IaZowPVd

[techtalkin]

Cyber Monday is just an excuse for Big Tech and others to steal your information.

Why you should think twice before purchasing smart tech during Cyber Monday.

"Cyber Monday", what is it?

It's the one day of the year when online goods such as home appliances, laptops, shoes, washing machines- basically anything and everything- are sold for extremely low prices. AKA. a digital extension of the Black Friday fad.

It seems all good and great especially for your average tech-savvy individual.

Appliances with triple A efficiency ratings and the latest software updates going on sale for discounts ranging from 30-80 percent.

Smart technologies are especially sought after for their convenient interfaces, overall usability, sustainability and simplicity.

"What a steal!" you might think.

Aside from having to think, where and how are such devices created? (equally important topics that sadly won't be discussed here). There are also questions on whether these low prices are worth sacrificing your privacy for.

Smart Technologies are devices that are connected to the internet whilst simultaneously collecting and sharing data.

Fun fact! "Smart" was originally derived from the acronym "Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology", but nowadays everyone links it to inanimate objects being able to respond and steer user behaviour.

With devices becoming smarter, more efficient and further integrated into your daily life- you may not even notice how much data is sacrificed by each purchase.

While some of the more concrete dangers surrounding online purchases involve security risks like credit-card skimming, hacking and online threats- it may be worth considering the privacy and data protection policies these smart devices have.

More often than not, devices such as a Fitbit, Amazon's Echo or the Ring Door Bell record more than you would want.

Such devices are riddled with a countless number of sensors that supply an indiscriminate amount of data to companies and potential third parties.

Hence, the consequences of smart devices is that they collect too much information from us.

For example, recording details about your daily habits, about your purchasing history, confidential information like your sex life and health, etc. Information you wouldn't want others to know.

Often they do so without consent or a warped version of it to make it look consensual.

What is also important to stress is that these devices are made for us to want them, irrespective of what dangers they bring.

A term which might come in handy is thus the "privacy paradox". A phenomenon where we -myself included- are conscious of our privacy but act in a way that doesn't reflect our privacy concern.

Inevitably, Cyber Monday is one of those events that promotes this cognitive dissonance. It makes us focus on the staggeringly low price and convenient purchase before the threats to our personal life.

So, what can we do about this?

According to Selective, there are 4 points steps to consider:

1) Verify the legitimacy of websites and emails

2) Choose safer payment methods

3) Apply authentication tools and avoid repeating and simple passwords

4) Monitor suspicious activity

An additional helpful guide is taking a look at the privacy and data protection policies of devices you are interested in.

They can reveal a lot about how little control we really have.

[techtalkin]

Changing the Face of Online Behavioural Advertising Strategies: what the future holds.

Growing critique on the UK's oversight and mitigation of online behavioural advertising has boasted greater concern on how the face of the digital world will look like. More importantly, it exemplifies the failure of previous attempts by the ICO to implement meaningful ways to avoid the exploitation of vulnerable internet users by tech giants in their ads. What does the future hold for the UK and do we have to be concerned?

[techtalkin]

Step Aside VISA, Mastercard and AliPay, Europes playing by a new card game: the European Payments Initiative (EPI)

Following an interview with Managing Partner at aye4fin, Thomas Tittlebach, this article highlights the development of a new European card scheme to compete against US and Chinese payment giants. Furthermore, outlining the risks and potential of this new scheme.

[techtalkin]

Backdoor to Knowledge: how publishing models for scientific papers are restricting our ability to learn.

Ever wondered why scientific education is expensive and inaccessible?

Knowledge should be freely accessible to all by all.

While is this an incredibly broad statement, it is my stance that, especially scientific papers, should be available to those who seek further learning and understanding.

This video illustrates the current publishing model of scientific journals, laying out the background and current debate on whether academic papers should be restricted by subscription backdoors or not.

Touching on an infamous case of Alexandra Elbakyan, creator of Sci-Hub, and Aaron Schwartz, deceased co-founder of Reddit, it highlights the magnitude of corporate power against trailblazers of accessible knowledge.

#science #scientificjournals #freedomofinformation #information #academic #papers #scihub

[techtalkin]

It's hard being a woman in the tech industry, will the Metaverse make it even harder?

Trigger Warning: content contains mention of sexual harassment, and gender based violence

Women have a tough time in the tech industry. Not just from a professional workplace setting, but even in the leisure of online entertainment.

With Mark Zuckerberg's recent reveal of "the Metaverse", a concept to shift the way users interact with technology to become more interoperable, further discussions have to be made on how this idea hopes to mitigate or exacerbate online harassment against women.

Although the countless instances of unsolicited and inappropriate communication towards women via cat-calling, inappropriate touching and other forms of interaction are not new to your average female individual. It becomes a whole new extreme when such instances, and worst acts, become present in cyberspace.

One of the most infamous cases reflecting the threat against womanhood in cyberspace would have to be the 2014 Gamergate.

Under the pretence of 'protecting gamer identity', #Gamergate was an online harassment campaign that become synonymous to online sexism in the gaming industry. After countless instances of harassment and death threats against Zoe Quinn, a female game developer, the campaign took off purging the gaming industry from women in all instances: playing video games, reviewing, developing, etc.

What seems even more baffling is that those individuals involved in this campaign got away with it. Why?

Because our current laws are not yet adapted to resolve conflicts in the cyberspace.

Our sense of accountability against individuals is rooted in the ability to confidently identify the perpetrators and apply laws relevant to the jurisdictions involved.

However, in cyberspace you can be anonymous and you can be anywhere.

Therefore 3 of the biggest barriers in holding online harassers accountable are:

1) Anonymity - users can mask themselves with fake identities

2) Jurisdictions - users can be located in another country

3) Evidence Collection - victims do not report and/or gathering evidence is hampered

Moreover, as was the case with Zoe Quinn's lawsuit, victims may be further intimidated and harassed in coming forward with little protection given in virtual space.

With technology developing since, recent cases of sexual harassment against women via virtual reality have surfaced. Instances of 'virtual groping', that while acted out in the virtual landscape, have real emotional and physical effect on those experiencing it first hand, are one such example.

It's no wonder that women are statistically less enthusiastic than men on the development of virtual reality. With a survey showing that 47% of women are worried on its effect on mental health and family dynamic.

The issue further questions whether such acts should and can amount to sanctions and punishments equal to those in the physical context.

Whilst solutions proposed involve the implementation of safety bubbles to empower women from virtual harrasers or stricter code of conduct policies, it does little to prevent and hold perpetrators accountable for their behaviours online.

Hence, with the world becoming increasingly digitised, it becomes even more important to find means of regulating the technology.

Hopefully Zuckerberg's 'Metaverse' concept will take this issue of protection into account to provide a safe environment for all.

*image source: Jena, M. (N/A) from Article "Transforming the Technological Landscape by Supporting Women in Tech" http://impacthubharare.net/transforming-the-technological-landscape-by-supporting-women-in-tech/

[techtalkin]

Creative AI's: the problem with using algorithms to innovate.

"an AI stole my idea!" "am I infringing an AI's copyright?"

Having only recently come across the wonders of coding, I found this blog post by Neil Brown especially fascinating.

What implications are there when we use Machine Learning (ML) to construct code using publicly available code? Is the love child of GitHub and OpenAI going to become a break through in creating new strings of code? OR just bound to be riddled with (unintended) copyright infringements?

Related to this, cases have recently arisen questioning whether AI systems are eligible as copyright holders and/or patent holders.

These cases bring to light a broader debate on whether AI systems can be considered creators of artistic and innovative pieces.

For further reading I can recommend the below:

Mandal S. & Chauhan, A. (2020) AI and copyright authorship: still mind over matter? https://www.lexology.com/Commentary/intellectual-property/india/saikrishna-associates/ai-and-copyright-authorship-still-mind-over-matter

[techtalkin]

NFTs: transforming the digital world one token at a time.

How much do you think your Twitter post from 2006 is worth?

Likely nothing.

But on March 2021, Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter, managed to scrape up a good sum of $2.9 million in selling his first Twitter post from 2006 which read "just setting up my twttr".

Why in the world would anyone purchase a post? Especially if you could just as easily view it anytime online or screenshot it for free? 

*cough*

 copyright infringement?

*cough*

Well, the simplified answer is that there's a social, collaborative value in that post. We, or a select few, decided that "hey this is worth my money!" and went on to attach a price tag to it. The longer answer involves a bit of understanding of what NFTs are.

NFT stands for "non-fungible token" which is a digital token stored on the blockchain as a means to record and authenticate ownership of an asset.

Still confused? 

To keep it simpler, NFTs represent a unique digital asset that is stored securely on a public, decentralised system known as a “blockchain” (a form of digital ledger that keeps a record of multiple transactions). 

Through "tokenisation" an asset is linked to metadata ('a collection of code') that cannot be replaced or replicated. This process is called "minting". 

Hence, NFTs act as a unique form of authenticity certificate which represents the ownership of an asset.

So if you purchased Dorsey's 2006 tweet as an NFT, you have bragging rights of owning it- and no one can say otherwise because they can see it for themselves on the blockchain. 

Even if millions of people were to have a copy of the tweet, you are the one and only person who owns it. At least, a tokenised version of it.

NFTs can be applied to practically everything and it has been especially successful within the art industry. 

Previously, digital artworks, collectibles, or other digital pieces had no means of proving authenticity or ownership effectively. Because digital assets such as digital art, videos, music, and sound were intangible, they were easily copied, recreated, or replicated countless times over.

However, with NFTs, individuals are presented with a guarantee of what they are purchasing whilst creators/artists gain greater autonomy over their creations. Moreover, NFTs transform online commercial practices- streamlining the relationship between producers/artists and their consumers. 

Instead of previously relying on a third party to communicate between artists and consumers, artists can easily sell their pieces via an NFT marketplace or another means of peer-to-peer transfer.

Although this digital innovation sounds promising SO FAR, how legit this system really is?

Taken from an intellectual property law perspective, to what extent can these NFTs truly be a representation or guarantee of ownership? And are they legally binding? 

Say someone were to refute my claim of ownership via an NFT, is it really enough to say that some string of code proves it to be mine?

With its recent inception into the world- no case law, regulation or legislation has been brought forth to answer these questions. 

*@jack twitter post image sourced: Appiah, V. (2021) from Article “Jack Dorsey Net Worth, First Tweet. Instagram Diet, Education” https://abtc.ng/jack-dorsey-net-worth-first-tweet-instagram-diet-education/