uselessusefullinformation-blog

[uselessusefullinformation-blog]

Another criticism on cloud computing might be from environmental standpoint. The cloud is not an actual cloud, but rather you are using someone else computer/storage. Storing your “cat pictures” in the cloud therefore means that more energy is used to power these databases. I love a good cat meme as much as the next person but we should “think before we cloud”.

[uselessusefullinformation-blog]

Twitter,  a giant in the field of social media, has decided to ban political advertising. 

A strong stance on a very controversial topic, especially in the context of Cambridge Analytica´s role in the Trump and Brexit campaign. 

[uselessusefullinformation-blog]

Modern and Future Regulations in the Field of Technology

Recently we have seen emerging regulations in the field of Technology. Most notable in Europe is arguably the General Data Protection Regulation, hereinafter referred to as the GDPR. The GDPR covers data protection and although some have criticised it e.g. on how complex and immense it is, it still is a trailblazing piece of European regulation where the rights of the individual seem to have been prioritized. Also interesting in this context is the EU Copyright Directive 2019/790, focusing on the digital single market. The directive covers both Copyright and Data Privacy. The EU Directive on Electronic Commerce 2000/31/EC is also one to keep in mind. It ensures the free movement of information society services between member states. It includes rules like liability exemptions for Information Society Service Providers.

I briefly mention this legislation to demonstrate some of the first examples of technology specific regulations. Although consumers may not be award of the law that belies the technology we use, there is regulation out there that affects technology and our rights in that regard. But do we need more regulations regarding technology?

One argument could be that technology specific regulations are completely unnecessary. That other fields of law are fully equipped to answer the questions that come with new technology. In my opinion this might be the right approach sometimes, but definitely not in all cases. We don´t necessarily need to have a set of laws and rules regarding every specific field of technology.  I believe rather that the necessity needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. For example, do we need a specific set of rules for autonomous cars, or should we rather restructure laws and rules that are already out there, e.g. regarding insurance or ownership.

I think there will definitely be cases where the current rules aren´t the best fit to answer questions regarding new technology. For example, when it comes to the ethical duties in the field of A.I. or rules regarding taxation if human employees are replaced by robots en masse. Maybe we will even need rethink the legal system in its entirety to be more flexible to adapt to difference in circumstances.

But it is hard to say what will happen in the future, as it is never certain. Regardless, I think there are a few things we need to keep in mind moving forward. Firstly, governmental bodies need to be more alert and aware of new technology and the impact it can have. They need to be fully equipped to assess the need for possible regulations. And secondly, we as human beings, as a part of this world, need to do the same.

[uselessusefullinformation-blog]

We need to think about software as a means of expressing our freedom, but also defending our freedom. Technology gives us a new power — if we pair that with a responsibility to police ourselves, the way technology grows, and not sleepwalk into new technologies.

Edward Snowden, Snowden Calls On Developers To Champion Privacy By Design (via dragoni)

Great ideology, but how realistic is it?

Can we really expect programmes to police themselves in a responsible manner? And is code a form of rules/law?

Like you can read in my blogs I think the impact on technology is simply to profound to be left unregulated. 

[uselessusefullinformation-blog]

Criticism on the Beautiful “Declaration of Independence in Cyberspace”

Before I start criticising Mr. Barlow’s “Declaration of Independence in Cyberspace” (which I recommend that you read: https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence) let me start by stating that I think his declaration is a beautiful idea, I agree with his objection, but I am not sure how good it is in praxis.

Barlow’s paper sums up my feelings on this subject, before my logical thinking takes over. I think it is a nostalgic homage to a simpler time. Time when cyberspace was a relatively primitive paradise, not heavily influenced by big corporate interest or politics. It was a wild chaotic no man’s land, were your imagination could run free. However, I believe that this anarchistic ideology can´t exist in its primitive form in the 21st century, and in this blog, I will try to sum up why I believe so.

First of all, technology has become a bigger part of our everyday life. Partially because of its increased capability. Now it is possible, in an unprecedented manner, to collect all sorts of information about us. This can be data, facial scans or voice recordings, and this is often done without our full knowledge, through equipment like our phones, computers or numerous different “smart devices”. Technology can also be used to heavily influence our decision making. For example, in the fields of politics (Cambridge Analytica) or consumer behaviour (Trip Advisor, Amazon, and more). Also, with emerging technology, the capabilities of these fields will grow to new heights, especially with the promise that self-learning technology brings.  

We can barely imagine the massive impact this will and has had on the world. New technology has already greatly impacted the field of business, our politics and even our social life with apps like Facebook or Tinder. So, I ask: When the field like technology can revolutionize the world like it has done, is it sensible not to regulate it?

I think, that instead of clinging to the past, we should focus on the present and the future. Total anarchy is not a sensible method when the interest of the human race hang in the balance and thinking about the past only distracts us from the massive challenge ahead of us, the past can no more become the future than the future can become the past.

Instead of reminiscing, we should focus on how we want the field of technology to evolve. What should be the main focus? Should we focus on the rights and freedom of the individual, or rather on the rights of companies, maybe we need some sort of a balance? What about copyright? Should we find short term solutions or solutions that bring positive long-time effects for the human race as a whole? How do we balance the rights of the individual against the interest of society as a whole?

We have already seen some changes, as new regulations in this field are popping up. But this will be the topic of my next blog.

[uselessusefullinformation-blog]

When technology has such a profound impact on our society it is time we start teaching technology literacy.

Russian trolls posed as black activists on Tumblr and generated hundreds of thousands of interactions for content that ranged from calling Hillary Clinton a “monster” to supporting Bernie Sanders and decrying racial injustice and police violence in the US, according to new findings from researcher Jonathan Albright and BuzzFeed News.

While Facebook and Twitter continue to face intense public and congressional pressure over the activity from trolls working for the Russian Internet Research Agency, Tumblr has somehow managed to escape scrutiny. But the blogging platform was in fact home to a powerful, largely unrevealed network of Russian trolls focused on black issues and activism.

“The evidence we’ve collected shows a highly engaged and far-reaching Tumblr propaganda-op targeting mostly teenage and twenty-something African Americans. This appears to have been part of an ongoing campaign since early 2015,” said Albright, research director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University.

Continue reading.

[uselessusefullinformation-blog]

Settlers in Cyberspace – an analogy

Let´s pretend that Cyberspace is an actual space, an Island. About 200 years ago or so it was mostly uninhabited, not much more than a myth really, an idea. But then, the first settlers came, took their space and settled down. At first people settled in different parts of the island, space was abundant, and everyone could be free to do whatever they pleased, free to shape the space to their needs and ideas with little restrictions. There was little conflict, which stands to reason because people hardly knew of each other. The Islands was not very immersive or interconnected and what people did in their own space hardly affected anyone else, at least not in a very fundamental way.

But then, as with all recently founded settlements, things got more complex.

As more settlers arrived, the space, with a growing population, became more complex and interconnected and personal interests of the individuals on the Islands grew. Conflict of interest became more common, and there were little to no regulations or rules.

In other words, the Islands was evolving, in the same way that newly found settlements have always evolved. At some point they all have to face the reality that as the settlements grows, conflict of interest is unavoidable. And in the chaos of conflict, a person or a group of people come out on top as the dominant ruling parties. Usually at first, the power of the land is split between multiple private parties, but one or two of them usually becomes bigger than the other, and then their size snowballs into a bigger and more powerful institution until very few hold most of the power of the society.

I would argue that we, as settlers in cyberspace, are at that point now. Relatively few companies hold a lot of power in the field of technology and most of us have little to no influence over how this growing field is evolving, even though it influences the very foundations of our political, economic and social life.

If we are interested in changing that then we need regulations. Even though we would perhaps like to go back to simpler, more beautifully chaotic times, and even though statements like “The Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace” by Barlow are romantic and beautiful, time doesn´t move backwards. We need to find sustainable solutions in a more complex environment. This will be the topic of my next blog.

[uselessusefullinformation-blog]

To what extent should we protect intellectual property and for whom?

my dash is covered in loud discourse over whether Disney or Sony is the real villain in this controversy over the rights to make Spider-Man movies, and… no. guys. c’mon.

Spider-Man was created fifty-seven years ago by people who are now dead. Spider-Man should be public domain. anyone should have the rights to make Spider-Man movies. the huge media conglomerates who spend millions of dollars to ensure that it’s illegal for anyone but them to make Spider-Man movies- regardless of which one of them is currently at a disadvantage in negotiations re: who controls the monopoly- are both the villains of this story.