For the last class we will be reading Zittrain’s The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It. I will want to talk about material from the whole book, but make sure you read sections 1 & 3 completely. (You can also follow the author on twitter: @zittrain). He is also a pretty funny guy, you might want to check out his appearance on the Colbert report (probably available on comedy central).
Useful Links
Group Projects
As I was reading, I remembered the two computers I had recently built for my girlfriend and myself. Building the computers to each of our needs took careful planning in terms of part selections and future upgrade path. The range of selections available to build a fully customizable PC, along with affordability and availability of parts were only a pipe dream not too long ago. As Zittrain mentioned, we are able use one hardware to carry out many different tasks. Only now it goes much deeper than that since the hardware itself can also be controlled by the users. This flexibility comes at a price however. Due to the rapid growth of electronic technology, not a single part in the computer you stays current for more than a month time. Also developers of various software companies constantly struggle to spec out their products to conform to such wide range of computer specs. Prominent example of this ofcourse is the video game industry. The next evolutionary step, which is already in testing is to have a single piece of hardware with only a visual output port that emulates any tasks. This piece of hardware will connect to wide range of networked super computers. That hardware will only act as an emulator, while the super computers will compute all the data and transmit them over to the hardware in your living room. While this puts serious threat to many computer hardware companies (Sony Playstation and Nintendo included), it will also help many people with out-dated computers to perform all the tasks equally as someone with a very powerful computer. A pure model of one hardware doing ANYTHING that a software instructs it to do.
In Jonathan Zittrain’s book “The Future of the Internet-And How to Stop It” the author is looking at the negative and positive aspects of the internet in relatively equal amounts. This book contains lots of facts and presents the information clearly in a way that I felt made for easy reading. I appreciated the short story about IBM in the beginning of the book, which helped me understand the history of IBM computers and the beginning of unbundling software. Unbundling software is important because it relates to CompuServe’s reluctance to use third party content providers. Looking back it appears CompuServe was not thinking outside the box in regards to business practices during the earliest stages of the internet. I also liked reading about the early days of networking and the internet. I never considered how complicated it must have been to set up the internet then the legal aspects of having it work over telephone wires. The fact that so many professionals lent their free time to help develop the internet tells you they probably had an idea that the internet was going to be very important in the future. The author discusses COPPA on page 232, I think this is important because despite malicious code causing damage to computer files, the real harm is done by people who use their computer and the internet to maliciously hurt other people. Also, I watched Jonathan Zittrain on the Colbert Report, prior to reading sections 1 and 3 for the book. The video was helped me understand his philosophy of what’s good and bad about the internet.
Zittrain’s “The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It” was an interesting read. Zittrain’s generative computer theory focuses on the computers history. He talks about design and programming computers briefly in his stories. He talks about open source programming and access to code being the way to Freedom.
Software design principles follow certain principles like the 80/20 Rule. The design rule governing software that eighty percent of software functionality is hidden from the general user who only uses twenty percent. The design of the IPhone seems to follow a user centered design principle. In the example of the IPhone he did not mention users hacking and reusing applications. He does not mention hacking to repurpose devices by the user.
Also, I thought of remediation theory after reading about the comparison of PC and networked appliances like the cell phones. Is the cell phone/ mobile device trying to replace the networked computer?
In Section 3, Zittrain grapples with a question that is as old as authority itself, which is to say as old as humanity: How do you get people with free will to behave?
For one, you can institute a type of surveillance panopticon in the guise of social policing. Zittrain suggests “better community ethics and policing,” but what he really means is increased surveillance and control “aided by some important technical tools” (151). Citing Wikipedia as a success story of such a network, Zittrain defines the culture as one of “shared responsibility and participation” (161) and he uses the analogy of “a neighborhood watch” (161). What is a panopticon if it is not a neighborhood watch? In such a culture of surveillance, criminals are certainly discouraged because they never know who is peering out from behind those lace curtains, phone in hand, police station on speed dial. But if criminals are under surveillance, innocent residents must be also. Thus, young women secretly usher dates in and out of the house to avoid gossip originating in the darkened windows of the house across the street. This type of culture might rely on the notion of a user’s reputation… which I think Castells brings up.
Zittrain writes that “a necessary if not sufficient condition to fighting bad code as a social problem is to allow people to enter into a social configuration to attack it” (161). This reminds me less of the panopticon and more of the mob mentality that can find a stolen cell phone for one girl and ruin the life of another girl, as Shirky describes. Thus, when Zittrain calls on those “who appreciate the dangers of lockdown” to help find solutions, I wonder how lockdown dangers are any worse than the dangers of a mob mentality or a surveillance society. In speaking of locked-down PCs, he says that “paradises can become prisons” from a generative standpoint (165). I don’t think this issue is as clear-cut as either prison or paradise. If Wikipedia “polices itself according to an ethical code … that encourages contributors to do the right thing” (195), the bottom line is that contributors are still being policed. “We must figure out how to inspire people to act humanely in digital environments” (195). We haven’t figured that out in offline environments! He says, “This can be accomplished with tools” (195). Considering Zittrain’s frequent, finalizing deferral to “tools” as the means to an end, I don’t think it would be unreasonable to look for an instrumentalist approach in his book; this approach has ethical problems in and of itself.
Zittrain’s “The Future of the Internet” was probably my least favorite reading this semester other than “The Printing Revolution in Modern Ages.” Maybe it is because it is the end of the semester, or maybe it is because I usually think of computer science as an aid for producing something else instead of a subject itself. When the author started out with an introduction of the history of internet, it just completely bored me. Where he stressed more on the scientific side of the technology was not very interesting to me. But he raised my interests when he discussed more about the sociology effects, such as where he talked about how the internet design decisions tilt toward simplicity and it is about trust. And that when a company wants to stop the hackers from doing damages to the company’s profits, turning to the law does not work as well as turning to social solutions that are aided by powerful technical tools. He also made the use of online social media and other platforms look dangerous. And how strangely unfair it seems that people designed a poor program are not as responsible for their bad products as a carpenter whose coffee table is missing a leg. I haven’t really figured out why I am not very attracted to this book since it does discuss topics that I am interested in. But I do think it gets better in Part III.
“We need a strategy that blunts the worst aspects of today’s popular generative Internet and PC without killing these platform’s openness and innovation.” (150) This sums up Zittrain’s point of view, and what he would like this book to ultimately achieve, that of a solution to the rampant generatively flowing from one layer to the next. He states that if problems can flow in such a manner, so can solutions. It’s very interesting to me to think about society as the ultimate police to maintain online equality. The example of Wikipedia sums all of this up. His statement regarding how people will ultimately control the internet and themselves how they will be “aided by some important technical tools” (151) seems on the surface to be very similar to the panopticon concept. I, however, disagree. There are certain tools that are specifically geared toward aiding in the connectivity between people. Maybe I’m off, but that statement felt more hopeful than anything else in the book. There are tools, and we use them everyday. I’d like to think that ultimately it is the developed community comprised of individuals that is the ultimate tool. There is more power in connectivity than there is in any sort of surveillance program. Maybe it’s the optimistic Shirky in me, but I think that using the word “police” is a bit overboard. Wikipedia is not policed. There is no hierarchy (in the big picture) and those who are contributors theoretically have the same opportunity that anyone else contributing would have to be a part of the conversation or to make adjustments on others work. “Policing” indicates that ultimate there is a final say and at any moment those participants could be subjected to the will of the authority. Wikipedia, for me at least, is one of the few internet entities that doesn’t feel forced into ultimate regulation.
Zittrain touches on some interesting points that I never thought of before in our reading this week. Particularly with the creation of the Internet and how it is built on generative principles. His fear of loosing this generative spirit however seems a bit misplaced. While I agree that the idea of system lock down is a problem I feel like the solution is be simpler than Zittrain thinks. Offer two versions of the computer, one locked down the other open and free (similar to this red/green idea). This way users who are not as knowledgeable will be protected and users who have the proper knowledge base can still participate.
I also think that Zittrain too quickly disregards the iPhone as simply another tethered appliance and over looks the potential the apps store brings to the platform. Apple does have a heavy lock down on the iPhone itself, but allowing a user to install applications is a major draw to not only users but developers and while there are some costs involved with developing programs for the platform the same can be said about any platform. Zittrain also never really mentions anything about underground activities associated with locked down systems such as video game console moding or mobile phone hacks. If a system lock down does occur I think we’ll find much of that generative spirit continue just in the realms of underground activity.
Zittrain seems to believe that the PC will soon become obsolete with the emergence of electronic devices that do not possess security threats. He demonstrates this in Part 1 when he says, “…consumers find themselves frustrated by PCs at a time when a variety of information appliances are arising as substitutes of the activities they value most. Digital video recorders, mobile phones, BlackBerries, and video game consoles will offer safer and more consistent experiences” (57). While I agree that some consumers acknowledge the dangers of the openness of the PC, I think it is highly improbable that they will ultimately abandon it altogether. Devices such as BlackBerries and iPhones are merely complements of PCs rather than substitutes. Although consumers are now able to perform tasks previously done solely on a PC portably, it would be impractical to replace the PC with a series of smaller, separate appliances. Imagine creating a PowerPoint presentation, editing a video, or designing a video game on an iPhone. While these portable appliances allow consumers to complete simple tasks practically like writing an e-mail or collecting a music library, they do not have the full functionality or took package as a PC. Perhaps desktops will soon become archaic and be replaced entirely by notebook computers, but the PC is not going to disappear anytime soon.