Government vs. Internet (The Brawl in Cyberspace)

What power should governments have over the internet, if any?

The opportunity for abuses of power by the government with the internet are very vast. Considering that the internet is the ultimate forum for free speech, tampering with the internet via censorship and control of access is a violation of free speech rights. We addressed a part of this in the last post, whether the internet is a human right. My response being that if the technology and access is there, then restricting it is indeed a violation of that right.
Often advances to control and pass regulatory legislation regarding the internet are done under the banner of opening a forum for capitalism.

The Communication Decency Act was one of the first example of this, a very absurd attempt at regulating the internet back in 97. Today, Net Neutrality being one of the top issues as the bill comes up over and over again. The concept that your ISP could control what you access on the internet is such a massive danger to free speech, and a massive opportunity to capitalize by major corporations. Thankfully the EFF has rallied the tech savvy groups to protest such a move every time the bill comes up in the House. Every time it has been shot down, despite having some of the more poorly informed senators representing the people of the internet (ie. Ted Stevens and "the series of tubes")

Recently we've seen the birth of data capping among Comcast internet networks in some states. Once again this is a slippery slope (currently the cap is set very high at something around 200 GB.) Right now people will have to pay if they download/ upload too much through their internet (right now only people who download an absurd amount of movies and such are at risk.) We've seen this capping at Virginia Tech as well, a pseudo response to what they perceive to be examples of illegal P2P activity. (Granted Data capping is not uncommon as we see it often with smart phone 3 and 4G networks. However the justification is the cost of making and maintaining these networks)

In foreign countries the examples abound of governments blatantly censoring or outright shutting down the internet for it's citizenry. The concept is not surprising because the internet is a great opportunity to get the word out about abusive governments, as well as spreading new ideas that are dangerous to the powerful heads of state. The US thankfully has been fairly good about keeping the internet free, but it has been a very real struggle to maintain that. In less free countries it is not surprising that the civilians don't have the ability to fight against these overreaching moves by their own governments. That's why "hacktivists" have a responsibility to reach out to these people help provide them a means to fight back at least in cyberspace via private publishing and file sharing. There are some obvious things the government should intervene on: violations of copyright, piracy in some formats, etc. However free speech should never be on the chopping block.

Internet Empowerment

Do you feel empowered by the internet?

The concept of empowerment by the internet really is no different from any other tool. The computer itself is tool of empowerment, as are the programs on it. Without advances in 3D software development, I wouldn't have pursued an art degree. The tools on my computer give me the ability to make the art I want to make. In the same means the internet empowers me to connect to friends, post my works, and learn new things.

Yes, it is true that the internet is an absolutely integral part of my life. I use it constantly to learn new things, communicate, and work. Empowerment clearly comes with the internet, among many other things. It is truly a great tool for fast tracking the advancement of knowledge and humanity. The censorship we see in the less free parts of the world is not at all surprising, as the internet provides the opportunity to learn and organize. It truly is a tool of empowerment, and while it has been used to spread ignorance, the truth often wins out if you look in the right places.

It's no doubt that the internet has empowered me in many ways, and it is certainly true that it is a tool for empowerment in struggling 3rd world countries. My question is for all that it does and has done to change the world, is it a human right to have access to it? As powerful as it is, the internet is still a tool, just like the computer, a car, a cell phone, etc. It would fall under an implement of another human right: the right to learn. Education was primarily done through analog formats such as books, but there is real opportunity to fight biased writers and euro-centric thinking by using the internet. I think it could certainly be listed as a critical need that people below the poverty level don't have access to. (like food, running water, cars)

Sherry Levine- Fantasy, Reality, and Addiction

In what ways has building and communicating through online profiles changed you personally?

Do you think that online communities and role play have helped us more (in terms of self reflection and growing) or hurt us more (in terms of addiction to fantasy and disconnect from reality)?

My experience with online profiles and internet communication and roleplay devices over the past few years have been significant. The experimentation the internet offers has really allowed me to learn more about myself and meet like minded people. I eventually met these people and maintain real world in person relationships alongside our internet communication. I think ultimately this is the benefit Sherry wanted to see happen with the internet. I think that some of the issues she warned about with MPD and the reality disconnect really manifested themselves as the internet became mainstream and we started to casually forgo in person communication even more for devices.

From what I gather from her many interviews she seems to be more about warning the harm that our connected selves is causing to society, culture, introspection, communication, and concepts of reality and privacy. She really has put emphasis on the issue of privacy, which like communication, has radically changed especially in recent years. We volunteer much more information to everyone than ever before, but even worse is the loads more specific data gathered without (or at least ignorant of) our knowledge. She said 'facebook is not free, we pay for it by volunteering our privacy' With the creation of face book connect and other applications that continue to integrate the internet into one insular circle. A lot of the creative expression and opportunity that comes with anonymity will disappear, and more importantly it will become more and more natural for us to communicate everything we do (online and off) to everyone we know. Sherry warns now we are losing two very important aspects of our humanity, the intimacy of privacy and in person communication.

As far as this question goes, I would say for all the opportunities the internet has presented in networking, we have lost quite a bit in serious human relationships. I personally know I take it too far, I communicate and meet with people primarily online, with the exception of my fellow students I've primarily reserved contact with friends in person to the weekend only. When Sherry talks about taking a step back and re-evaluating what the machines are for before we get too sucked in, it is all to relevant to geek culture. We have seen time and time again that geek culture in usually the predecessor to mainstream, and this very issue of further disconnectedness is spreading to regular people. I think she wants us to view all the new communication technology as a means to an end, instead of the end to a means.

What seperates Humans from Machines? Anything?

What do you think differentiates a human from a machine?
Do you think we will be replaced? Do you think Turing’s test is a good representation of deciding which is which?

The question of consciousness and sentience seems simple by definition. The things that make us human and animals is our ability to emote. Things like communication, working together, and adaptation are all traits of things like plants and other non sentient things. The same question is proposed with robots. If a robot could emulate humans in every way from learning to communicating, will it ever cease to be an imitation of life? If the machine could simulate emotion based on it's history of learning and understanding of it's surroundings how is it different from us? Even though our brains are wired differently, we could still think and learn to arrive at the same conclusions. If a robot can arrive at the prospect of emotion from a purely logical standpoint based in a perspective of it's history, then how is it different? Could the emotions, passions, and etc. we experience purely logical aspect of the human experience? Technically the feelings we have are the results of a series of complex chemical interaction responding to electric stimuli with the environment, is that necessarily different with the electric repines of robots to their environment? We are told to be unafraid to question the nature of humanity itself, but perhaps the conclusion more depressing than we wish to think. Our emotions could be essentially empty, only unique in that they are easily created. If our emotions could be recreated by a machine, then perhaps they are no more unique than our ability to walk, reason, and see things. Creativity could befall the same fate of emotion under the same circumstances. I suppose you could ask a replicate from Blade Runner if they ever feel a part of the human experience, certainly they feel prejudice and injustice.

The Turing test is a fun and simple exercise to get people to think differently, but it is purely a psychological test. The level of subjective in these experiments don't properly evaluate what traits make us human. The question of what makes us human may be just beyond our reach, if there is something distinct at all (outside of the obvious human species of animal.) Perhaps a robot is simply a percentage of human based on how closely it imitates each aspect of what we can do. So yeah short answer, No. The test is however a good examination of the quality algorithms and psychological knowledge of what the majority of people think is human.

What Future Technologies mean for Humanity

Humans understand the world in only 3 dimensions and communicate in a very slow, serial fashion called speech. But can this be improved on? Can we use technology to upgrade humans?


As we discussed this question, the issue of whether we as a species will make it to this supposed future. Yes, the technology is there and if our progress stays on track we will see the technology we dream of here manifested. I mentioned Stephen Hawking's quote, that if we make it through this century that the human species is set on track to avoid extinction for many millennia. I think this is relevant, because he arrives at this conclusion based off of the potential of our future technologies with advanced computers, cyborgification, etc. Presuming we do make it to see this future, I think creativity and right brained thinking will be all the more important.
Consider how the nature of work has changed for us and where it is going in our immediate future. Daniel Pink's book A Whole New Mind addresses that creative jobs will be the in demand jobs now and in the future for working in developed countries. If we were to make the massive jump to this cybernetic future envisioned now, it would be all the more important of a commodity. Creativity is theoretically what separates us from the machines, and as machines inevitably surpass us in thinking power (even with cyborg enhancements) human will have to struggle to offer something machines can't do. It's the same dilemma many workers faced as the assembly line was replaced more and more with machines. I also imagine studies into HCI (human-computer interaction) will be massive growing field as well, as the future ensures computers and the internet will need to be seamless with our daily lives as well accessible by human thought. The big questions still remain though about what this will due to knowledge, how we process data, and how we think. Will we learn to think like computers? can we? What about visa versa? What are the still critical aspects of human jobs that won't be taken over by machines? If we live long enough, we might just find out.

Neuromancer

Do you think there are situations that are similar to this concept of outlaw zones present in today's world?

Theoretically as we advance as a civilization, the areas of outlaw zones get smaller and smaller over time. Not only with advances in surveillance, but due to stabilization of lifestyles. However quite the opposite seems true for today's day and age. While crime in general has decreased, there are still sections of cities where criminals inhabit. There are still safe zones across countries to conduct illegal activity. I think a smart aspect of Neuromancer and the like is that it recognizes that as city populations increase, no advances in technology can truly eliminate crime and the black market. In fact, a lot of technology advances the "black market."

Enter the anarchy that is the internet. Policing the internet for illegal downloads and illegal threats is nearly impossible, and the mass disillusionment with government laws is a real subject of investigation. Even the best law abiding citizens commit crime on the internet, sometimes without realizing it. The big question is what will become of essentially the ultimate "outlaw zone." As we move forward with upgrading internet infrastructure and creating better software, it is inevitable that P2P will result in free distribution of all media.

Downloading movies will be as fast as downloading music, and piracy will extend for all forms of software. The flip side is the backlash from the corporations that need to make money. The only ways it could stop the internet revolution would be to
1) remove net neutrality
2) enforce some Orwellian level legislation against piracy (DMC codec tried and failed with that)
3) block of and starve the free internet with huge online companies (facebook, amazon, etc...)

Anyways I digress, the truth is technology is neutral. We have found in recent times it has created massive Outlaw Zones, and it may continue to do just that. The best defense against creating a population of criminals is to ensure a fairness in lifestyle. It is impossible to answer the question without getting political in this sense. As the gap between the rich and poor get wider, the unrest will be stronger. As many revolutions across Egypt, Iran, and other countries have shown, unfairness and political corruption will not be tolerated. Technology can serve strongly to fuel revolution. I'm not saying that in a more fair world, piracy and crime won't exist. However these "Outlaw Zones" are often the center of creativity and innovation. We must learn to see them as areas of opportunity.