Connection Problem S03E22: The Mind Is Flat
Sitrep: It's Friday afternoon. I just picked up my office badge for Mozilla—turns out as part of my fellowship I get the key to the castle: It feels very official. This mornings walk-and-talk call had me soaked to the bones. It's warm and wet outside, like some kind of summer rain storm but a little less of both heat and water: Confusing spring weather all around.
Let me start with what you won't get in today's newsletter: Any hot takes on Zuckerberg's congressional hearing. Promise.
×
×
As always, a shout out to tinyletter.com/pbihr or a forward is appreciated!
×
Dept of Media Reviews
A good media week for my work:
WSJ: A few days ago, I interrupted a super brief family trip to drive a couple towns over until I had some phone signal and could give a spontaneous interview to a writer from Wall Street Journal. Which is good, because he wanted to learn about IoT, consumer trust, and the trustmark work I've been doing. The piece turned out pretty in-depth (especially given the early stages of the project) and was published in the WSJ's Cybersecurity newsletter (paywalled) titled "IoT Security Push Includes New Mozilla-Funded Open Source Project". 💯
I really liked that he pushed me on the reasons for developing it in the open; I posted some more excerpts over on the ThingsCon blog, but let me repeat a quote and my own explanation from the blog post here so you don't have to click through:
“We’re going to choose the most open model possible because this standard is absolutely something that will need to be peer-reviewed and change over time,” Mr. Bihr said of his own fellowship.
This is an aspect we haven't talked about much until now: At this stage I'm coordinating this effort somewhat centrally, but the goal is for this to be as decentralized and open as possible. This includes sharing our findings, learnings and failings openly so others can learn from them; Structuring the trustmark in a way that guarantees it to be free to use; And allowing for true peer review not just in the early stages but especially as the project matures.
We aim to make everything as open as possible, within reason: Having to move quickly means the approach will by necessity be a pragmatic one, and we'll have to work with that reality. That said, for every context we'll find the most appropriate way to open up what we draft here, from our presentations to documentation to research.
Internet Health Report: Mozilla just published their Internet Health Report 2018, which is really a beautiful and important bit of research and activism. The trustmark also got a nice shout out there, so two thumbs up.
Offscreen Mag: I've been mentioning that I wrote a contribution for Offscreen Magazine. I'm told it's being printed as I'm typing this. If you'd like to get a copy but don't want to scour your local trusted magazine dealer (or don't leave near one), Offscreen just said on Twitter today that if you subscribe today you'll still get one of the first batch copies. (I don't get a kick-back; I just really like the magazine.)
×
Dept of Privacy vs Surveillance
(1) China
Here's a super scary bit about AI, facial recognition, and government surveillance copied in whole from David Meyer's Connected Rights newsletter:
THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT WANTS the country's facial recognition and surveillance systems fully unified and operational by 2020. According to Radio Free Asia, that includes a surveillance platform called Sharp Eyes that can "link up public surveillance cameras and those installed in smart devices in the home, to a nationwide network for viewing in real time by anyone who is given access." The platform will be used along with the "social credit" system that already bars people from buying train tickets if they have ever been caught "spreading false information" online.
Let me repeat this in the words of Radio Free Asia simply because it is so utterly outrageous:
By 2020, China will have completed its nationwide facial recognition and surveillance network, achieving near-total surveillance of urban residents, including in their homes via smart TVs and smartphones. According to the official Legal Daily newspaper, the 13th Five Year Plan requires 100 percent surveillance and facial recognition coverage and total unification of its existing databases across the country.
"100 percent surveillance and facial recognition coverage". I'm at a loss for words.
(2) Europe
Tom Wheeler, the former FCC chairman, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times about GDPR titled "Can Europe Lead on Privacy?". (And I'm almost but not 100% certain that it's not a hoax—it was posted on April 1st). Wheeler elaborates on the importance of data protection, and how American users might benefit from the GDPR legislation that will come into effect in about 6 weeks time:
Fortunately, the European Union's law should indirectly help Americans somewhat. In only a few weeks, Facebook, Google and all the other internet companies that collect our private information will have to allow European customers the protections these companies have fought to deny Americans. In an interconnected world where digital code doesn't respect the geographical or national borders, this will surely have a positive global impact.
Internet companies are preparing for a future in which regardless of where a website is based, if it is visited by even a single European Union citizen and if it seeks to collect that person’s data, it must provide that person the protections of the General Data Protection Regulation. Hopefully, this experience will show these companies that protecting privacy is simply the responsible thing to do, not the end of their business.
If this is real, then what a bizarre world we live in where an FCC chairman hopes that Europe's privacy and data protection laws are US citizens' last hope.
(3) Facebook
"Facebook data breach hits 63,714 New Zealanders after 10 people download quiz", writes the Guardian.
Because of the nature of networks we have such a bad intuition about the long-term effects of data. That's also an important reason why we're so bad at discussing the long-term effects of data, period. And while we lack this intuition, and the language and metaphors and mental models to discuss these long-term effects, we can't have an informed discussion about this, and hence won't be getting any solid and resilient policies either.
×
Dept of Some Things I'm Happy I Read This Week
Bryce Roberts: Acknowledging Privilege. An older post I discovered through Offscreen, I'm happy I read this because it's a good reminder to be constantly aware of the privilege. (Also, I like the literal Latin translation of privilege: Private law. Rules that only apply to you, not everyone. It's a powerful reminder.)
Slate: Are Algorithms the New Campaign Donation? The way we can move around algorithms between organizations, and whose value is notoriously hard to determine, is an interesting angle for me: I have to admit I hadn't considered this at all.
MIT Technology Review: CRISPR trials are about to begin in people—but we still don’t know how well it works in monkeys. I only follow CRISPR-related news embarrassingly vaguely. This caught enough of my attention, though, to read (it's quick, too). Seems that (unsurprisingly?) the challenges in gene editing are of a very different nature than the ones we see in the realm of bits and bits.
Nick Chater: A revolution in our sense of self. This one crossed my path via Alexandra DS, and it's quite something. Allow me to drop the sub-header right in as it states the hypothesis: "In a radical reassessment of how the mind works, a leading behavioural scientist argues the idea of a deep inner life is an illusion. This is cause for celebration, he says, not despair." 👀
Our language system is continually generating a flow of plausible-sounding explanations of the reasons behind our actions but, suspiciously, the flow continues with the same speed and confidence when our language system cannot possibly know the truth. And it continues without balking. It was confabulating all along.
And:
The truth is not that the depths are empty, or even shallow, but that the mind is flat: the surface is all there is.
And:
Our brains are relentless and compelling improvisers, creating the mind, moment by moment. But, as with any improvisation, in dance, music or storytelling, each fresh thought is not created out of nothing, but built from the fragments of past improvisations.
(Then the author goes on about AI and why it won't replicate human thought, but that seems like comparatively small beans compared to the hypothesis set out before.) Glad I read this!
×
On that note, I'm signing off and wish you an excellent weekend.
Yours truly,
Peter
PS. Please feel free to forward this to friends & colleagues, or send them to tinyletter.com/pbihr
PPS. The lovely images are from Public Domain Review and available as prints in their shop.
