The Latest Generation Of 'Get Off My Lawn!' Books From People Who Don't Understand Technology

from the it's-a-tool dept

Adam Singer points us to a recent article in the Guardian about a spate of recent "technology is destroying society"-type books, many of which we've spoken about before. The main book it talks about, however, is Sherry Turkle's new book Alone Together. This is a bit disappointing in the fact that, in the past, Turkle has often been an astute observer of technology and how kids are adapting to it in positive ways. As one person jokes in the article: "Alone Together reads as if it were written by Turkle's evil Luddite twin."

Unfortunately, like so many of these books, the criticism seems to be focused on a sort of "get off my lawn!" outsider's view of technological culture, with assumptions about what constitutes "good" and what constitutes "bad." For example, the fact that people check information on their smartphones is seen as bad, but that doesn't take into account context or whether or not those people are communicating with others in a productive manner. As always, technology is a tool and there's no doubt that some people use it in ways that are not productive or helpful to themselves, just as many others use the tools in ways that make their lives better. Trying to paint this all with such a broad brush is disappointing. Much of it seems based on the silly assumption that communicating with someone via a screen is automatically less human than communicating with someone face-to-face. Yet we saw the same claims when the telephone first came out and I don't think anyone still claims that the telephone degraded societal communications. Technology is a part of the ecosystem and people have an amazing ability to adapt to it. Yes, some people will always overdo it, but blaming the technology and discounting the many positive users (as well as the likelihood that people adapt over time) is a huge mistake. It might sell books, but it does little to shed any real insight into how technology is impacting our lives.

Filed Under: luddism, sherry turkle, technology

The Inevitability Of Wikileaks

from the if-you-strike-me-down... dept

Yet another excellent post over at the Economist highlighting the key mistake that those arguing against Wikileaks seem to be making: it's the idea that these kinds of things can be stopped. It's this idea that if Julian Assange is killed or if Wikileaks loses its domain or even if people are brought to trial over this, that somehow, somewhere, such data leaks won't happen any more. As the Economist notes:

Jailing Thomas Edison in 1890 would not have darkened the night.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make a couple months ago, in pointing out the impossibility of stopping truly distributed systems through conventional means (whether the distributed systems are doing good or bad things), and how little the people in power recognize this.

Yet the debate over WikiLeaks has proceeded as if the matter might conclude with the eradication of these kinds of data dumps--as if this is a temporary glitch in the system that can be fixed; as if this is a nuisance that can be made to go away with the application of sufficient government gusto. But I don't think the matter can end this way. Just as technology has made it easier for governments and corporations to snoop ever more invasively into the private lives of individuals, it has also made it easier for individuals, working alone or together, to root through and make off with the secret files of governments and corporations. WikiLeaks is simply an early manifestation of what I predict will be a more-or-less permanent feature of contemporary life, and a more-or-less permanent constraint on strategies of secret-keeping.

This is about dealing with reality, but so many of those in charge are working from the wrong playbook -- the one that doesn't realize that this is the new reality.

The basic question is not whether we think Julian Assange is a terrorist or a hero. The basic question certainly is not whether we think exposing the chatter of the diplomatic corps helps or hinders their efforts, and whether this is a good or bad thing. To continue to focus on these questions is to miss the forest for the texture of the bark on a single elm. If we take the inevitability of future large leaks for granted, then I think the debate must eventually centre on the things that will determine the supply of leakers and leaks. Some of us wish to encourage in individuals the sense of justice which would embolden them to challenge the institutions that control our fate by bringing their secrets to light. Some of us wish to encourage in individuals ever greater fealty and submission to corporations and the state in order to protect the privileges and prerogatives of the powerful, lest their erosion threaten what David Brooks calls "the fragile community"--our current, comfortable dispensation.

Again, this is why I have pointed out the similarities between the whole Wikileaks situation and the entertainment industry's response to file sharing. In the latter, it was never about whether or not file sharing was good or bad, moral or immoral, or even (really) whether or not it helps or hinders the creative lives of certain individuals or companies. What happened with file sharing was an inevitability, and the focus from the beginning should have been about figuring out "what do we do now, knowing this reality."

For years, I've said that one of the reasons I focused so much on the music industry was that I hoped other arenas that faced similar questions would learn from the mistakes of that one industry. And, yet, we see time and time again that this almost never happens. We've seen the movie industry, the software industry, the video game industry, the publishing industry and more follow the same path making the same mistakes. And now we're seeing the US government do it too -- and this is a case where the stakes may be much, much bigger.

Filed Under: technology, trends, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Looks Like Visa Program For Science & Tech Grads Isn't Really Being Used For The Best & Brightest

from the unfortunate dept

theodp writes in to let us know:

"By enacting a controversial 'emergency' rule in 2008 allowing foreign students who earn degrees in science, technology, engineering or math (STEM) in the U.S. to work for American employers for 29 months of Optional Practical Training (OPT) without the need for an H-1B visa, Department of Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff boasted he was 'giving U.S. companies a competitive advantage in the world economy.' Microsoft applauded the move, saying the program would allow U.S. companies to recruit and retain the 'best' science and tech students educated at the top U.S. universities. And last April, the DHS quashed a legal challenge to the program, telling the U.S. Supreme Court that 'the public interest would be disserved' without the program.

Noticeably absent from the DHS brief, however, were any details on the two-year old program's participants. But now, a Computerworld report suggests why the agency may have been less-than-eager to share any details with the Court. Not only is the DHS program dominated by for-profit Stratford University, whose 727 approved OPT STEM extension requests is more than twice the combined total of the entire Ivy League - Brown (26), Columbia (105), Cornell (90), Dartmouth (18), Harvard (27), Princeton (16), Penn (50), and Yale (9) - it turns out the program is also being embraced by IT outsourcing and offshoring companies like Kelly Services, whose entities snagged about 50 approvals, more than twice the combined total of Google (15), Amazon.com (2), Yahoo (2), and Facebook (3). More details on the 20,000 OPT STEM extension requests filed since mid-2008 can be found in Computerworld's interactive database."

I'll admit that I was a supporter of this program when it was first announced. I believe that we should absolutely be opening our borders to those skilled in science and technology, and keep them working in the US so that they're working to improve US competitiveness, rather than competing with US firms elsewhere. Unfortunately, it certainly looks like (as with the H-1B program) that it is not being used in the way it should be used. This is unfortunate, as anti-immigration folks will simply use this as evidence to block important, useful and job-creating immigration, insisting that all such efforts are abuses. That's not true, but when a program like this is not really being used for the best and brightest, then it's been improperly designed.

Filed Under: immigration, science, technology, visa

Indonesia Proposes Law To Review & Tax Every Internet Application

from the that's-not-how-innovation-works dept

As has been discussed multiple times, one of the reasons why the internet has thrived (or even why the software industry has thrived) is that the barriers to entry are low. You don't need to build a factory or get all kinds of approvals. You can just create something and go. But, perhaps not in Indonesia any more. Glyn Moody points us to a report on a proposed law in Indonesia that would first seek to tax all technology/software firms above and beyond existing taxes and (even more worrying) require anyone creating an application to get permission from the government before any application can be released. Apparently, this will apply to any application "which uses the internet to transmit voice, images, data, content based services, e-commerce, as well as other services provided through applications." Yeah, pretty broad.

Developers in Indonesia are reasonably up in arms over this, claiming that it will devastate the industry if they have to get government permission for every app or web service they put up. The government's defense of the law in the face of such criticism is hardly convincing:

Ministry spokesman Gatot Dewa Broto defended the proposed law in public statements, claiming it is there to ensure the laws aren't going to be left behind once the industry takes off.

Well, yes, I guess if you put in place laws that pretty much guarantee that the industry will never take off, then, the laws won't get left behind. But that hardly seems like a practical solution.

Filed Under: indonesia, innovation, taxes, technology

New Pope Confuses Technology Reality And Fiction

from the fixed-that-for-you dept

Slashdot drew our attention to an article about the Pope warning of the dangers of new technologies, that came with the title: New technologies confuse reality and fiction: Pope. However, I'd argue that flipping the words around a bit, as I did in the title to this post, seems a bit more accurate. For years, with pretty much every new media/technology invention there's been some sort of moral panic about how it's somehow harming people's ability to tell truth from fiction. And there never seems to be any sort of evidence to support this. In fact, it seems that the only people still confusing reality and fiction are those who insist that technology has this magical property of ruining people's ability to tell reality from fiction.

Filed Under: fiction, pop, reality, technology

Back When The Senate Tried To Ban Dial Telephones

from the a-series-of-tubes dept

With a group of Senators now looking to block various websites the Justice Department deems as "pirate," websites, it's worth taking a look back at how Senators can be rather silly in their rush to ban certain technologies, highlighting why it's generally not a good idea when politicians get involved in technology. The Nieman Journalism Lab points us to the news that, back in 1930, the Senate came close to banning dial telephones (where you dialed them yourself), preferring to have an operator do the connection instead. To the anti-dial Senators, it was seen as inappropriate to do the work of operators themselves. The resolution, which passed, read:

Whereas dial telephones are more difficult to operate than are manual telephones; and Whereas Senators are required, since the installation of dial phones in the Capitol, to perform the duties of telephone operators in order to enjoy the benefits of telephone service; and Whereas dial telephones have failed to expedite telephone service; Therefore be it resolved that the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is authorized and directed to order the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. to replace with manual phones within 30 days after the adoption of this resolution, all dial telephones in the Senate wing of the United States Capitol and in the Senate office building.

Now, it's true that the resolution only impacted the Senate -- but when another Senator asked why they didn't ban dial phones from all of Washington DC, Senator Carter Glass from Virginia who sponsored the resolution apparently said that "he hoped the phone company would take the hint," and would remove all dial phones.

While the resolution did pass, some younger Senators were apparently upset about it -- as they actually preferred to dial their own numbers, and put forth a resolution to let Senators choose which they wanted -- leading to a "compromise" where those who wanted dial phones could keep them, but those who wanted to have the operator handle the difficulty for them, could do so. As one Senator, Clarence Dill, noted in support of the ban:

In his experience, the dial phone "could not be more awkward than it is. One has to use both hands to dial; he must be in a position where there is good light, day or night, in order to see the number; and if he happens to turn the dial not quite far enough, then he gets a wrong connection."

Is it any wonder that some of us think that it's not a good idea for elected officials to determine the relative merits of technology?

Filed Under: censorship, history, senators, technology

New Book Highlights How Technology Isn't Killing Society, While Highlighting Techno Moral Panics Of The Past

from the we-assimilate dept

In the past, when discussing more modern technopanics around the internet itself, email, file sharing and other modern day technologies, we've often pointed to similar arguments about how chess, comic books, rock 'n roll, the waltz and pinball have all been designated as cultural evils in the past. And, of course, we've often covered how the entertainment industry has condemned pretty much every new technology as being hellbent on destroying it (when the exact opposite has happened). Nick Dynice points us to Jack Shafer's review of Nick Bilton's new book, called I Live in the Future & Here's How It Works, which apparently covers many of these historical panics and the resulting lack of follow through:

He points to, for example, the arrival of the telephone and cites one Cassandra who predicted in the March 22, 1876, New York Times (PDF) that the experimental device "by bringing music and ministers into every home, will empty the concert-halls and the churches." On Nov. 7, 1877, the Times reported that the phonograph was going to eclipse the telephone and kill public speaking and reading:

Why should we print a speech when it can be bottled, and why would [the next generation] learn to read when some skillful elocutionist merely repeats a novel aloud in the presence of a phonograph. Instead of libraries filled with combustible books, we shall have vast storehouses of bottled authors.

The locomotive riled 19^th-century Great Britain, which feared that engines would blight crops, terrify livestock, and asphyxiate passengers with their high speeds (greater than 20 miles per hour). The numbskullery continues. Gutenberg's press was going to destroy the clergy and destroy the state. Television was rotting the public's brain. Comic books were corrupting our youth. Similar predictions and warnings about the bicycle, the radio, the automobile, the airplane, the washing machine, and the microwave were sounded.

The techno-apocalypse never comes, Bilton points out. Cultures tend to assimilate and normalize new technology in ways the fretful never anticipate. Our language, which some fear will be dumbed down by the slang and acronyms and abbreviations that the pop technologies of texting, IMing, and e-mail encourage, becomes only richer, inspiring what Bilton calls "a new kind of cultural communication."

Sounds like an entertaining read. Shafer's review has much more on what's in the book and on Bilton's writing style, so read up if you want more. Of course, we've pointed out similar techno moral panics in the past, and yet they continue to show up at a rapid pace. I would be interested if anyone has ideas on ways to prevent future moral panics. So far, highlighting past moral panics has been useless. To some extent, I get the feeling that leading the pitchfork gang into a moral panic must be profitable -- and thus, they may never stop.

Filed Under: moral panics, nick bilton, technology, technopanics

Court Says It's Okay To Secretly Record Conversation If Done For Legitimate Reasons

from the i-may-or-may-not-be-recording-this dept

While there have been a lot of concerns lately about efforts to misuse "wiretapping" laws that forbid any recordings of people without their knowledge, it appears at least a few courts are recognizing how silly that is. Yet another court has now said that secretly recording a conversation -- in this case with an iPhone -- is okay, assuming there was no crime committed with the recording, and the recording was for a legitimate purpose. As the court noted:

"The defendant must have the intent to use the illicit recording to commit a tort of crime beyond the act of recording itself."

That makes sense. The act of recording alone, shouldn't be a criminal act, as it really depends on what is being done with the recording. And, in an age where not only is recording everything easier, but for some becoming standard, requiring permission to record all audio seems like an outdated concept.

Filed Under: recording, technology, wiretap

How Many Times Will Content Industries Claim The Sky Is Falling Before People Stop Believing Them?

from the crying-wolf dept

Michael Scott points us to a fantastic draft paper by respected intellectual property lawyer/scholar Mark Lemley recapping the long history of content industries declaring that the sky is falling every time a new technology hits the scene. From photographs (going to destroy painting) to musical recordings (going to destroy live music) to radio (going to destroy recorded music) to cable TV (going to destroy regular TV) to the photocopier (going to destroy books) to the VCR (going to destroy the movie industry) to audio cassettes (home taping is killing music) to the MP3 player (ditto) to file sharing (ditto) to the DVR (killing TV) and onwards -- the content industries seem to have a problem in immediately declaring that the sky is falling... when it turns out it's never actually falling at all. The paper is a quick read and quite enjoyable. Now, I should admit that I had no idea that the paper gives me an all-too-kind and surprising name check at the end, which I didn't know about until I reached that part of the paper, but I had actually already started writing up this post, so hopefully no one thinks that influenced my decision to write about it.

There isn't necessarily anything new in the paper. Many of you probably know all of these stories, and they've been discussed at length over the years in posts and comments here on Techdirt. However, it's nice to put a bunch of them together in a single document just to highlight the same pattern over and over again:

1. New technology
2. Legacy industry freaks out saying the world is ending
3. Industry flocks to DC & the courts to demand fixing
4. Turns out that the new technology actually increases the market

Given how many times this has happened, isn't it about time that politicians, judges and the press stopped just believing the industry every time they make this claim? Shouldn't the burden of proof really be on these industries to prove that they're actually being destroyed?

And, yes, many of these technologies did require changes to business models -- which may have meant that some legacy players went out of business. But failing companies and failing industries are two totally different things. It's important to remember that. As Lemley notes in the paper:

The content industry, it seems, has a Chicken Little problem.

It may, in fact, be the case that the sky is falling. But, if you claim that the sky is falling whenever a new technology threatens an existing business model, the rest of the world can be forgiven for not believing you when you claim that this time around it's going to be different than all of the other times. Now, let's be clear, each one of these technologies changed the business model of the industry. They caused certain revenue streams to decline. But they also opened up new ones.

Filed Under: business models, chicken little, content, innovation, mark lemley, predictions, technology