 cyberpollution, there are worms that have brought down hundreds of thousands of computers at a time and, Zittrain posits, just because a total Internet meltdown hasn’t happened yet, doesn’t mean there is any good reason why it won’t. With hopes that inspiring widespread terror of online catastrophes will spur policy-makers to action, this Lessig (2006) uses this reasoning to call for regulation of the Internet.
Not so fast! This is where Ted Harford comes in: he spoke about how complex systems that are tightly coupled (where many things are contingent on each other) are frequently obliterated by the very safety systems that were put in place to maintain them. With wires, nodes, users, telecommunications companies, and governments all intertwined in the complex system of the Internet, we had better be extremely cautious when formulating regulations for the global staple of this century.
Safety isn’t simple
Harford discussed two aspects that make it very difficult to increase people’s safety:
- Safety systems make people careless. They tend to take more risks when safety regulations are in place. It’s true. When I function in a locked down environment, my first inclination is to click on anything. If authoritative bodies tell me that they’ve secured my web experience, I’m more likely to put my judgment on the shelf and assume that everything I can access is simply safe by default. I bet others would do the same. However, the problem is that even with regulations, we will never reach a point where everything online will truly be ‘safe’ because the Internet is always changing and evolving.
- Safety systems introduce new complexities and make things even more tightly coupled – which causes them to fall harder when they come crashing down. If government regulates the Internet, it unleashes into the equation the massive complexity that is a giant, multi-departmental, longstanding bureaucracy. Due to their nature, governments are slow to react and their resources are difficult to mobilize, which makes them excellent targets for hackers who could identify some weakness in mandated code (e.g. a flaw in anti-circumvention technologies, a way into identity databases) and act long before the government could developed a defense.
But we’ve got to do something!
As you can tell from previous posts, I’m not into arguments that leave us in a state of paralysis with no way out. Identifying the above concerns still doesn’t address Zittrain’s worst-case scenario and it doesn’t make us any safer. Harford concluded his talk with three things that actually do help to protect against catastrophes:
1. Build/re-build the system with safer parts; or, remove the fundamental hazard. This is a large portion of what Lessig talks about: we can alter the very code of the Internet in order to build-in regulation. We can install identity mechanisms that work with individuals’ keys or digital identifiers in order to keep children out of sites with mature content. We can make e-mail programs that spot keywords to indicate that something might be a scam (that’s my own example, but hey it could really be helpful for people who are less computer-savvy). However, that we need to be conscious of who might be favoured or disadvantaged by new types of code. Does code that prevents the copying of music stifle other artists from sampling content within reason while increasing revenues for record labels and leaving the actual band without much profit (as asserted by Benkler, 2007)? Does a special code to identify individuals also give government the means of surveillancing online activity without a warrant?
2. Provide people with better information so they can make better decisions. In my view, this is the most important point because it counteracts a concern mentioned previously: if individuals understand why they should take safety precautions, they are less likely to be careless. In teaching people the full repercussions of online actions and giving them the agency to choose safer options, they are being granted the same type of responsibility that we enjoy as democratic citizens in everyday life. In the same way that I won’t jump into a lake if I can read the sign that says the water is toxic, I won’t make my Facebook profile public if I know what that means in terms of my self-presentation to future employers. Starting in early high school, it is now appropriate to equip our population with media literacy, computer skills and Internet know-how of this type.
3. Spot trouble early – those who work in the complex system are the ones who are most likely to be first to identify flaws/weak points. However, we are very bad at protecting and compensating these people. With the crowdsourced environment of the Internet, this should be an easy one. We are already seeing vigilante groups, such as Anonymous, playing a role in ‘cleaning up the web’ by ensuring there are repercussions for people who post some horrible stuff. However, I believe this should not be relegated to fringe groups or designated to an arm of the government. Just as Wikipedia is a collaboration of experts, there could be some coordinated way to mobilize web experts to be part of a conglomeration of people who increase the safety of the Internet. Governments could subsidize the creation of means for reporting suspicious behaviour and compensate coders who stop destructive worms. In fact, I would suspect that this sort of reporting behaviour, coupled with how fast news moves on the Internet, is one of the reasons the web hasn’t yet melted down (when was the last time you didn’t hear about an e-mail virus before it hit your inbox?). This jives with the Internet’s end-to-end principle, mentioned by Zittrain, where things happen (functions and improvements get implemented) at the endpoints (by programmers, etc) of the network and are distributed instead of being centralized, which makes them more reliable.
Even if you don’t find me to be convincing, I guarantee you that Harford’s industrial accident analogy is very effective when applied to the economic crisis! However, I think it works well when reminding us to consider the multiple possibilities for making the Internet safer before we lapse into terror mode and yield all our rights to a regulating authority, which will never be infallible.
(Image courtesy of cheezburger.com)
Benkler, Y. (2007). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Harford, T. (2011). Adapt: Why success always starts with failure. London: Little, Brown. [I assume most of Harford’s ideas from his talk come from Chapter 6: “Preventing financial meltdowns or: Decoupling”]
Lessig, L. (2006). Code: And other laws of cyberspace, version 2.0. New York: Basic Books.
Zittrain, J. (2008). The future of the Internet – And how to stop it. New Haven: Yale University Press. [Although Zittrain’s book was published after Code, Lessig refers to Zittrain’s initial ideas and even mentions that Zittrain is in the process of writing a book about them – just in case you were wondering!]
beautiful clear explanation. thanks Stef. i have been missing your writing. Sounds like you’re having a great time. Cheers!The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, meeting today in Nicosia, urged member States to reduce inequalities in diagnosis, screening and treatment of breast cancer, and ensure that patients have the level of care that they are entitled to.
The report by Stella Kyriakides (Cyprus, EPP/CD), adopted by the committee, points out great disparities across and between countries. Efforts should not only relate to screening and treatments, the rapporteur said, underlining also the need to protect breast cancer patients from discrimination in employment and insurance. Breast cancer is still the most common cancer in European women and has the highest mortality of any cancer in women, the adopted text states.
During an exchange of views on this issue, Professor Philippos Patsalis, the Cypriot Minister of Health, underlined that, while the stress of the disease was increasing throughout Europe – and breast cancer was the leading cancer in women in Cyprus, as well – measures could be and were being taken to prevent these cancers, and find them as early as possible. Despite the budgetary pressures due to the economic and financial crisis in the country, large-cohort screening programmes and state-of-the-art treatment were continuing in Cyprus. Upholding the dignity of patients was also crucial: due to excellent co-operation with NGOs, appropriate psycho-social care also continued to be offered in the country.
News of: Monday, June 17 2013,
The Royal Palace on Dam Square will be open for free for 1 day on June 27, from 1-9 pm.
Earlier that day, Princess Beatrix will open the yearly summer exhibition in the palace. The theme this year will be 'the Palace and Dam Square, 400 years in the centre of the Amsterdam canals'.
The exhibition will deal with the relationship between Dam Square and the Royal Palace.
Royal Palace Amsterdam- Products & Services
- News
- Solutions
- Knowledge Base
- Company
Halfpricesoft.com added an easier way to import data faster, within ez1095 software.
ATLANTA, GA, January 18, 2019 /24-7PressRelease/ -- Filing 1095 and 1094 ACA forms before Jan 31 deadline should not be headache for HR managers and accountant this 2019 tax season. The new version of ez1095 ACA (Affordable Care Act) software from Halfpricesoft.com now available with fast data import import feature..
Ez1095 ACA software is