I enjoyed Professor Michael Froomkin's recent "Golden Eggs" lecture on internet regulation. He foresees the future regulation of the internet being shaped by the tension between the 'Cypherpunk' vision for a distributed, democratic , libertarian environment - and 'Data's Empire' - where established institutions respond to the perceived threat of the internet by trying to create a centrally controlled environment. He cautions us not to be complacent or 'technologically deterministic'. There are opportunities for us to make real choices to avoid "killing the goose that is giving us golden eggs of innovation, decentralization, and personal empowerment".
This model does not only describe the two broad forces at work in the online regulatory environment. Generally, our individual desire to control our own experience tends to be opposed by institutions' desire to retain control of how they deal with us. Indeed, it might be said that explosive Internet adoption occurred because individuals pragmatically recognised and seized an opportunity for individual empowerment in the face of comparatively rigid institutional control in the offline world.
Yet institutions try to catch up, and the cycle continues. Michael hints at this when he notes "to a surprising extent both sets of trends have manifested themselves simultaneously. The question is whether those two trends can continue, or if instead we are witnessing the start of a collision between them." Of course, we are seeing collisions everywhere, all the time, between individuals and institutions each trying to control their relationships. Just consider all the markets, services and activities impacted by the Web 2.0 phenomenon, and the realisation that brands must become facilitators rather than institutions.
But we should also consider that 'control' is illusory. Human behaviour is not predictable and, while it may appear that people are acting in a controlled way in certain scenarios or under certain regimes, radical change is never far away. The fall of the Berlin wall and the credit crunch are two of many situations or activities which appear to be under fairly strict, central control but are in fact not - or at least not in any sustainable way. This is not a technologically deterministic view. It simply acknowledges the nature of the world. We are constantly exposed to the risk of "Black Swans" - surprise events that have a major impact which we rationalise by hindsight, as if they had been expected. Andy any inquiry into the why's and how's of such events is largely academic, albeit tantalizingly so.
So, while real regulatory choices of the kind Michael mentions may remain to be made, we should not count on those choices as having the intended effect of delivering 'control' for any sustained period of time. Regulation cannot possibly cover every eventuality, and is too slow to create, too blunt and too easily circumvented by anyone sophisticated and determined. Cryptography and the sheer volume of users and data make a mockery out of online access and content controls, centralised 'mining' and monitoring. We do rely increasingly on facilitators to find desired data and/or edit/adapt it in some way to make it more manageable for us or our devices - and these represent natural 'chokepoints' for regulators and commercial institutions, as Michael Froomkin points out. However, these chokepoints are also easily circumvented, either as described or by the rapid rise of the next facilitator or competitor, and related technological innovation.
This is not to say that those who purport to edit more actively what people see should not be subject to democratic controls over their exercise of editorial discretion. There seems to be (a somewhat surprising) acknowledgement of this in Google's decision to fund the Advertising Standards Association's efforts to regulate online marketing activity. The point is that new standards won't protect us from calamity.
The ultimate challenge, as Nicholas Taleb warns, is to minimise or avoid exposure to the potential downsides posed by Black Swans, while maximising one's exposure to the potential upside. To illustrate this in financial terms, it would be a mistake to borrow money to 'short' stocks, but worthwhile to invest a small proportion of your savings in Hollywood films. In the online world, Black Swans would seem to loom most obviously in the content arena - or perhaps fraud. Regulation is heavily focused in this area, but that is merely a signpost. We must take responsibility for our own practical choices. These include whether to share thoughtful or sordid content, to engage in copyright violation or to openly publish key personal financial data or photographs of your family. It's worth considering that the internet hasn't changed our propensity to behave well or badly, but may have amplified the outcomes.
To bring it down to a personal level, I maintain my anti-virus protection and avoid or minimise sharing what I'd regard as 'key' personal or financial data, even though there are comparatively fewer people out there who would use it to my disadvantage, since the impact their activity is so personally disruptive. However, I do acknowledge that the benefit to sharing certain limited personal transaction data - with credit reference agencies, for example, and some retail or social networks - can outweigh the downside of misuse. In these circumstances, you might think that more regulatory and commercial resource should be dedicated to quickly and efficiently restoring a person's control of their own identity once control is lost, rather than drastically limiting the availability of personal data or intervening too much in the exchange of information in social or retail networks.
Similarly, I post my thoughts and share others' because I hope they are better shared than consumed by me alone - and the (small) chance that millions might find such a thought worthwhile represents a very positive potential experience ;-). Conversely, I would not (even if I wanted to) create or share sordid content because it represents exposure to an extremely negative outcome. That said, I acknowledge a middle ground where (within reason) the assessment of what's merely in good or bad taste is hugely subjective and may change. For example, I recall being struck by the fact that 'topless bathing' was deeply frowned upon in Sydney one summer yet utterly commonplace on Bondi Beach the next. Similarly, we'll hear the last 'cautionary tales' of people losing their jobs over embarrassing photos of university hi-jinks once the 'Facebook generation' become middle managers.
The point remains, however, that we must take responsibility for our own personal vigilence, even if employers come to tolerate the odd embarrassing photo, or the government succeeds in tightening internet content controls. Those Black Swans will still be out there.
This model does not only describe the two broad forces at work in the online regulatory environment. Generally, our individual desire to control our own experience tends to be opposed by institutions' desire to retain control of how they deal with us. Indeed, it might be said that explosive Internet adoption occurred because individuals pragmatically recognised and seized an opportunity for individual empowerment in the face of comparatively rigid institutional control in the offline world.
Yet institutions try to catch up, and the cycle continues. Michael hints at this when he notes "to a surprising extent both sets of trends have manifested themselves simultaneously. The question is whether those two trends can continue, or if instead we are witnessing the start of a collision between them." Of course, we are seeing collisions everywhere, all the time, between individuals and institutions each trying to control their relationships. Just consider all the markets, services and activities impacted by the Web 2.0 phenomenon, and the realisation that brands must become facilitators rather than institutions.
But we should also consider that 'control' is illusory. Human behaviour is not predictable and, while it may appear that people are acting in a controlled way in certain scenarios or under certain regimes, radical change is never far away. The fall of the Berlin wall and the credit crunch are two of many situations or activities which appear to be under fairly strict, central control but are in fact not - or at least not in any sustainable way. This is not a technologically deterministic view. It simply acknowledges the nature of the world. We are constantly exposed to the risk of "Black Swans" - surprise events that have a major impact which we rationalise by hindsight, as if they had been expected. Andy any inquiry into the why's and how's of such events is largely academic, albeit tantalizingly so.
So, while real regulatory choices of the kind Michael mentions may remain to be made, we should not count on those choices as having the intended effect of delivering 'control' for any sustained period of time. Regulation cannot possibly cover every eventuality, and is too slow to create, too blunt and too easily circumvented by anyone sophisticated and determined. Cryptography and the sheer volume of users and data make a mockery out of online access and content controls, centralised 'mining' and monitoring. We do rely increasingly on facilitators to find desired data and/or edit/adapt it in some way to make it more manageable for us or our devices - and these represent natural 'chokepoints' for regulators and commercial institutions, as Michael Froomkin points out. However, these chokepoints are also easily circumvented, either as described or by the rapid rise of the next facilitator or competitor, and related technological innovation.
This is not to say that those who purport to edit more actively what people see should not be subject to democratic controls over their exercise of editorial discretion. There seems to be (a somewhat surprising) acknowledgement of this in Google's decision to fund the Advertising Standards Association's efforts to regulate online marketing activity. The point is that new standards won't protect us from calamity.
The ultimate challenge, as Nicholas Taleb warns, is to minimise or avoid exposure to the potential downsides posed by Black Swans, while maximising one's exposure to the potential upside. To illustrate this in financial terms, it would be a mistake to borrow money to 'short' stocks, but worthwhile to invest a small proportion of your savings in Hollywood films. In the online world, Black Swans would seem to loom most obviously in the content arena - or perhaps fraud. Regulation is heavily focused in this area, but that is merely a signpost. We must take responsibility for our own practical choices. These include whether to share thoughtful or sordid content, to engage in copyright violation or to openly publish key personal financial data or photographs of your family. It's worth considering that the internet hasn't changed our propensity to behave well or badly, but may have amplified the outcomes.
To bring it down to a personal level, I maintain my anti-virus protection and avoid or minimise sharing what I'd regard as 'key' personal or financial data, even though there are comparatively fewer people out there who would use it to my disadvantage, since the impact their activity is so personally disruptive. However, I do acknowledge that the benefit to sharing certain limited personal transaction data - with credit reference agencies, for example, and some retail or social networks - can outweigh the downside of misuse. In these circumstances, you might think that more regulatory and commercial resource should be dedicated to quickly and efficiently restoring a person's control of their own identity once control is lost, rather than drastically limiting the availability of personal data or intervening too much in the exchange of information in social or retail networks.
Similarly, I post my thoughts and share others' because I hope they are better shared than consumed by me alone - and the (small) chance that millions might find such a thought worthwhile represents a very positive potential experience ;-). Conversely, I would not (even if I wanted to) create or share sordid content because it represents exposure to an extremely negative outcome. That said, I acknowledge a middle ground where (within reason) the assessment of what's merely in good or bad taste is hugely subjective and may change. For example, I recall being struck by the fact that 'topless bathing' was deeply frowned upon in Sydney one summer yet utterly commonplace on Bondi Beach the next. Similarly, we'll hear the last 'cautionary tales' of people losing their jobs over embarrassing photos of university hi-jinks once the 'Facebook generation' become middle managers.
The point remains, however, that we must take responsibility for our own personal vigilence, even if employers come to tolerate the odd embarrassing photo, or the government succeeds in tightening internet content controls. Those Black Swans will still be out there.
No comments:
Post a Comment