|
Below is a draft of a new post for my blog. I think the info would be of interest here, but would also welcome any comments. Thanks!
Efforts to End the Internet as We Know It Won't End Any Time Soon
While in a waiting room, I happened to pick up the May 7, 2007 issue of Forbes, which featured short articles by "28 Great Minds" on "The Power of Networks." The first article I read was by David Gelernter, describing what he thinks will replace the Web. Gelernter is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and he is working with Ajay Royan, who is employed at a West Coast hedge fund, on what they call the "Worldbeam."
The basic idea is, instead of everyone having their own documents stored on their own computers, everyone will access their documents on the Beam through a much simpler box. Not only your current docs, but every doc you every wrote or viewed -- every e-mail, v-mail, snapshot, every web page visited, etc. -- will be stored on machines maintained elsewhere. You'll be able to access your documents from any box anywhere.
As Gelernter says, "The desktop is dead; all my information must be stored on the Beam . . . ."
Theoretically, only you will have access to your documents, using some combination of biometric identification, a key card, a password or the like, and only you will have the ability to add to or delete your docs.
I repeat: theoretically. As insecure as our individual computers may be now, it's hard to see why our information wouldn't be even less secure if the primary storage is in machines owned and controlled by someone else.
There is no discussion of who would own or control the machines on which all this information is stored. One suspects the system protocols would be proprietary or secret.
How do you segregate your supposedly private docs from those you want to be available to others? "Whenever you create a new document, it's born with the same permissions as previous documents of the same type." (No provided explanation re- how the Beam will determine what docs are of the same type.) Gelernter continues, "Your personal beam contains load of information about your habits and preferences.)"
Obviously, the Beam would involve total centralization of control over all content that might otherwise be available on the Web, (plus all docs to which inappropriate permissions are assigned by the system, unless you happen to catch the error).
You'll no longer own copies or rights to most software. Instead, you'll subscribe to basic service and have the opportunity to lease fancier applications.
The corporations who expect to sell us these subscriptions and lease applications must regard the Beam with exceeding joy.
Gelernter says, "the Worldbeam should strengthen the world's responsible governments against terrorists and criminals and the individual against busybodies . . . . The Internet tells government agencies: You each have a separate information stash and your own network; sharing information requires extra effort. The Beam tells them: At base you all share one information stash: withholding information requires extra effort. . . . no one can plead "technical" reasons for not sharing" (I presume he means, "technological" reasons).
Of course, nothing prevents government agencies from building a unified information system now, other than the cost; and the cost for such a system must surely be vastly smaller than the cost of transforming the entire Internet.
More importantly . . . "responsible governments"? I presume he means the likes of the social democracy of Norway, as opposed to the U.S. government under the Bush regime? In the hands of the latter, not to mention even more tyrannical governments, the Beam would make it even easier to spy on innocent citizens for political purposes, etc.
My boyfriend says, don't worry, the Beam won't happen. I hope he's right; but. The Web has for some years now been almost the sole irritant to the powers that now own and control much of our election process and traditional media. It seems to me the Beam offers a great deal to those powers.
A number of other interesting articles appeared in the same issue of Forbes – let me use their authors' own words:
"One of the great lessons of the 20th century is that centralized planning and control don't work. . . . Decentralization is fast and flexible. It allows exponential, viral growth." -- Rick Warren, founder of Saddleback Community Church.
"The biggest mistake marketers make when they see the power of the consumer network is that they try to control it, own it or manipulate it." -- Seth Godin, marketing expert.
"A command-and-control model, he way one runs an army, is not well suited for new ideas." -- Jonathan Fahey, writing about Nicholas Negroponte's wiki-style project to develop a laptop that could be made for $100 each and provided to children around the world.
"America can still win the battle for a democratic world. The most important weapon is a free, open, commercially and politically unfettered Internet that empowers ordinary people from across the globe to speak and act in the interests of their own communities." -- Howard Dean, DNC Chair.
"The Internet functions best when its protocols are available to everyone . . . . there is wisdom in crowds, even – perhaps I should say especially – in crowds of volunteers and amateurs. . . . The great lesson of the Web 2.0 is that to control quality, you don't lock things down; you open them up." -- Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia.
Another article touched on other important issues. Sherry Turkle, a professor at MIT, mentioned ideas expressed by many that "'we're all being observed all the time anyway, so who needs privacy?' . . . When the question of political abuse came up, a common reaction . . . was . . . 'All information is good information' and 'Information wants to be free' and 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.'" Turkle is clearly concerned that these ideas lead us to acquiesce in government spying on innocent citizens.
What I think needs to be spelled out in plain terms is that knowledge is power, and that a balance of power requires a balance of knowledge. In a democracy, the weight of power should belong to the people; or at worst, the balance should at least be equal. That means that our government's activities should be open and transparent to us – we should know at least as much about our government as it knows about us.
That's not where we've been going lately.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
