So, when I think of the cyber state, I might be think­ing of the usu­al stuff, which is gov­ern­ments of the world and their intel­li­gence agen­cies gath­er­ing infor­ma­tion on us, direct­ly or indi­rect­ly, through rela­tions or com­pul­sion with pri­vate com­pa­nies. But I want to think more broad­ly about the future of cyber state, and think about accu­mu­la­tions of pow­er both cen­tral­ized and dis­trib­uted that might require trans­paren­cy in bound­aries we would­n’t be used to. Anything rang­ing from Google Glass or what­ev­er its suc­ces­sors might be, so that we could find our­selves live stream­ing out of this room at all times and have that teleme­try auto­mat­i­cal­ly cat­e­go­rized as to with whom we’re hav­ing conversations. 

And imag­ine even the state then turn­ing around and say­ing in the event of some­thing like the Boston Marathon bomb­ing or in Paris, Anybody near this event is going to have teleme­try that we will now request from patri­ots,” or demand from those are a lit­tle chary, and see just how much data can be accu­mu­lat­ed from a peer-to-peer kind of perspective.

But I think it won’t just be the state are get­ting assist­ed from it, it’ll be chal­lenged, too. This is an app called Sukey, in which demon­stra­tors can put into the app where the police are as they’re demon­strat­ing, and the app will then show you the still-open exits to wher­ev­er you are that the police had­n’t got­ten around to clos­ing off yet. And that’s the kind of thing that wor­ries the authorities.

But there’s a third dimen­sion, too. And that is, how are these folks decid­ing to con­vene for a protest? It might be through some­thing like Facebook or Twitter, or oth­er social media. In this won­der­ful exam­ple, Facebook was able in the 2010 US con­gres­sion­al elec­tions to get more peo­ple to vote by putting noti­fi­ca­tions in their news feeds of where the polling places were. Now, they could do it selec­tive­ly, and they’ve got a lot of data by which to do that.

Here’s Facebook able to pre­dict when two Facebook users are about to enter into a roman­tic rela­tion­ship, before either of the peo­ple appar­ent­ly knows. And you could imag­ine Facebook, hypo­thet­i­cal­ly, tweak­ing the feeds to encour­age the peo­ple to come togeth­er by show­ing their good sides. Or maybe if they don’t belong togeth­er, push­ing them apart, and they shall nev­er be.

In this high­ly con­tro­ver­sial study, there was—maybe not surprising—evidence that if your feed is filled with hap­py things you get hap­pi­er, and if it has unhap­py things you get unhap­pi­er. Which if you think about it, espe­cial­ly for those in a younger gen­er­a­tion for whom they’re get­ting their infor­ma­tion from Facebook and Twitter, et al, their hap­pi­ness lev­el, whether they feel the world is falling apart or com­ing togeth­er, can be deter­mined through these sort of recon­dite algorithms.

And you could, see some, day Facebook being chal­lenged. Maybe we should put more Ice Bucket Challenge and less a lit­tle bit of stuff com­ing from Ferguson, Missouri if there’s unrest there, in the name of pub­lic safe­ty. Thinking about how that should be dealt with.

Now, the data that will be used to do this isn’t always sol­id. Here you can see a very high cor­re­la­tion between sui­cides by hang­ing and the num­ber of lawyers in North Carolina, which as far as I can under­stand are not relat­ed at all. 

And these kinds of mis­takes can lead the fun­ny things here, like the Lego activ­i­ty book paired with American Jihad: the Terrorists Living Among Us.

And oth­er mis­takes can be when algo­rithms col­lide. In this won­der­ful exam­ple from Amazon, a reg­u­lar pedes­tri­an book was sell­ing for 1.7 mil­lion dol­lars because two sell­ers got into an algo­rith­mic bat­tle, unbe­knownst to each oth­er, where they had a for­mu­la of cal­cu­lat­ing their rates based on the oth­er that did­n’t stop until it was sev­en mil­lion dol­lars for the book. 

Or in this case, a shirt that actu­al­ly says keep calm and rape a lot” that nobody ever bought, nobody ever sold. It was algo­rith­mi­cal­ly gen­er­at­ed keep calm” and ran­dom words, all put up for sale. A mil­lion shirts on Amazon, wait­ing to see who might buy one, at which point it would be made.

These kinds of algo­rithms are going to be more and more com­mon, so when I think of some­thing like the European right to be for­got­ten, I see this even­tu­al­ly being all auto­mat­ed. The request to be for­got­ten will be auto­mat­i­cal­ly filed on your behalf, Google will think about it auto­mat­i­cal­ly, or Bing. And then they’ll make a deci­sion. So the whole line, from soup to nuts, will be done with­out any human intervention.

Now, of course search engines them­selves may be old-fashioned. It might be more like Siri, who’s just a concierge, and will tell you before you even know to ask, where you should go, what you might do. And think­ing about where that advice will come from, what ingre­di­ents are going in, is it always being giv­en in your best inter­est? Whether it’s advice or the tem­per­a­ture of your home, all very good ques­tions to ask. 

It real­ly calls to mind the Harvard/Yale game of 2004, in which mem­bers of the Harvard pep squad went up and down the aisles on the Harvard side of the field dis­trib­ut­ing col­ored plac­ards to hold up like a North Korean ral­ly at just the right moment, to say some­thing to the Yalies on the oth­er side.

Photo of the audience on one side of a football field, holding up placards spelling out "We suck."

It turns out that was the Yale pep squad in dis­guise who dis­trib­uted the plac­ards. So, when they held them up it spelled a rather unusu­al mes­sage, which is a great exam­ple of a minia­ture poli­ty being cre­at­ed with a mes­sage so big and pow­er­ful they can­not read it or under­stand that they’re part of it.

But the key word there is we.” We is usu­al­ly what we think of with a state. It’s meant to rep­re­sent us. But rep­re­sent­ing us by dint of geo­graph­i­cal hap­pen­stance, with the sov­er­eign imposed over it, that’s not what the cyber piece is bring­ing us. What it’s bring­ing us instead are lots of dif­fer­ent we’s, medi­at­ed in lots of ways, through lots of inter­me­di­aries, wor­thy very much of study, reflec­tion, and review.

Thank you very much. 

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.