Mark Surman: So, good morn­ing. I guess good after­noon, re:publica. Great to be back. So I was here last year, and last year what I talked about was real­ly the rise of dig­i­tal empires. And in par­tic­u­lar that both com­pa­nies and gov­ern­ments are using the Internet to con­sol­i­date pow­er in ways that we real­ly have nev­er seen before.

And I talked about tak­ing inspi­ra­tion from the envi­ron­men­tal move­ment and build­ing a move­ment for the health of the Internet—something to bal­ance those empires. And that that move­ment real­ly needs to be some­thing not just about protest­ing, although demand­ing what we want from gov­ern­ments is a part of that. It also needs to be about actu­al­ly cod­ing, build­ing, and fig­ur­ing out the dig­i­tal future we want.

And in that I did talk about one goal, which we’ve been work­ing on and we have an event upstairs in the lab­o­ra­to­ry here about, mak­ing the health of the Internet, just like the health of the plan­et, a main­stream social issue. 

So Mozilla and many many of you have still been work­ing on that in the last year. What I want to do this year is get to some of the more spe­cif­ic issues. If we need to build a move­ment for the health of the Internet, if we want to stand up for an Internet that reflects all of us, what are the things we need to be talk­ing about now?

And I pon­dered for a while and I thought maybe I’ll talk about the rise of author­i­tar­i­an gov­ern­ments and how they’re play­ing into tak­ing advan­tage of the Internet and erod­ing the Internet, and I decid­ed not to talk about that. Instead I decid­ed to talk about pets.

And they’re actu­al­ly all con­nect­ed and I’ll come back to the con­nec­tion at the end. But real­ly where I want to go now is some­thing very spe­cif­ic but also very huge, which is these are Bluetooth ted­dy bears and uni­corns, and actu­al­ly ear­li­er this year it came out that the tech­nol­o­gy behind them was very very eas­i­ly hacked—super inse­cure. And mil­lions of record­ings of chil­dren talk­ing to their par­ents through the video cam­eras in those toys, and mil­lions of record­ings of the par­ents talk­ing to their chil­dren, were eas­i­ly acces­si­ble from Amazon if you knew the right way to get access to them.

And I want to talk about those not just as a secu­ri­ty sto­ry or a sto­ry about ted­dy bears, but real­ly in the con­text of what we’ve talked about as the Internet of Things and what it means for the health of the Internet and basi­cal­ly I think for for the struc­tures of pow­er and the struc­tures of human inter­ac­tion in our society.

And you know, you can use what­ev­er term you want. Internet of Things is the easy one to use because it’s been picked up by busi­ness and by the media. The impor­tant point about it and why it’s worth us all real­ly begin­ning a dia­logue around this right now is that between now and—you can see it kind of going up—the Internet of Things is any kind of con­nect­ed device, will be at 50 bil­lion devices in just three years.

And so that means almost ten devices for every per­son on the planet—not quite but almost that. And that’s just three years from now. So we’re talk­ing about every­thing from ted­dy bears, to our cars, to our appli­ances, to our cities, hav­ing an Internet and sen­sors and cam­eras and micro­phones built into them. And we real­ly are talk­ing about an era of com­plete­ly per­va­sive com­put­ing, a com­put­er that spans the whole globe and envelops all of us.

And on top of that, there are three oth­er trends that are con­nect­ed into that which are also mov­ing at an extreme pace. One is the emer­gence of wide­spread voice inter­faces like Amazon Alexa. The oth­er is VR start­ing to become a real­i­ty. And the third is arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence and machine learn­ing, which are becom­ing very very real, much faster cer­tain­ly than I expect­ed, as real­ly it’s just about a set of algo­rithms tak­ing the big data, the train­ing data that we all gen­er­ate every sin­gle day as we use every sin­gle app.

So at this stage in the evo­lu­tion of that, it feels like to me and and a num­ber of oth­er peo­ple who I know here in the audi­ence who I work with, this is a moment to ask as we make the plan­et dig­i­tal, as we total­ly envel­op our­selves in the com­put­ing envi­ron­ment that we’ve been build­ing for the last hun­dred years, what kind of dig­i­tal plan­et do we want? Because we are at a point where there is no turn­ing back, and get­ting to eth­i­cal deci­sions, val­ues deci­sions, deci­sions about democ­ra­cy, is not some­thing we have talked about enough nor in a way that has had impact. And now with that mete­oric growth of com­put­ing all around us, it feels essen­tial that we have that con­ver­sa­tion now.

And stick­ing with the envi­ron­men­tal metaphor, we real­ly are at a choice point where we could build a for­est, a rich ecosys­tem, some­thing that sup­ports life. Or we could end up very quick­ly with a clearcut, where there’s not much of any­where to live and not much around at all.

So what I want to do is just take us through three things. Some of the things that are hope­ful to me and that we’re build­ing a healthy ecosys­tem, a for­est, that we all can get involved in or peo­ple here are involved in. And then I want to talk about the more neg­a­tive sce­nario as well as some things we can do.

And I’m going to start out with a piece of sci­ence fic­tion, I, Robot from Isaac Asimov. Not just because the world is about to be flood­ed with robots—which it is. But because this is where Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics first show up. And the Laws them­selves are not impor­tant. What is impor­tant is that in this Asimov posits, as we rarely do right now, that we can con­scious­ly talk about the rules we want to oper­ate with in rela­tion­ship to machines. And now we’re in the moment where we need to be hav­ing that con­ver­sa­tion, for real, at a glob­al scale, in a way with real polit­i­cal pow­er behind it the has influ­ence. We have to be talk­ing about the kind of world we want.

And I have some hope in that when I look around at the open hard­ware move­ment— (And this is a set of peo­ple in a work­shop that Mozilla’s Open IoT stu­dio was run­ning, build­ing some things with Arduino) —in that I grew up at a time cer­tain­ly sur­round­ed by com­put­ers, and I think most peo­ple in the smart­phone world live in a time today where hard­ware, the mate­r­i­al of the Internet of Things, seems immutable. It comes from a fac­to­ry. And the open hard­ware move­ment real­ly in the last ten years has grown up and said no, it does­n’t have to be that way. The same prin­ci­ples we applied to open source can be true of all of the com­put­ing around us.

Now, that still seems crazy. This is a hob­by­ist thing. But peo­ple are doing fun and inter­est­ing things as well as learn­ing and paint­ing a dif­fer­ent future. They’re build­ing a fin­ger­print scanner—a garage door opener—that is not con­nect­ed to Apple’s cloud or Google cloud or Amazon’s cloud. They’re chas­ing away rac­coons with their own motion-detecting squirt gun robot, which is also not con­nect­ed to the Amazon cloud or the Google cloud or the Apple cloud. They’re keep­ing them­selves safe by build­ing a jack­et that says which way I’m turn­ing on my bicycle. 

Maybe a lit­tle more friv­o­lous, pos­si­bly stu­pid, they’re build­ing self-lacing Nikes with Arduinos. And my favorite as I looked around for things peo­ple are build­ing with Arduino today, a smartphone-controlled pump­kin flamethrow­er. Everybody should have one. Keeps the kids you don’t like away at Halloween.

So these are real things peo­ple are doing and they show some whim­sy, some prag­ma­tism, but also that we are at a spot where the hard­ware around this is some­thing we could play with. 

Now, Unfortunately— And there’s all kinds of ways we could give a whole talk just dig­ging into that, I think where we are now with open hard­ware still is stuck at the place that say the Homebrew Computer Club (which which this is a pix­e­lat­ed pho­to of) was in the 70s. And of course the Apple com­put­ers come out of that. So it’s good, it’s a bunch of peo­ple play­ing with tech­nol­o­gy. And some of the val­ues of that hack­er eth­ic that are there in the ear­ly phas­es of this kind of work stay through even to today. But cer­tain­ly in ear­ly com­put­ing, gen­er­al pur­pose com­put­ing, is some­thing that invites all of us to do what we want with a com­put­er, which is very dif­fer­ent than many pre­vi­ous technologies. 

But, that also led to the cen­tral­iza­tion, the con­sol­i­da­tion of pow­er… To think that those peo­ple who built the Apple I also are build­ing some of the biggest pow­er con­sol­i­da­tion sys­tems in the world. It did­n’t go exact­ly in the direc­tion and on the val­ues that we hoped. 

So just to think about IoT for a sec­ond, how do we get to the future we want? And a place that I take inspi­ra­tion from and and a bunch of Mozilla peo­ple are involved in, is a set of things of which this Good Home Project here is one, where peo­ple are look­ing at design and ethics and the human out­comes we want as things that we can actu­al­ly dig into and direct in terms of where we’re going in the world of per­va­sive computing.

So The Good Home is a series of kind of rov­ing exhibits and a set of peo­ple who are work­ing on those sorts of ques­tions. And the kinds of things that they do— These are all off the web site so I don’t know if they’re from the London or the Milan or both exhibits they did. But Internet Adhesives, some­thing by Michelle Thorne (who’s here today up in the Internet health clin­ic from Mozilla) posit­ing that real­ly we should­n’t have to take these man­u­fac­tured devices from fac­to­ries and buy things new all the time. But we should be able take pieces of tech­nol­o­gy and weave them into things in our every­day lives and make them do what we want in whim­si­cal and also prag­mat­ic ways.

The very fun bird­cage con­cept which was on dis­play of an Arduino or kind of an open hardware-driven piece of art that actu­al­ly also tells me about air qual­i­ty, much like a canary in a coal mine would. 

And then one of my favorites, the Privacy Dimmer, which is real­ly a kind of ecosys­tem of open hard­ware as well as beau­ti­ful objects aimed at being able to con­fig­ure how we want pri­va­cy to work in our home and with our data in ways where there are pre­sets on the smart­phone as well as then beau­ti­ful devices that are much more nat­ur­al in the flow of our life, where we express what we want our pri­va­cy to be at any par­tic­u­lar moment.

And the val­ues of this Good Home Project to me are what is excit­ing, and also frankly what I think real­ly points to the fact that this next era, if we engage it prop­er­ly, could be more shaped by Europe and oth­er parts of the world and not by America, which is very much where this is com­ing from. Looking at being open, being hum­ble, being resilient, being local, being sus­tain­able, being post-capitalistic (which is not being anti-cap­i­tal­is­tic), under­stand­ing there is an econ­o­my around this, but it should be a human economy. 

And the idea that we explore with this to me is anoth­er lev­el up beyond the Homebrew Computer Club, beyond just work­ing with open hard­ware. It’s say­ing, We can design this future. It is a crit­i­cal moment. And if we don’t, it’s gonna go anoth­er way.” And I’ll get to that in a second.

And the good news also out of Europe is that you have oth­er peo­ple doing the same thing. The IoT Design Manifesto has a sim­i­lar set of val­ues, a sim­i­lar set of propo­si­tions, although tar­get­ed a lit­tle bit more at devel­op­ers. And all of those things real­ly go back to that same idea of the Three Laws of Robotics. We can make a bar­gain, make a plan, set rules, have val­ues, that say where we want to go with this society.

So if we push our­selves in the right direc­tion we can have a rich ecosys­tem. We can have a for­est. Or we can decide to cut it down. And I wor­ry that very quick­ly that is where we’re head­ed, is in to the clearcut of the dig­i­tal plan­et and all of us.

And just take a moment with anoth­er piece of sci­ence fic­tion just quick­ly. This is Philip K. Dick’s Ubik. He’s prob­a­bly my favorite sci­ence fic­tion author. And I don’t put this here for the obvi­ous rea­son, but the obvi­ous rea­son is this weird force called Ubik shows up at the first chap­ter of every chap­ter in that book as a dif­fer­ent prod­uct. Much like the Internet, and pow­er, and Google do always show up as a dif­fer­ent prod­uct but are real­ly one thing.

The rea­son I want to bring this is much more about the banal­i­ty. And you don’t need to read the screen, I’ll read it for you. There’s a great pas­sage in the book where the door refused to open, and it says, Five cents, please.”

And then the main char­ac­ter search­es his pock­ets, he does­n’t any coins. He says, I’ll pay you tomor­row.” The door is still locked. What I pay you,” he says to the door, is in the nature of a gra­tu­ity; I don’t have to pay you.”

And the door says, I think oth­er­wise. Look at the pur­chase con­tract you signed when you bought this apart­ment.” He found the con­tract and sure enough, pay­ment for his door open­ing and shut­ting con­sti­tut­ed a manda­to­ry fee. Not a tip.” It’s kind of fun­ny and banal, but that’s fifty years ago and frankly it is the world that we are mak­ing and designing. 

So just some fun­ny but also wor­ri­some exam­ples. This is a piece high­light­ed in Boing Boing of a prod­uct called Juicero. (It’s an awe­some name; only could you find prod­ucts named so well on the pro­gram Silicon Valley.) But this is a juicer that won’t work unless you buy their pack­ages of kale juice or car­rot juice or what­ev­er. And if they’re old­er than six days old, based on the bar code, they won’t even let you use the pack­ages they sold. Very much like the door. But now, fun­ny. If you buy it you’re prob­a­bly stu­pid. I’m sor­ry if any­body here is a Juicero own­er. But you know, it is a kind of thing that is happening.

And then of course the sto­ry about the ted­dy bears. And the sim­i­lar sto­ry about the sex toys, where there’s actu­al­ly a class action suit for the amount of per­son­al data they col­lect on your use of the sex toy, which they’ve since offered to pay peo­ple who did dis­close their data and stop col­lect­ing that data.

All point to that this world of the Internet of Things and all of the data col­lec­tion, all of the AI around it, is real­ly get­ting into the most inti­mate parts of our lives. We should have a say, we should be think­ing about, we should be talk­ing about, how we want that to work, and not just accept­ing that it works a cer­tain way and is too complex.

And of course as we look at this growth of com­put­ing devices, the Internet of Things, there is even more to talk than just how it kind of comes into our inti­mate lives. If you remem­ber from last year, this bot­net named Mirai, which has been used many times since, took over a bunch of Internet of Things devices— Which because because they tend to be sort of off to the side of our lives, they’re not our com­put­ers that we update, or our phones that we update so fre­quent­ly, are easy tar­gets for these bot­nets, that can then be used for Denial of Service attacks. And the Mirai bot­net took down Twitter and dozens of oth­er sites by a Denial of Service attack at a scale that has been rarely seen. And the piece about that is we are just at the tip of the ice­berg of the secu­ri­ty threats—not just botnets—that we are cre­at­ing by cre­at­ing a per­va­sive com­put­ing envi­ron­ment where there are no reg­u­la­tions, no require­ments, around security.

And Bruce Schneier, who’s at MIT, talks about it and a num­ber of oth­er peo­ple do as well, that kind of pri­va­cy pol­lu­tion as being like an envi­ron­men­tal exter­nal­i­ty. The peo­ple who pro­duce those devices often, far from the places where the dam­age hap­pens, have no incen­tive and in most cas­es don’t give a damn whether they are cre­at­ing some­thing that can cre­ate tremen­dous eco­nom­ic and social hav­oc. And we actu­al­ly have to be seri­ous about that we are dra­mat­i­cal­ly accel­er­at­ing a threat to our­selves because we have wound com­put­ers around us into our lives and our econ­o­my, and thought noth­ing of how their vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty can take us out in the kneecaps and dam­age us in real ways.

And then of course the oth­er and obvi­ous piece which is rarely talked about, is start­ing to get talked about more, not talked about enough, real­ly is that as we get to AI and con­nect­ed devices togeth­er, the job sit­u­a­tion will total­ly change. You know, we talk about 40, 50 per­cent unem­ploy­ment in indus­tri­al­ized soci­eties or post-industrialized soci­eties as being a real thing in the next ten, twen­ty, thir­ty years. And that is very much tied to that spike of the Internet of Things. It’s not just about get­ting a con­nect­ed toaster.

And so whether that is Uber, which is con­tro­ver­sial for many of oth­er rea­sons, being on the fore­front of that, its dri­vers will all be fired at some point. Or many oth­er kinds of automa­tion. The con­nect­ed device/AI world will fun­da­men­tal­ly change the fab­ric of work and our econ­o­my, soon, and we’re not talk­ing about it enough.

And then the more obvi­ous one but you can’t ignore it because it is so per­va­sive, is the lis­ten­ing machine that we are build­ing all around us. And this last cou­ple weeks, I guess last week even, Amazon Alexa went to anoth­er lev­el. They released the Echo Look, which you can see here, which is the incred­i­bly help­ful cam­era and micro­phone you can put in your bed­room so they can give you fash­ion advice and sell you clothes if you’ve run out of socks or your clothes don’t match. The AI can help you with that.

But of course real­ly what we are doing is putting micro­phones and cam­eras all around us in ways that Orwell nev­er could have imag­ined, and that we’re buy­ing out of delight and excite­ment and our own money.

And of course it’s not just the com­pa­nies who are watch­ing that. Those IoT devices are easy tar­gets for state actors or non-state actors who have mali­cious intent. So we are build­ing a panop­ti­con nev­er imag­in­able, out of the con­sumer devices that we all so desire, and it is grow­ing by leaps and bounds in its scale and interconnectivity. 

And so that’s real­ly the thing to sit in as we kind of come to a close but then also maybe look at action, is the scale of this real­ly— I don’t think any of us even when we’re talk­ing about it have imag­ined. And if we bring the wrong val­ues into wrap­ping com­put­ers all around us, we have many many things that can go wrong, and cer­tain­ly we can imag­ine a dig­i­tal world—which is the world at this point—that is very much like a clearcut. And I’m wor­ried that that’s where we’re headed.

So the ques­tion, espe­cial­ly at a place like re:publica for peo­ple who are politi­cized about these things, is what does stew­ard­ship look like? So to stick with the envi­ron­men­tal metaphor, what does it look like in this world for us to stew­ard the val­ues that came with the Internet or that we bring as peo­ple who want human soci­ety to be good and kind and eth­i­cal and inclu­sive and mul­ti­cul­tur­al and glob­al? What kind of dig­i­tal plan­et do we want is a thing we need to ask in a very seri­ous way, not just as cock­tail par­ty con­ver­sa­tion, as that grows.

And so I do think the for­est is pos­si­ble. The clearcut is avoid­able. We can cre­ate a respon­si­ble, eth­i­cal, and human dig­i­tal plan­et. But we have to take it seri­ous­ly as a main­stream polit­i­cal issue, as a main­stream thing that we build right now. And there’s three things as we try to grow that moment that I think we all need to be doing more of and putting more mon­ey behind that are very much in the tra­di­tion of envi­ron­men­tal stew­ard­ship and build on the last ten, twen­ty, thir­ty, forty, fifty years of hack­ers and dig­i­tal mak­ing as a form of stew­ard­ship. Just stand­ing in the streets alone will not get us the respon­si­ble, eth­i­cal, human dig­i­tal plan­et we want.

So what do we need to do? Certainly one thing is build it. Just build it now. And that’s hard. This is Casa Jasmina, which is an open source con­nect­ed home in Turin in Italy, start­ed by Bruce Sterling the sci­ence fic­tion author and oth­ers. And why I use it as an exam­ple of build it” is we can and must build an eth­i­cal, respon­si­ble dig­i­tal world that reflects our val­ues in a way that reflects design and is real and that we use every day.

Just motion-controlled rac­coon squirt guns will not change things. We need to see how do we actu­al­ly make open source, secure, human-controlled, people-controlled, not cen­tral­ized, not monop­o­lized, dig­i­tal lives pos­si­ble. I mean, you could also just check out and go and live in a for­est, but even that for­est is com­plete­ly con­nect­ed into this world more and more. So we have to in a seri­ous way that involves design and tech­nol­o­gy and pol­i­tics, look at build­ing real worlds that reflects the kind of val­ues I talked about ear­li­er in the Good Home piece.

Consumer Reports, November 2016 cover

We need to orga­nize, but not nec­es­sar­i­ly just in the street and in ways that tra­di­tion­al move­ments have. And why I put this up here, although this is an American exam­ple, is that Consumer Reports (and there are sim­i­lar orga­ni­za­tions around the world, con­sumers unions) has real­ly start­ed to look at pri­va­cy as the main con­sumer issue in the next decade to orga­nize around. 

And one of things it’s done, what that sym­bol is there on the side, is start to build a pri­va­cy test­ing stan­dard, know­ing that it is going to need to engage a net­work of oth­er orga­ni­za­tions and cit­i­zens to pri­va­cy test the scale of prod­ucts that we have in front of us, and to point to com­pa­nies that need to improve their pri­va­cy and secu­ri­ty stan­dards. Because they can’t— You know, in their his­to­ry of test­ing wash­ing machines and cars, they could do it all them­selves. They can’t do that themselves. 

So we need to think of ways to orga­nize col­lec­tive­ly as peo­ple, as cit­i­zens, as con­sumers, that real­ly tack­le and hold com­pa­nies and gov­ern­ments to account and also and bring our own solu­tions, our own teach­ing, our own ways of doing things, into a move­ment of a scale that is as big or big­ger than the envi­ron­men­tal move­ment ever was.

And then the last thing I would just say is we do need to imag­ine. We need to imag­ine a world where these kinds of val­ues about resilience, sus­tain­abil­i­ty, human-centered design, human-centered life where peo­ple and not machines are in con­trol. That we need to imag­ine that in a real way. It can’t just be a light conversation.

And what I like about the [Good] Home project, Casa Jasmina, many things like that—which again Europe has an edge on—is it is peo­ple get­ting involved in try­ing to build with those val­ues as well as have con­ver­sa­tions on those val­ues. And it can­not be under­es­ti­mat­ed that if we do not do that now, we don’t treat that as the most urgent or one of the most urgent polit­i­cal acts we can do to engage in what those val­ues should be, to build and to orga­nize around them, we are going to be fucked. We’re prob­a­bly already fucked. But we’re cer­tain­ly fucked if we don’t do that.

And that brings me to the end, which is this does actu­al­ly con­nect to the rise of author­i­tar­i­an gov­ern­ments, whether that is here in Europe, or in the Middle East, or Russia, of in the US. And you know, the world— All of us have been talk­ing about this a lot right now. The world that we live in, or at least that I live in and I val­ue, that is a glob­al world that is con­nect­ed. Where we can move freely by and large. Where ideas and mon­ey can move freely by and large. Where we real­ly actu­al­ly do see mul­ti­cul­tur­al­ism as a part of what is an essen­tial fab­ric of the glob­al world because you can’t have a glob­al soci­ety with­out it. 

Those are things that I kin­da for grant­ed as val­ues. If you go back and read John Perry Barlow’s Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace,” he talks about those things as being val­ues for the dig­i­tal world we’re build­ing. I take those for grant­ed as a part of the pol­i­tics of the Internet. And we also have built a glob­al econ­o­my on the Internet that has… You know, we can split hairs and fight each oth­er but has a lot of those val­ues built in, which if you com­pare to the rest of his­to­ry beyond the last fifty, eighty years, are not the val­ues by and large that human­i­ty has had.

We have lived in divid­ed soci­eties. We have lived in worlds divid­ed by nations. We have lived in a world of war. (Although we still do.) And the pol­i­tics around us is tak­ing us back there. So it really—when we think about the pol­i­tics of the Internet, which are actu­al­ly very much as we’ve seen in recent elec­tions, inter­wo­ven into what is hap­pen­ing with the pol­i­tics of the state, there is no more urgent time than ever if we want a soci­ety that is inclu­sive, that is glob­al, that is mul­ti­cul­tur­al, and where we shape the future, to also get involved in the pol­i­tics of the Internet and bring into the main­stream the idea that we need a healthy Internet that we con­trol. The stakes have nev­er been high­er, and this is the kind of group that needs to get involved and real­ly grow some­thing big. Thank you very much.

Further Reference

Session descrip­tion at the re:publica site

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.