The US needs a Department of Nerds

/ Nathan Guo / 4 Comments

During the recent House Judiciary Committee hearings, it seemed every other statement began with the following disclosure: “I’m not a nerd, but I think…” Through the course of the hearings, the word “nerd” was used quite often. Some were derisive. Others, respectful. However in all cases, it was an assertion of general ignorance about the matter at hand.

It has become painfully obvious that our US representatives fundamentally do not understand new technology. But who can blame them? The average age of the 112th Congress was 56.7 years at the start of the term. This demographic was middle-aged and well out of college before the inception of the personal computing era and the Internet. While many in Congress have adopted social media, nobody would expect them to understand the intricacies of IP addresses and DNS servers. Most millennials outside of the technology industry would be hard-pressed to describe these concepts.

So why then are our Congressmen seeking to enact legislation about something they do not understand? While it is certainly impossible for Congressmen to fully understand all the details of every bill they work on, it has always been their responsibility to interface with leaders of respective industries to make the best possible decision with limited information.

The problem is that technology as a whole is moving too quickly for legislators to understand the latest innovations to pass effective legislation. As technology has continued to improve, the knowledge gap between the engineer and the layman has increased. The field has become too specialized for “non-nerds” to understand well, nonetheless our representatives. Furthermore, technology is important to a number of industries, sometimes with conflicting interests. To make effective decisions in this regard would require a very comprehensive understanding of not just technology, but how it is applied in different industries.

The technology industry represents the most significant US innovation in the past few decades. It should be encouraged to grow as quickly as possible, but this growth cannot be unregulated. Nor should those who are unfamiliar with the field be the ones regulating it. 10 years from now, will our Congressmen understand enough about the complex algorithms and programs that operate Google’s self-driving car to make an informed decision about its safety and efficacy for use by the general public? Certainly not. However, this does not mean that this service should be unregulated. As technology is integrated more and more into everyday life, there will need to be people in government that do understand the intricacies of technology.

The US needs a Department of Nerds. Maybe more aptly named, a Department of Technology. This branch of the executive arm should regulate technology as a whole.  It should encourage sustained organic growth of the technology industry. It should help regulate computer security to prevent hackers from attacking America’s public facilities and crucial infrastructure. It should service other departments to improve efficiency of everything from agriculture to veterans’ affairs. Most importantly, it should be run by nerds. The appointed secretary should be someone who understands technological innovation and someone who champions its safe and effective utilization in America.

While the current Departments manage technology in their respective fields, there are significant inefficiencies that are incurred by this framework. While the Department of Defense has access to highly advanced computer security knowledge, a millennial hacker recently accessed water infrastructure management systems using just a three-character password. While certainly there should be some level of disparity between the two systems, it is clear that the latter industry could use a significant security upgrade. A centralized Department of Technology would allow for more effective distribution of technology to improve efficiency and security of all sectors.

In the future, the balanced implementation of technology will be the hallmark of all successful nations. Technological innovation and development will be necessary across all industries in the public and private sectors. A centralized authority that understands technology is necessary to regulate the introduction of new technologies to different industries. As the integration of technology into our day-to-day lives increases, the more important it will be that this technology is well understood and reviewed.

The present is being built by nerds, but regulated by laymen. The future must be regulated by nerds.

Why I love Facebook’s seamless sharing

/ Nathan Guo / Leave a comment

Recently a number of articles have decried recent Facebook changes allowing seamless sharing of information. Using Open Graph, several news sites such as the Washington Post and the Guardian have released “social reader” Facebook apps. These apps, once enabled, allow Facebook friends to see the articles you have read in much the same way that Spotify shows friends songs you have listened to.

Molly Wood at CNET released a scathing article entitled “How Facebook is ruining sharing.” Molly insists that sharing and recommendation shouldn’t be passive, and this sort of passive sharing will “overwhelm our interest and deaden us to the possibility of organic discovery.” I would argue that the exact opposite is true, that seamless sharing improves organic discovery.

Seamless sharing improves organic discovery

How many times have you been sitting in a car with a friend and heard them play a song you liked? Prior to the advent of the smartphone, you would have to remember the name of the song, then at a much later point in time, download it… if you could remember the name. Spotify now allows you to see what your friends are listen to and quickly try the song or artist yourself. Spotify for me has quickly become an easy way to explore new music that I never would have heard of without this service. While initially there was a chorus of boos from people complaining about the lack of privacy this spread, this chorus quickly faded as those who demanded more privacy found the option to stop sharing.

How was news promulgated prior to seamless sharing? You might receive an e-mail from a friend with “Fwd: FWD: Fwd: FWD” appended to the front of the title. Often you’d find that some people never shared anything of value. This might be an elderly relative who only sent fake inspirational stories or urban legends. In the end, many drew the same conclusion that I did. These forwarded e-mails were generally marked as unread and never opened.

The new social reader is one of the first things that allows people to catch glimpses outside of the filter bubble described by Eli Pariser in his TED talk. Very quickly, I found myself catching headlines that I normally wouldn’t have read if not for the fact that another friend had checked out the link beforehand. Of course social readers might introduce some level of junk into your feed as certain friends read low-value articles about say Kim Kardashian’s recent divorce. However, just as in the past, these sources will be mentally filtered as you realize that specific friends might not have the most important contributions to your media digest.

The important thing here is that you are seeing things outside of your curated digest. I posit that when people are overly conscious of what they are sharing, in the end you miss out on information. Some of this information may or may not be useful, but with seamless sharing you get to make that decision. With curated sharing and without seamless sharing, people you follow make a decision for you.

Facebook privacy decisions

It is true that the default privacy settings in Facebook have become looser since its inception. As I have argued above, I believe that this creates more organic discovery opportunities. Nonetheless, Facebook has allowed for close management of privacy settings, allowing for users to manage their information in a relatively easy manner.

It seems many Facebook users do not understand the model under which they are using Facebook. As a Facebook user, you are allowed access to a powerful medium that allows you to connect to your social network in a way that has never been possible in history before now. Although you don’t pay any money to use its services, Facebook is not free. The cost is privacy. This is information is sold by Facebook to 3rd parties for cash. You control how much privacy you are willing to give up to use Facebook, and in exchange you get some degree of connectivity to the world.

As a frequent traveler, I am more than willing to give up more of my privacy in order to be more connected to my friends around the world. I love being able to see what my friends are reading and listening to on Facebook, because otherwise I would be totally disconnected from them for months at a time.

Facebook’s seamless sharing is another way for me to remotely participate in the water cooler discussions about recent news, which I would normally not be privy to being overseas. It allows me to be anchored in my life at home within my group of friends while working on the other side of the globe. It allows me to see the introduction of new members of my family when I am unable to be at the hospital for the delivery.

Others choose to severely limit or completely disable their Facebook accounts, as the benefit they gain is not enough to overcome the value of the privacy they give up. If you have never consciously evaluated the value of the Facebook product and how much privacy you are willing to give up to use it, you should. However, I think I and many others will agree that the benefit is significantly greater than the cost.

The True Intent of SOPA

/ Nathan Guo / 40 Comments

The Great Firewall of China has been an inapt metaphor for the entirety of its existence. Its purpose is to keep its citizens in rather than to keep invaders out like the original Great Wall. Some will point to its exclusion of non-Chinese companies from the Chinese web space, but ultimately, the government was more than willing to play ball with those who were willing to compromise. The only thing the Great Firewall has in common with the Great Wall, is that they were both built to protect the builders.

Reasons Claimed by SOPA Proponents

The Great Firewall of America is no different. It is being built by the people who would benefit most from its construction. Just take a look at the witness list at the House hearing for the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA or H.R. 3261). 5 of the 6 witness list are outspoken advocates for SOPA. Most notable is Michael O’Leary, Senior Executive Vice President of Global Policy and External Affairs for the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America). During the course of the hearings, O’Leary made multiple fallacious claims that googling names of movies such as “J. Edgar” or “The Grinch Who Stole Christmas” would return pirated versions of the movie. According to O’Leary, this link will show you lists of pirated versions of the movie. I’ll let you judge for yourself the veracity of his claim.

Many in support of the SOPA bill will claim that enforcement would be balanced and fair. They would claim that I am exaggerating the effects of the SOPA bill through hyperbole. During the course of the hearing, Michael O’Leary not only showed support for SOPA, but stated that “the Internet isn’t broken” in places like China and Iran. Wait. Isn’t China the home of some of the worst copyright infringement in the world? O’Leary’s statement must be made from either pure ignorance or to fallaciously support legislation that is not truly intended to protect against copyright infringement. When countries notorious for human rights abuse are held up as successful Internet models, it’s quite apparent that the Great Firewall of America is an apt name for the SOPA construct.

Let’s look at other potential motivations for SOPA. While the name of the bill certainly seems reasonable and desirable, how big of a problem is online piracy? The MPAA published this document about piracy in America. If you analyze their claim that there are $58 billion in losses per year from piracy and that 13% of all adults have pirated, you’ll find that the MPAA claims that your average downloader should be buying 200 more DVD’s a year. Lest we forget, the MPAA has a history of using hyperbole to defend its own interests. In his 1982 testimony, Jack Valenti, former President of the MPAA, stated the following to Congress,

“I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.”

Clearly the effects of the VCR on the media industry was poorly understood and greatly exaggerated by the MPAA. Videotape sales ended up being a significant new revenue stream for the MPAA for many years, even spawning the spinoff media rental industry which still exists today.

Failure to Understand the Internet as as Medium

During the hearing, it became painfully obvious that the proponents of SOPA simply do not understand the Internet as a medium. Representative Ben Quayle expressed concern that there were no successful business models that could survive without SOPA to prevent piracy. Yet services like iTunes, Netflix, and Amazon now represent some of the largest services in media representing billions in revenue every year. Furthermore, there have even recently been disruptive business models like Spotify which have been able to assert themselves in the environment that SOPA proponents claim is not possible to exist in.

It is apparent that proponents of SOPA like the MPAA are simply failing to adapt their business model as technology evolves. In the 1980’s, the MPAA fought against the VCR claiming concerns over about copyright violations. In the 2010’s, the MPAA is fighting against the Internet as a medium. The difference is, this time the stakes are much higher. SOPA’s scope extends far beyond alleged piracy. It creates a web environment almost identical to that of China that restricts internet access, which has recently been declared a human right by the United Nations.

The True Intent of SOPA

If the most recent hearing was any indication, the proponents of SOPA are not interested in working with the technology and Internet industries to find solutions to stem online piracy. When has a fair and balanced discussion ever been held when the debate is stacked 5 to 1? Supporters of SOPA clearly do not understand the Internet as a medium and are constructing a system in which the deck is stacked in their favor. As many tech giants have pointed out, SOPA is devastating to the technology and Internet industries. How long will we suffer the claims that media giants cannot make enough money, even as they are increasing their own compensation?

The Stop Online Piracy Act is being constructed to allow a stranglehold on the American Internet. Make no mistake. Its constructors are building it with this intent in mind. Just like the Great Firewall of China, the Stop Online Piracy Act is a misnomer. Hidden behind an innocuous name, the bill’s intent is not to stem piracy as its proponents suggest, its true intent is to control the Internet itself.