• Home
  • About
  • Blog
  • News
  • Events
  • Media
  • Video
  • Glossary
  • Contact
  • Download
  • RSS

When the Bat Signal calls

June 8th, 2009  |  by jz  |  Published in university, wikipedia  |  17 Comments

I was asked to give the commencement talk at my old high school this year.  I wrote it out ahead of time, so figured I’d share it here –

Jonathan Zittrain
Shady Side Academy Commencement Speech – 5 June 2009

Good morning, Shady Side, and a hearty congratulations to the class of 2009!

It’s fantastic to be back on campus. I confess that when I was a student here I had good days, bad days, and, well, surreal days. I began at David Mancosh’s Middle School, where a scrappy production of Lord of the Flies enjoyed a daily run for over two decades. My first mistake was to be a skinny nerd with the name ZITTRAIN. I compounded the error by wearing my school backpack over both shoulders. I was alerted to my lack of fashion sense when someone drop kicked it from behind while I was wearing it. It sailed about six inches off the ground, taking me with it like a parachute in an updraft, and I landed with it upside down across my stomach.

From then on I carried my pack slung over my right shoulder and staggered into classes like Latin. We were given quizzes nearly every day, tasked with translating insanely convoluted sentences. We’d then visit the teacher’s desk one by one to look over his shoulder as he graded our respective quizzes, a dot on each clause as he parsed the sentences, and an angry red circle around mistakes. What happened if you managed to get through with only dots? A 99 out of 100. (There were numerical grading scales back then. Today I understand you have feel-good grades ranging from W00T to EPIC FAIL.) Anyway, no one earned 100 in this teacher’s class. 99 was the best you could do. I think the intended lesson was that no one can ever be perfect. The Latin phrase is Personam Loserum No Matter Whatum.

I’ve since drawn a larger lesson: throughout life you will encounter people in positions of authority over you whom you believe to be lunatics. How you handle these situations will in part determine how happy you can be. Sometimes you can fight it; sometimes you can persuade the other person of your view; sometimes you just have to live with it; and sometimes it turns out that you’re the lunatic. Feeling powerless over something you care about is one of the toughest situations to encounter, and such situations don’t lessen in adulthood. I remember being surprised in my twenties to discover that adults are basically just like you, only older. As of today, even as you begin the odd cycle of school life and trade in your senior status to become a frosh again, you’re part of the general club of humanity that enjoys certain freedoms while still having to reconcile to limits.

Of course, don’t underestimate the freedom half. Once you’re out from under your parents’ watchful eyes (and I assume even the boarders among you had some form of authority not far away here), you realize that in college or whatever your next stage of life is that you can do whatever you want. By this I don’t mean that you can have anything you want. Rather, you are about to become as free as one can be to make your own decisions without immediate contradiction or discipline from a parent, teacher, or boss. There were many things I loved about college, and among the best was the realization I could have Lucky Charms whenever I felt like it: breakfast, lunch, dinner, midnight snack. That’s and, not or. (You can substitute your own forbidden vice here.) It was like being thrust suddenly into the universe of a Charlie Brown television special, where adults make only the rarest of appearances, and when they do, they blat like foghorns for about ten seconds and then promptly leave.

Well, we can learn something from Charlie Brown, namely the constraint that accompanies seeming freedom. Wikipedia calls him “the great American un-success story.” Despite the absence of adults Charlie Brown remains an existentialist speck, buffeted by forces from an absurd world beyond his control. He reacts to what befalls him rather than seizing the initiative. It’s like the life of a dog: the dog accepts whatever he sees without needing to understand it. People enter and leave the field of vision. Cars drive. Elevator doors close and ten seconds later they open on a new landscape. Life is random, and what we remember of it is quirky.

For example, there was one particularly colorful sixth grade math teacher – perhaps he’s here today – who was mild mannered but for one cardinal (or is it ordinal?) offense. He’d pose a problem and the called-upon student would timidly offer something like: “Six oh four?” Silence. The bad kind. Then: “Ohhh-EW-uh?! OHHHHHH?? OH IS A LETTER! ZERO IS A NUMBER!” with a pound on the blackboard enough to raise chalk dust on the other side of the wall in dear old Mr. McMillan’s English class.

I remember the rule about zero and OH and nothing else from that entire year of mathematics. Little things like this, whether remembered or not, are the dark matter of our universe: invisible but dominating. They comprise the bulk of who and what we are. People weave in and out of your life every day, usually entirely forgettably, and you in theirs. The attendant working the register at Target. The server at the local restaurant. The cell phone addict who sits next to you on a flight. Most of life is a stitching together of these moments of seeming insignificance, of shopping and eating and waiting and being annoyed, a vast expanse of mental prairie that connects the clusters and spires of the life milestone set pieces that we think make us distinct. In today’s words, life is largely Twitter, and I wonder if any of us will remember more than 140 characters from, say, this speech.

The set pieces are the graduations, weddings, funerals, and I suppose statistically speaking for at least one or two of us, the indictments. Those milestones may seem more salient, because by definition they happen rarely and summon more of our attention. Moreover, we aren’t prepared for how to handle them by our own experience; the closest guides we have, oddly enough, are the ways in which they are worked into our popular culture to make it seem less like dull prairie. That’s why there are no bathrooms on the starship Enterprise. Compare how many crises and killings and funerals and first kisses and indictments you’ve seen on TV instead.

The fact is that we can become prisoner both to our regular life scripts, the somnambulant routines we fall into in the day-by-day, and to the melodrama we inherit from Hollywood writers to cover the notable pieces. What Shady Side gave me on the day-by-day was an appreciation of the obtuse, the angular, the colorful byplay that gave me more to remember and that challenged me to establish my own identity when so little seemed within my own control. And what it gave me on the bigger picture was a chance to cultivate a passion, and to see that the world wasn’t just me and those who crossed my field of vision. It was us, a bunch of people trying to make sense of things, whether teacher or student, loser or bully. And these labels aren’t doled out, one to a person. Instead they are fluid roles that each of us take on at one time or another.

To escape the backpack kickers I retreated further into nerd-dom. I was lucky enough to be given time on a school TRS-80 personal computer during free periods. Near the computer was a looseleaf notebook with a series of tutorials about programming. I don’t know where it came from, but it walked me through learning basic computer science. The text was both comprehensive and witty – it anticipated my questions just as I had them. Only when I entered the Senior School did I meet the author of that book – someone who teaches philosophy here as well as computer science, one of so many teachers whose care and patience with students has been transcendent.

My nerdiness took a turn for the social as PCs became networked. I participated in local bulletin board systems and later on CompuServe, a proprietary pay-by-the-hour service with user forums on various topics. Six weeks later my parents got the first charge from CompuServe on their credit card. I had to tell my online friends that I couldn’t afford it anymore – I hadn’t admitted I was only 13 – and I was offered free time in exchange for becoming a “sysop,” a system operator who would help people find answers to their questions, and mediate disputes. Thus I came to explore how online communities could govern themselves even as the basic social structures of high school eluded me.

We have such examples today, magnified that much more by the reach of the Internet, as many of you know and as your parents fear. The underlying fabric of the Internet itself depends on a sense of community. For Internet routing to work – for data to get from point A to point Z – it passes through any number of intermediate locations, each of which moves it one step closer to its destination. How does each location know in which direction to pass a packet of information? There’s a map, not maintained by some central authority, but generated on the fly by each participating way station. It’s as if each of you were alone on a mountaintop, and could only see those who were one peak away. To build the map, you start saying what you see to others nearby: you say to the person on your right, “Here’s what I see to my left.” And you tell the person on your left what you see to your right. They can then tell those near them what they’ve heard from you, and vice versa. Lather, rinse, repeat, and you have the makings of a distributed map, based on gossip. One day the government of Pakistan sought to filter out YouTube from its citizens. It told its Internet Service Providers to block access to YouTube. One small ISP carried out the order by sending a small lie to its subscribers and neighbors: it announced that it was in fact YouTube. Its subscribers’ packets were then drawn there like a magnet, where the ISP could throw them away, since the point was to block YouTube.

But it didn’t stop there. Within a few minutes word had ricocheted around the Internet that YouTube had moved, and if you were here in Pittsburgh trying to reach YouTube, your packets were going to Pakistan and not coming back – and there was nothing that YouTube, one of the most popular Web sites in the world, and its owner Google, the most powerful company in the world, were particularly privileged to do about it. So how was the problem solved? It’s as if the Bat Signal went up, and the call was answered by NANOG, the North American Network Operators Group, an informal mailing list of nerds, some of whom work for various ISPs. NANOG members diagnosed the issue and promulgated a fix. It’s as if your house were to catch on fire. The bad news is that there’s no fire department. The good news is that some of your neighbors promptly come over with garden hoses and put the fire out, expecting neither payment nor recognition for their help. It’s an extremely powerful civic defense system, powered in large part by goodwill. Though I wonder how vulnerable the Internet could be during a major Star Trek convention, when NANOG members are otherwise occupied and no one is minding the store.

Speaking of scifi, consider another example of community governance: the case of Star Wars kid. He took a school video camera borrowed for a class project, put it on a tripod, and demoed some light saber moves using a golf ball retriever. His friends discovered the video and place it online, where it became one of the biggest viral hits of all time. He wanted none of this – in fact, he was utterly mortified by it. No matter; mash-ups and derivatives were made from the original video, including Matrix and Lord of the Rings versions, and he became a laughingstock at school.

A modicum of compassion and respect turned up in an unlikely place. Wikipedia naturally has an article on Star Wars kid. Each article on Wikipedia has a corresponding discussion page, and debate raged about whether to include his name in the account of his humiliation. The Wikipedians argued earnestly and then decided by vote – not unanimous – to leave the name out, and to this day the Wikipedia entry omits it. They’ve since had to address questions like the weight of precedent, so those who disagree with the decision know how soon the issue can be reopened, and how to achieve enforcement – namely by tapping the efforts of even those Wikipedians who disagree with the outcome, but respect the system that produced it. They help keep the project going through challenges small and large. Indeed, at all times Wikipedia is about 45 minutes from utter destruction, such as from spammers who would like to turn every single article into an ad for a Rolex watch. There’s just a thin geeky line of unpaid volunteers who care to save it that keeps it functioning. Again: the Bat Signal goes up, and well-meaning, reasonable people answer it, usually not wearing spandex. It’s been fascinating to watch Wikipedia fashion and institute a form of law, in the best sense of law as an enterprise emanating from people trying to get along and be fair, understanding that they will not always agree.

My view is that Wikipedia and projects like it belong at the heart of a high school and college education. Instead of turning to a handful of approved sources and paraphrasing them to write a ten-page U.S. History paper that will be viewed and graded only by the teacher – who looks at a stack of papers and anticipates the same bad movie, twenty times – you can be asked to demonstrate a sustained and original contribution to a Wikipedia article on an important topic, having to contend with conflicting sources and others’ arguments, learning to discern and then defend truth amidst chaos – and to refine your own view in light of what you discover. There are few things as devastatingly disarming to others as admitting when you’re wrong.

For the world you are entering – really the one you’ve been in all along – is one swimming in received wisdom, accepted uncritically. Too easily we farm out the hard work of knowing whether our society is on a sustainable path to policymakers, experts, or the media. It’s like: Katie Couric will tell us if there’s anything genuinely worth worrying about. But these channels of authority are overwhelmed, dysfunctional, and in some cases outright corrupt.

What will reinforce them, or even take their place, is something you can help build, with tools that even ten years ago were unknown. The key is to move from the reactive, desultory world of Charlie Brown to one in which you appreciate that you are generally at least as empowered as the next person, and to realize the ethical dimension that accompanies the day-by-day as well as the landmark events in life. As my best friend at Shady Side put it, reflecting on what he knows now that he and I had missed in high school, one of the best ways to evaluate your success is the effect you have on a room of people – family or strangers – when you enter. Does it become brighter or darker? That’s something you can choose, even though too often it’s just a script followed without much thought. Enterprises like Wikipedia urge us to ask the same question in our virtual lives, knowing how often they touch real ones.

We are at a time of great uncertainty. The economy is in the tank, after most talking heads told us things were fine. We’re told that global warming will wreak havoc on our planet, and we are the cause. Things went right from “too early to tell” to “too late to do anything about it.” The best among us are afraid of being found out for the frauds we suspect we are, because part of leadership is to exude a confidence and stability that isn’t always truly felt. (The worst among us are Bernie Madoff, who’s just a fraud.)

But you are at a time of great promise. In your immediate future you’ll literally be handed a catalog of humankind’s knowledge and asked to select four or five subjects to study for months at a time. And you’ll have an amazing amount of free time; Shady Side is far more rigorous than college. You can use it to find and pursue your passions, and to greet with joy and mischief new friends and relationships. (On the mischief front, I confess that Jon Beckerman and I were responsible for running the flag lampooning the headmaster up the flagpole and cutting the halyard. It flew for a week, until a bucket truck that said “Bob’s Erections” on the side came to take it down. We also were the ones who dropped a bean down the drain of each of those tiny sinks in the science lab tables. About a week later the stalks came up, and we tied a sign to each faucet that said DO NOT DISTURB – EXPERIMENT IN PROGRESS.)

As you forge and savor the interpersonal connections that make all the difference between simulating a successful life and living one, you’ll be ready to improve the world in the only way that it really ever happens: to answer a Bat Signal that calls to you. I hope without needing spandex.

Congratulations, good luck, and see you on Facebook!

Responses

Feed
  1. Eszter says:

    June 8th, 2009 at 9:59 am (#)

    Great read, thanks for posting it here!

  2. Susanna Bjorkman Finke says:

    June 8th, 2009 at 10:53 am (#)

    Fantastic! I wish we’d had such a great and inspiring speech for our commencement. I love your suggestion for replacing the US history paper, btw. That must have been quite a full-circle moment, addressing SSA commencement!

  3. mollyclare says:

    June 8th, 2009 at 2:33 pm (#)

    AWESOME. Thanks for posting. As one of the nerdiest teachers at SSA, I’ll be reminding my students of it next year at appropriate moments.

  4. Bradley Peacock says:

    June 8th, 2009 at 3:12 pm (#)

    Well done. Great message.
    You brought a flood of memories back, Jon.
    Lord of the Flies and chalk dust….fantastic.

  5. Seth Finkelstein says:

    June 9th, 2009 at 9:36 am (#)

    > “My view is that Wikipedia and projects like it belong at the heart of a high school and college education.”

    Noooo … RUN AWAY!

    To quote Lore Sjöberg:

    http://www.wired.com/software/webservices/commentary/alttext/2006/04/70670

    “But why should I contribute to an article? I’m no expert.

    That’s fine. The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: “Experts are scum.” For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War — and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge — get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.”

    Whichever side of that you’re on, it’s not good.

  6. Amanda French says:

    June 11th, 2009 at 7:59 am (#)

    I disagree (note the polite discourse) with that Lore Sjöberg quotation; I wouldn’t at all characterize the Wikipedia philosophy as “experts are scum.” And while it’s surely true that a lot of experts get “downright irate” about Wikipedia, that’s not necessarily an argument against teaching students about Wikipedia and its model. If only so that they could come up with more reasonable criticisms of Wikipedia than those.

    How about this: let’s put, at the heart of high school and college education, the propositional statement that “To be guided or governed by a few experts is better than to be guided or governed by many amateurs.” Investigate and discuss.

  7. Amanda French says:

    June 11th, 2009 at 8:12 am (#)

    Just a note: here’s an example of a teacher who puts Wikipedia at the heart of his history course: Mills Kelly requires his undergraduate students to “create or substantially edit” a Wikipedia article on history, then track what happens to it. In this course he also used Wikipedia as the textbook — not by any means uncritically. http://edwired.org/?p=126

  8. J M Johnson says:

    June 11th, 2009 at 8:59 am (#)

    I had a wonderful time reading this. Thank you!

  9. Lee Silverman says:

    June 11th, 2009 at 5:31 pm (#)

    Well done! This brought back some great memories of my time there. Congratulations on delivering a message that I am certain they were able to relate to on numerous levels, and provided them some humorous and valuable food for thought.

  10. Seth Finkelstein says:

    June 11th, 2009 at 10:31 pm (#)

    Amanda, during the “Essjay scandal” a very high-ranking Wikipedia editor lied to a _New Yorker_ reporter and claimed to be: ‘a tenured professor of religion at a private university’ with ‘a PhD in theology and a degree in canon law’ … [in fact] he is 24 and holds no advanced degrees, and that he has never taught.”

    Co-founder Jimmy Wales stated “I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it.”.

    I submit – this is NOT the sort of environment one wants to toss students into. Except perhaps from a very cynical perspective of having them deal with intensely toxic dysfunctional politics, and learn that blatant lying is OK if it helps the organization and the boss, and the only sin is to get caught. Now, maybe that’s a helpful lesson for budding lawyers or politicians. But let’s not confuse that with scholarship and intellectual education.

  11. Defend Truth Amidst Chaos « The Progressive Internal Critique says:

    June 12th, 2009 at 1:00 am (#)

    [...] having to contend with conflicting sources and others’ arguments, learning to discern and then defend truth amidst chaos – and to refine your own view in light of what you discover. There are few things as [...]

  12. Anna says:

    June 12th, 2009 at 3:12 am (#)

    great speech prof. z!

  13. JRS says:

    June 16th, 2009 at 3:31 pm (#)

    Thanks so much for posting this terrific speech! Clearly you wrote it for the class of 2009, but you should know that there were plenty of other people in the audience that day (emeritus faculty in particular) who relished your description of SSA lunacy and took enormous satisfaction from what you had to say about the value of committing to a worthwhile cause despite life’s often-frustrating limitations. You did a lot of people a lot of good with this one. Many thanks again and best wishes!

  14. Commencement video :: The Future of the Internet — And How to Stop It says:

    June 16th, 2009 at 8:57 pm (#)

    [...] (Text available here.) [...]

  15. jessamyn says:

    June 17th, 2009 at 6:34 pm (#)

    “[T]hroughout life you will encounter people in positions of authority over you whom you believe to be lunatics. How you handle these situations will in part determine how happy you can be.”

    It’s so important for young people to hear these words, now more than ever, especially from successful nerds. Thanks for typing this all out, it’s a shot in the arm to read.

  16. A View for Digital Natives (and others) about our Future in the Information Age — DigitallyMark says:

    June 18th, 2009 at 8:26 pm (#)

    [...] originally saw this commencement address in print. Even though it was offered on the author’s Web site, I have to admit, my first thought was [...]

  17. Linkdump for June 19th at found_drama says:

    June 19th, 2009 at 10:03 pm (#)

    [...] When the Bat Signal calls at The Future of the Internet — And How to Stop It (via JW): The key is to move from the reactive, desultory world of Charlie Brown to one in which you appreciate that you are generally at least as empowered as the next person, and to realize the ethical dimension that accompanies the day-by-day as well as the landmark events in life. (tagged: humor education inspiration essay ) [...]

Blog

  • FOI Topics and Links of the Week
  • The Extraordinaries Haiti Earthquake Support Center. A followup post on the Extraordinaries’ efforts to use ubiquitous human computing to help find missing people after the Haiti earthquake — a positive vision inspired by JZ’s nightmare scenario of crowdsourced secret police work. Did they succeed? “Yes and no”—but, as they detail, there’s obvious potential for future disaster relief.

    Amazon Cracks Open the Kindle. Amazon is opening the Kindle to outside developers who can market their products in what sounds exactly like an App Store, down to the 70-30 revenue split and and light policing of apps. (One difference is that developers have to pay for wireless delivery.) It’s seeming like this is *the* model for the next few years. Speaking of which…

    Computers Should Be More Like Toasters. The sale of the Apple Tablet could mark an important moment for generativity. Computers have been shrinking and phones have been growing—but the critical difference has been that anyone could still code for a computer, until now. The Tablet looks more like a computer than a phone, but will Apple will prescreen apps they way it does for the iPhone? Farhad Manjoo thinks that would be a good thing, but there are clear generativity costs.

    The Splinternet means the end of the Web’s golden age. Josh Bernoff points out that, as we switch to appliancized computers and smart devices instead of PCs, the web becomes a “splinternet.” Websites show up and operate differently on each device. He thinks about how to handle this from a business and marketing perspective, advising: “Here’s what not to do: panic and try to unify things again. The shattering cannot be undone.”

    Technology Changes “Outstrip” Netbooks. Meanwhile, the BBC considers the convergence among netbooks, smartphones, and tablet notebooks, and who the short- and long-term winners are likely to be.

    Apple censors Dalai Lama iPhone Apps in China. An interesting look at how censorship works on iPhones in China. (The story was written pre-Google announcement, so some portions are out of date.) Apple, complying with local law, appears to be removing apps related to the Dalai Lama in the Chinese App Store, and a search for Falun Gong apps freezes the search page. On the other hand, it’s possible to access YouTube through an iPhone app, which isn’t always possible on a PC.

    And in the crystal ball dep’t — from JZ’s book:

    Imagine entering a café in Paris with one’s personal digital assistant or mobile phone, and being able to query: “Is there anyone on my buddy list within 100 yards? Are any of the ten closest friends of my ten closest friends within 100 yards?” Although this may sound fanciful, it could quickly become mainstream. With reputation systems already advising us on what to buy, why not have them also help us make the first cut on whom to meet, to date, to befriend? These are not difficult services to offer, and there are precursors today.

    As usual, there’s an app for that… the “datecheck” app allows you to enter a name, phone number, or email address, and get information on your date. The categories are “sleaze detector” (check of criminal convictions & sex offenses), “$$$” (home ownership, etc), “interests” (gleaned from social networks), “living situation” (who they live with), and “compatibility”—although unfortunately, the “compatibility” check is still just a check of astrological signs. Now all they need is friends’ feedback rankings.

    —By Elisabeth Oppenheimer

  • Life in a clickshop
  • In talks about ubicomp, JZ gives an example of a worst-case scenario involving ubicomp platforms. He imagines that the Iranian government could use Amazon Mechanical Turk to identify dissidents, simply by posting pictures of protestors and ID-card pictures of the adults in the country, then asking Turkers to match protestor pictures to ID-card pictures. Voila—and the Turkers wouldn’t necessarily have to know what they were doing. In the department of amazingly cool ideas, though, the folks at the Extraordinaries reflected on the Iran example and then turned it around. After the earthquake in Haiti, they posted news wire pictures of people in Haiti (with crowdsourced help), asked others to post pictures of missing relatives, and finally asked volunteers to try to match the two up. This is v 1.0 of what could be a terrific and widely-used technology after natural disasters, allowing people at home to do more than just donate money.

    As we keep thinking about ubicomp and the potential upsides and downsides, it’ll be important to keep in mind that it’s a tool—a largely undeveloped one as yet—with much room to develop in both directions. In that spirit, I wanted to comment on this piece from Technology Review that casts a skeptical eye on Prof. Zittrain’s recent column in Newsweek on cloud labor (also known as ubiquitous human computing). The Newsweek editors gave the piece the ominous headline “Work the New Digital Sweatshops,” and Tech Review bloggers question whether that’s really a fair description of the Mechanical Turk platform. I’m not sure there’s a real disagreement here—the Newsweek headline overstated the content of the piece. Much of the point, as I read it, was just that cloudwork practices are so new, dynamic, and varied that it’s hard to know what the good and bad effects will turn out to be. As they point out, this could be a boon for workers here in the US who want flexibility and autonomy, as well as creating new kinds of opportunities for workers abroad. A few specific points are worth thinking about, though.

    They quote John Horton, at Harvard, who put out a HIT (“human intelligence task”) on Amazon Mechanical Turk asking about working conditions, and found that a small majority think AMT requestors treat workers better than most real-world employers. That surprised me—maybe I spend too much time reading Turker messageboards, where the theme is often discontent. I wonder, though, whether many responders use AMT for fun or small income supplements, rather than to earn a living wage, which changes the complexion of the situation. Even if Horton is wholly correct, though, it doesn’t mean requestors can’t improve. For a project I’m doing for JZ’s winter cyberlaw class, we’ve put up some AMT HITs asking about worker satisfaction. We’ve found that people do not like doing search engine optimization or creating spam, and a majority (though not an overwhelming one) likes knowing what the project is for. Disclosure of the company’s identity or the project purpose could become a much stronger norm on AMT, which would help fend off the problems of work alienation and unwittingly doing bad things with the platform, but wouldn’t detract from any of the benefits TR bloggers praise.

    The other major point they make is that this type of work can be good for workers in developing countries. That’s definitely true in some cases (see, for instance, previous blogging about CrowdFlower’s GiveWork program). I certainly don’t have enough background in international development to make an unambiguous statement either way. But surely it’s worrisome that children can be made to do the work as well as adults—there’s just no way of knowing who’s at the other end of the system. Overall, for better or for worse, we live in a society where we’ve decided that paternalistic labor laws play some valuable role. Some of them can be imported into an AMT context—but maybe not internationally—and the technology means that some can’t, even if, like child labor, there’s widespread condemnation. I would agree, and I think JZ would too, that we don’t want regulators charging in with too heavy a hand. But we should be alert to what’s happening on these platforms.

    —By Elisabeth Oppenheimer

  • A quick cosmology question
  • The amazing Hubble telescope has now shown us images of galaxies from 13.2 billion years ago.  That’s because the light comes from 13.2 billion light years away, and took (by definition) that much time to get here:

    “The deeper Hubble looks into space, the farther back in time it looks, because light takes billions of years to cross the observable universe,” the Space Telescope Science Institute said in a statement released Tuesday.

    So that makes sense on one level.  But here’s what I don’t get: the light only took that long to get here if the starting point for it was in fact 13.2 billion light years away.  Since the universe is expanding, if one rewinds time, it shrinks.  Indeed, I thought the Big Bang to mean that at one point the Universe was a singularity, both meaning in a condition for which our laws of physics can’t say anything, and that it was essentially compressed into a single point.

    But if it was compressed into a single point — apparently about 5-600 million years further back from the 13.2 billion we’re now seeing — that means that 14 billion years ago everything was, well, extremely close to everything else.  So unless the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, how could anything be 13.2 billion light years away from us, 13.2 billion years ago?  Maybe something is that far now, but if so its light would only just be starting its journey to us.  The whole light year calculation presumes that something was that far away from us then – a time when the whole universe was much, much smaller in diameter.  Maybe it has something to do with the universe’s expansion as a matter of dark energy, e.g., the fabric of the universe itself expanding, vs. the expansion found as all the galaxies speed away from one another (countered by the actions of gravity)?  Something to do with the “inflationary period” catapulting everything really far away from everything else in one swoop?

    I’m sure I’m missing something here.  What is it?

  • Google takes on China
  • Google announced today that it would cease (well, phase out) censoring the results in google.cn, the Chinese-language version of its famed search engine.  It’s a pretty stunning move, both in its fact and in its execution.  First, the announcement of “A new approach to China” may appear to have buried the lede.  The lion’s share of the post is devoted to describing a series of coordinated attacks on the accounts of human rights activists, including those who use Google.  It includes a link to the amazing story of GhostNet, discovered by fellow ONI researchers when the Dalai Lama gave them his oddly-acting laptop to examine.

    Companies rarely share information about the cyberattacks they experience — conventional wisdom has it that it makes the company appear vulnerable, and drives customers away.  Here Google is open about the attacks, while of course assuring readers that it had tightened security as a result.  Google then links these attacks to a lessening of enthusiasm for doing business in China.  Eliminating censorship in google.cn is only mentioned after that.

    Suppose the Chinese government acts as expected and tells Google that it may no longer operate in China.  Google.cn might vanish as a domain name, since it’s hosted under the Chinese country-code TLD of .cn, ultimately controllable by the Chinese government.  But the search engine found there could of course keep operating from a different location, like cn.google.com.  Suppose then that China attempts to filter out traffic to and from that new location — and to and from google.com for good measure, as it has done from time to time, especially before the advent of google.cn and its agreement to censor.  (We’ll be watching for such moves at herdict.org, a site where users can report Web blockages.)

    What next?  My hope, and expectation, is that Google engineers who might have been a bit halfhearted about implementing censorship mandates in google.cn could be full-throttle in coming up with ways for Google to be viewed despite any network interruptions between site and user.  There are lots of unexplored options here.  They’re unexplored not because they’re infeasible, but because most sites would rather not provoke a government that filters.  So they don’t undertake to get information out in ways that might evade blockages.  Here, Google would have nothing more to lose, so could pioneer some new approaches.  Circumvention of filtering (or other blockages, for that matter) tends to happen on the user side of things, seeking out proxies like the Tor network, or anonymizer.com.

    To be sure, many of the larger benefits of operating in China originally cited by Google four years ago — exposing the citizenry to services beyond those locally grown and monitored; engaging them beyond the “China Wide Web” to which some government officials aspire to limit them; and gaining market share that can create momentum and support for later loosening of restrictions — may attenuate.  Google.cn is less known and used than, say, the local Baidu search engine, which boasts about 60% market share.  That share is about to get even bigger.

    But drawing a line is both the right move and a brilliant one.  It helps realign Google’s business with its ethos, and masterfully recasts the firm in a place it will feel more comfortable: supporting the free and open dissemination of information rather than metering it out according to undesirable (and capricious) government standards.

  • Malicious Apps in the Android Market
  • As we knew would happen sooner or later, a dangerous malicious app has apparently made its way into Android’s Market. The app is said to “create[] a shell of mobile banking apps” and collect users’ personal information. It’s been removed; no word on how many users, if any, were actually affected.

    Offhand, I can’t think of an app with comparable problems that has gotten into iPhone’s app store. What will be really interesting about this incident, and the similar ones that are sure to follow, is how users and vendors react. I can imagine this creating hysterical urging for Google to pre-screen all Android apps the way Apple does, but I think that would be premature. Yes, an open Market(s) is going to have more questionable apps, but there are many solutions other than lockdown—a strong user ranking for apps (which already exists), a way to alert people who have already downloaded the app, sandboxing (which admittedly wouldn’t have mattered here), or a quick way to freeze the app while complaints are investigating. They’re only partial solutions, but lockdown is only partial, too.

    Now that the Android OS is really starting to take off, this story is going to be repeated, and we’ll get to see how strongly committed Google is to the principles it built the OS on — and whether there are models out there for vetting third party code that do better than those of the generative PC, but aren’t as restrictive as that of the iPhone.

    —By Elisabeth Oppenheimer

    Update: eWeek reports that Google has removed a number of suspicious apps from its marketplace.  Of course, the more generative structure of the Android market means that “banned” apps can be obtained elsewhere — unlike the iPhone app monopoly enjoyed by Apple, where the iPhone App store is the only point of distribution.  –JZ

About Jonathan Zittrain

jonathan zittrain

Jonathan Zittrain is Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and co-founder of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School

RSS Tweets from Z

  • Hosting Cliff Stoll at the Berkman Center tonight http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/2010/02/stoll
  • Iranian internet+sms "conveniently" slowing down b4 planned protests: http://bit.ly/9YzC3m
  • RT @ruskin147: http://bit.ly/aLmScH New blog post - Apple - an open and shut case. Linking to the Zittrain piece in FT - and starting in ...
  • iPad: a fight over freedom at Apple's core http://bit.ly/bglwoG

Blog Archives



Creative Commons BY-NC-SA Jonathan Zittrain unless otherwise noted.
Powered by WordPress using Gridline Lite.