User:Cnmirose

[http://www.winlab.rutgers.edu/~crose Christopher Rose]

"Notable" article: cover story in

[http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v431/n7004/index.html 9/2/04 issue] of Nature Magazine provides a novel take

on the SETI problem -- [http://www.winlab.rutgers.edu/~crose/cgi-bin/cosmic22.html ET Might Write, Not Radiate]. Press coverage appears

[http://www.winlab.rutgers.edu/~crose/cgi-bin/cosmic22.html#PRESS here]

(NY Times article and editorial, BBC and NPR radio interviews, etc.).

Below is a letter I wrote to William Safire of the NY Times a ways back when

the DoD's [http://www.darpa.mil/ipto/programs/lifelog/ LifeLog]

program was roundly denounced. As construed by the DoD and others, I'm also

a denunciator, but as a communications theorist (and someone living in the modern

world) I see elements of LifeLog emerging all around us, but not in the

centralized way the government might have planned. In fact, I could

imagine it being like wikipedia in some ways.

---

Dear Mr. Safire,

I read your June 5th, 2003 NY Times Op-Ed piece with great interest.

I'm a professor of Electrial and Computer Engineering

with a specialty in communications, and I've mulled the ideas

over for quite a while. I even submitted a (failed, alas)

white paper to the National Science Foundation on aspects

of the topic a few years ago. Not surprisingly, one of the reviewers

had many of the same Orwellian feelings that this issue seems

to evoke almost universally. However, many vocal proponents

AND opponents of things like LifeLog are perhaps missing the

point.

Our social structures are very much based on records of events

both written and otherwise. Just think of the legal system.

So, recording one's environment, as an intellectual abstraction,

is simply not the issue -- any place you are (assuming you're

awake :) ) is subject to your "recording" in some fashion for

later "playback."

So the issue is not one of "volks spying" or

"volks intelligence" but the assumptions that it's

not symmetric, and that information is not controllable by

the owner. That is, most everyone has eyes and ears, so

it's acceptable for a bystander to look/listen in a public

space. Everyone's "playback" is subject to similar fuzziness

and (un)believability problems, and at least at present, it

is difficult to extract reliable memories through force

or subterfuge.

However, a fundamental assumption by both sides of the issue

(intelligence community and civil liberties activists) is that

there's an asymmetry in how information is collected and used,

usually in favor of "the government." Well, starting with

civil liberties fears, what if accurate and verifiable recordings

could be made by everyone about anything, and rapidly shared if

desired, but kept private if not? My guess is the result

would be much more like Rodney King than Big Brother, so long

as you could always watch the watcher watching -- perhaps down

to having many of the same personal details about a watcher

as the watcher has about you.

As for the intelligence community, the basic issue which seems

to be missed is that in some respects people have a greater desire

and capacity to collectively protect themselves than a police

force or government agency. That does not mean (necessarily)

reporting on the late night activities of Mr. Jones, but rather

simply tapping the joy of sharing (factual) information -- ostensibly

the hallmark of good journalism. So, what if everyone could

be a source of news based on their reporting history with the

explicit assumption that erroneous reports could be quickly

weeded out because they'd not be verifiable? Harnessing

such self-interest (along with certain human information processing

capabilities far greater than any modern computer) could be a

societal godsend.

So all told, perhaps both public fears based on (a healthy) distrust

of government and a natural governmental inclination towards

strictly vertical and secret intelligence hierarchies are both misguided

when it comes to LifeLog. Certainly there are deep legal and social

issues that must be addressed. For instance, can you be legally

prohibited from recording your surroundings if I've invited you

into my home? -- and if so, could I also force you to shut your

eyes and stopper your ears? However, the real societal benefits

something like a LifeLog could produce might far outweigh liabilities,

all of which can probably be made manageable through a combination

of existing or easily invented technical and social means.

Or perhaps we should simply be practical. No matter what we might

think, the Internet, cell phones which do everything

including take pictures, the portable massive personal

storage and processing capabilities we now take for granted coupled

to the natural human tendency to share information will

produce some version of LifeLog whether we like it or not. So, maybe

we better quickly figure out how to sculpt LifeLog for the societal

good.

Cheers,

Chris Rose

PS: Sorry this turned into an op-ed piece/tirade.

You can visit the web page in the banner below to

establish than I'm not (or am :) ) a crank.

Prof. Christopher Rose

Associate Director, Rutgers WINLAB

73 Brett Road

Piscataway, NJ 08854

(732) 445-5250 (fax: 3693)

mailto:crose@winlab.rutgers.edu

http://www.winlab.rutgers.edu/~crose

---