Useful Void: The Art of Forgetting in the Age of Ubiquitous Computing
Viktor Mayer-Schönberger has penned an interesting paper that goes against our natural tendency to preserve our past. In Useful Void: The Art of Forgetting in the Age of Ubiquitous Computing [PDF], Mayer-Schönberger argues that in the digital age, a comprehensive trail of our actions, words and beliefs is being preserved for posterity, and aided with distributive and recovery capabilities of the internet, could inadvertently pose a danger to society. In effect, our technology-aided ability to recall everything is creating panopticon world that threatens to stifle the public discourse that fuels the engines of our democracies. Technology evolved fulfilling our retention desires, with default to retain, rather than delete. Mayer-Schönberger wishes to reset the default; to enable our technology to forget.
Already, there has been growing concerns with the retention and use of private, historical information. Just about all of our public, and increasingly private transactions are being captured, stored and combined with other data to create information that in return is used to paint a target on us. There is no anonymity in surfing the internet, purchasing with credit cards or using public spaces. In a world afraid of terrorists lurking around every corner, surveillance capabilities of public and private institutions will continue to increase. Advertising dollars continue to shift from old media to the new as a result of the latter promise to target individuals more accurately based on their demographic profile and personal desires. Google apparently has all user queries saved since the beginning of Google Inc. We are all potential terrorists and consumers in this increasingly monitored world that relies on our past behaviours.
In response to privacy concerns, there has been efforts to protect personal information via legislation and constitutional reinterpretation (Canada and US, anyway) … both of which Mayer-Schönberger addresses and discounts for being ineffective. Mayer-Schönberger also tackles the do-nothing approach, and one suggested by Lawrence Lessig, which would employ rules within technology to influence and constrain our behaviour. The do-nothing approach is dismissed as being irresponsible, but Lessig's suggestion is fine-tuned to tackle the resetting of the default state of remembering. Mayer-Schönberger suggests that our technology should have a built in default to forget, and this requirement should be mandated by legislation. Webcams and surveillance cameras would have short defaults to forget what they've stored. Internet Cookies would expire in days or weeks, not decades. Search engines would have to delete what you've searched for over time, including losing caches to sites no longer in existence. Digital photographs would need to be deleted based on your personal preferences. It all sounds good, but stepping back to look at what problem Mayer-Schönberger is trying to solve, leaves me unconvinced.
Mayer-Schönberger wanting to reset the default to enable forgetting is in response to the potential misuse of information detailing past behaviour. With our every action being recorded, we may temper future dialogue for fear of being taken out of context and misrepresented. Behind the potential misuse of private information however is narrow perspective of the past. The past has already happened, and doesn't necessarily dictate future behaviour. It does, however, hold invaluable information and insights that can be leveraged for future value -- privately and publicly -- that we have yet to fully grasp. True, private information should only be used via expressed consent, but it should be remembered for what it is: the past, and not necessarily a harbinger of the future. Mayer-Schönberger uses the example of Amazon's suggestion feature, where Amazon suggests what you may want to read based on past purchase decisions. So, if you purchased a children's book in the past as a gift, suddenly, Amazon thinks you also like to read kids literature. This is exactly why the past should be forgotten, but it also why, while the past may be interesting from a historical perspective, it isn't necessarily predictive of the future, nor should it be given such relevancy.
Of course, therein lies the catch. We give the past much relevancy in the present. We dissect every sentence ever said by public figures in the hopes of catching them in inconsistencies. We enjoy finding the duplicity of others. We don't allow for change, yet expect others to give us a fair shake, independent of our past blunders. It's not the past we need to be afraid of, it's us -- and there is no technology or legislation that is about to solve that little problem. Mayer-Schönberger's suggestion however -- not a bad attempt at of a band-aid for human nature.
Already, there has been growing concerns with the retention and use of private, historical information. Just about all of our public, and increasingly private transactions are being captured, stored and combined with other data to create information that in return is used to paint a target on us. There is no anonymity in surfing the internet, purchasing with credit cards or using public spaces. In a world afraid of terrorists lurking around every corner, surveillance capabilities of public and private institutions will continue to increase. Advertising dollars continue to shift from old media to the new as a result of the latter promise to target individuals more accurately based on their demographic profile and personal desires. Google apparently has all user queries saved since the beginning of Google Inc. We are all potential terrorists and consumers in this increasingly monitored world that relies on our past behaviours.
In response to privacy concerns, there has been efforts to protect personal information via legislation and constitutional reinterpretation (Canada and US, anyway) … both of which Mayer-Schönberger addresses and discounts for being ineffective. Mayer-Schönberger also tackles the do-nothing approach, and one suggested by Lawrence Lessig, which would employ rules within technology to influence and constrain our behaviour. The do-nothing approach is dismissed as being irresponsible, but Lessig's suggestion is fine-tuned to tackle the resetting of the default state of remembering. Mayer-Schönberger suggests that our technology should have a built in default to forget, and this requirement should be mandated by legislation. Webcams and surveillance cameras would have short defaults to forget what they've stored. Internet Cookies would expire in days or weeks, not decades. Search engines would have to delete what you've searched for over time, including losing caches to sites no longer in existence. Digital photographs would need to be deleted based on your personal preferences. It all sounds good, but stepping back to look at what problem Mayer-Schönberger is trying to solve, leaves me unconvinced.
Mayer-Schönberger wanting to reset the default to enable forgetting is in response to the potential misuse of information detailing past behaviour. With our every action being recorded, we may temper future dialogue for fear of being taken out of context and misrepresented. Behind the potential misuse of private information however is narrow perspective of the past. The past has already happened, and doesn't necessarily dictate future behaviour. It does, however, hold invaluable information and insights that can be leveraged for future value -- privately and publicly -- that we have yet to fully grasp. True, private information should only be used via expressed consent, but it should be remembered for what it is: the past, and not necessarily a harbinger of the future. Mayer-Schönberger uses the example of Amazon's suggestion feature, where Amazon suggests what you may want to read based on past purchase decisions. So, if you purchased a children's book in the past as a gift, suddenly, Amazon thinks you also like to read kids literature. This is exactly why the past should be forgotten, but it also why, while the past may be interesting from a historical perspective, it isn't necessarily predictive of the future, nor should it be given such relevancy.
Of course, therein lies the catch. We give the past much relevancy in the present. We dissect every sentence ever said by public figures in the hopes of catching them in inconsistencies. We enjoy finding the duplicity of others. We don't allow for change, yet expect others to give us a fair shake, independent of our past blunders. It's not the past we need to be afraid of, it's us -- and there is no technology or legislation that is about to solve that little problem. Mayer-Schönberger's suggestion however -- not a bad attempt at of a band-aid for human nature.
Comments
Post a Comment