Connecting lobsters and monopoly and altruism and robots can be less whimsical than you might think. I did it in this debate for the Citizen Jane Blog.
Strategy aside, the debate was entertaining, as far as it went. Below is a clip from the second round. Worth reading, I’d say!
After circling each other like sniffling wolves for one round, this was part of the debate ending reply:
Obviously, what we’re talking about is a vicious cycle: as big corporations take ownership of personal data, a scarce resource, they are able to improve methods and technologies which allow them to accrue more of that resource. It’s approaching a monopoly in effect, if not in semantic detail. Given the amount that small governments have become reliant on the largess of these corporations–take the city where Apple recently planted a shiny new building on that gilded hill, for example. And that the tentacles of these industries have wrapped around the culture, reinforced by lobbying, and socially justified by the amount of “altruism” they engage in. (Let’s be clear: private corporations exist for private profit.) Then we might see this as a corporatization of the market space, and indeed our entire society. Indeed, there were bills recently introduced in Congress to privatize public lands, a further step in privatizing the public sphere. The rot is everywhere, and the private-public distinction hasn’t faded, rather the public good has been consumed by private interests.
The question of this debate— who owns information?— is not a technical one, one that a lawyer might answer; that is not within our expertise and we would add nothing of value to that conversation. But it is a procedural question, a political one. Who should own information? For that, “Is tech an existential threat,” which was the name of a recent speech on a similar topic, might be a better fit. Your statements, both of them actually, presume the answer to that question is the consumer. Technically debatable. But fine. For the purposes of debate, I’ll grant that. What I want to hear is how you propose to transition to an incentive structure whereby consumers can retain “ownership” of personal data within the market structure which we have, which has led to the creation of this problem in the first place. Or what elements of that market structure you propose to reform. This is the tension I was trying to get at in my last statement.
So I reiterate my earlier point: your call to “rethink” these things is vague to the point of meaninglessness.
The difference between us is very small. If I understand your position correctly, then the difference between us primarily rests in your claim (implicit in the first statement; semi-voiced in the second) that the market is easily capable of containing these mounting contradictions. I suggest that it might not be. Or at least it would require a transformation of the structure around the market akin to the anti-monopolization programs of yore.
I think the rougher and tougher questions at play will have to do with biological information. The case of Henrietta Lacks is a good example of how this conversation has become relevant already, and why this is as much a political question as anything else, and it suggests the stakes at play here. With tech like Crispr, or the coding of the human genome generally, the very essence of our beings has been reduced to data. We are, in a very real manner of speaking, just data in physical form. What’s the difference between me and a lobster? Just a few lines of code, so to speak.
But this puts the question in a personal vein. Is some data not salable (is some data “inalienable”, in other words)? I put the question to you. Presumably, there is no market-driven reason for this view. So the question is twofold: what’s your answer and from where do you derive your answer to this question?
In my view, the answer will likely end up being a resounding “no”. Whether or not this is a moral answer, I’m not so sure. But for the advancement of disease-fighting, for the slow-down of the aging process, for the continued eradication of suffering caused by a lack of efficiency, it’s necessary. But, a rather large hindrance, this will require systematized barbarity. It will weaponize systematic thinking and ethics-related thought experiments. A recent example posed to me: a turn on the trolly problem. Should automated, driverless cars sacrifice their passenger by swerving off the road, say, to save another passenger(s)? On what basis should the determination be made? Germany (I think it was Germany) has recently attempted to set a priori limits to the basis on which these kinds of decision can be made. It remains to be seen whether or not this is viable. But calling for a rethink doesn’t quite cut the mustard.
There are still other problems we might not be able to address, too. Like the absorption of other industries by the big behemoths. Amazon buying Whole Foods is a prime example of this. Ultimately, this kind of thing threatens to automate jobs and establish mass and sustained unemployment. We also won’t be able to address the now unstable definitions of consciousness or personhood which have far-reaching implications. Though, I will take the opportunity to point out that Saudi Arabia (of all places!) granted citizenship to a robot recently, the first country to do so. Because that should be more well known. But that’s perhaps enough of a data dump for one response.
- Note: Featured image found through “labeled for reuse” Google search.
Pugnacious Punctuation. 