Datafication, Phantasmagoria of the 21st Century
A friend sent me the photo on the left, marvelling at human ingenuity.
I also admired the photo on the left.
And then I reflected…
Everyday, nature performs feats of innovation that we will never be able to replicate.
What does this have to do with a blog about digital technologies?
It is all about what we (as a civilisation) consider as valid knowledge, what ways of knowing we TRUST, what we hold as true, what we admire.
I was reading the French news. The first page there was a title which read « en direct : la guerre en Ukraine », of course nowadays nobody bats an eyelid when they see that kind of title in a newspaper. We have come to see the direct reporting of wars, atrocities, tragedies or death as a completely natural phenomenon. But if you sit for a second and reflect upon this very simple title, you open a whole new way to understand our civilisation.
Browsing the titles in the French press spurred a reflection about how in just one century, our media have moved from the certainty of modernity to a post-modern world of radical contextualisation. Hundred years ago, mainstream valid knowledge was scientific, linear, and absolutistic (I say “mainstream” because of course Quantum Physics opened a whole new realm in terms of ways of knowing, but the science that was taught in schools was still newtonian). I say this in the sense of Clare Graves level four (blue level), there was one truth. Today we have opened to diversity in such a way that we have gone to the other extreme. Anything goes. The notions of right and wrong have been fully turned into contextual assessments. At the peak of modernity’s trust and faith in the so-called scientific method, which in fact was really a mechanistic worldview and a belief in positivism, the world was a simple aggregation of cause and effect. In this context of course, it became necessary to counterbalance with post-modernity, the view that things were not so straightforward (to put it simply) and that context actually played a major role in the complexity of life. Today we have moved to the other extreme, when universal laws don’t exist anymore. Moving into the extreme of post-modernity has led to the tribalisation of societies, and social platforms largely contributed to this phenomenon.
I was also thinking about the vital importance of explaining that we need to become aware of how we frame what we see. What I mean is if we started to really see and experience social platforms not as neutral means of communication or connection but as environments, therefore highly designed architectures, we would probably naturally behave in different ways when we are online. In fact, we can do this as we lead our life online and off-line. Proprioception and phenomenology, i.e. awareness of self and experience (or rather knowing the world through an embodied experience), are tools to help us do this. The awareness of how built environment carry with them a manipulative agenda is the crux of the matter in this case.
I am not using the word manipulative, in a deprecating sense. Design by nature is a manipulative discipline. But manipulation happens at all levels of communication. To live as a social being means to manipulate in one way or another, “manipulate” our environment, “manipulate” others. Understood in the most primal sense of the word (the Latin term “manus” means “hand”), this kind of manipulation can also be called relationship. Manipulation can imply to “manipulate” someone so they take their medicine every day, thereby enabling them to live their life with increased well-being. The question is: what is the intention behind the design, or the architecture, or the manipulation? As I am writing this, I’m thinking that another word for design could be manipulation. Architecture and the architectural choices represent manipulation and the intention behind the manipulation.
So I was thinking that maybe an interesting provocation could be to reflect on the passage from modernity to post-modernity, and how each of us is positioning ourselves in this very long term trend in the evolution of knowledge production. Are we aware of what’s going on; what meaning do we give to what’s happening in the world at the moment?
A hacker friend sent me a number of resources that introduce and clearly but simply explain digital privacy. I am sharing these here without much comment.
A good general resource: https://www.privacyguides.org/en
Very short description of why privacy is important (I get SO MANY questions about why it’s important!) https://www.privacyguides.org/en/basics/why-privacy-matters
This is a blurb on why privacy is important by Mullvad VPN: https://mullvad.net/en/why-privacy-matters
NB: the pdf version is available here: https://mullvad.net/pdfs/Total_surveillance.pdf
These 3 articles explain the concept of threat modelling, to understand your own situation in order to know what to do/not do.
https://www.privacyguides.org/en/basics/threat-modeling
https://privsec.dev/posts/knowledge/threat-modeling
https://opsec101.org
A little bit more detail on what kinds of threats most people think about when threat modelling: https://www.privacyguides.org/en/basics/common-threats
And then, once the person has thought about their threat model and has a rough idea about it, then comes the part about choosing and deploying countermeasures.
This is a question people often ask me: what tools can I use? Here are some references for tools that can be used, depending on the threat model one has identified: https://www.privacyguides.org/en/tools
it is important to remember that it’s difficult to prescribe a one-size-fits-all solution for everyone, because each person’s threat model will be different.
Someone who is only concerned with surveillance capitalism will need to approach things differently vs. a high net worth individual or celebrity concerned about their physical and digital security vs. a political dissident or whistleblower.
Hope this helps!
A series of articles on the topic by the Swedish VPN provider Mullvad.
https://mullvad.net/en/why-privacy-matters
The info above is also available in a pdf here.
Bruce Schneier’s blog “Schneier on Security” often presents thought-provoking pieces about the digital. This one directly relates to the core question of my PhD about the shifting nature of reality in the digital age.
A piece worth reading. You can also browse through the comments on his blog.
Schneier’s self intro on his blog: “I am a public-interest technologist, working at the intersection of security, technology, and people. I’ve been writing about security issues on my blog since 2004, and in my monthly newsletter since 1998. I’m a fellow and lecturer at Harvard’s Kennedy School, a board member of EFF, and the Chief of Security Architecture at Inrupt, Inc.”
DATAFIED: A Critical Exploration of the Production of Knowledge in the Age of Datafication
This presentation by Hélène Liu introduces the main findings of her PhD critical research on the profound epistemological shift that accompanies the digital age. To a large extent, civilisations can be understood by the kind of knowledge they produce, and how they go about knowing what they know.
Inspired by The Arcades Project, the seminal work of early 20th-century philosopher and social critic Walter Benjamin, “DATAFIED” asks what civilisation is emerging at the dawn of the 21st century. The spread of algorithms -based on quantified, discrete, computer-ready data bits- to all qualitative aspects of life has far-reaching consequences.
The fanfare around the novelty aspect of social media and more recently of AI obfuscates the old paradigm ideology of quantification underlying the development of those technologies. The language used since its inception anthropomorphises digital technology and conceals a fundamental difference between datafied and human ways of knowing. As we embark in a new wave of increasingly inescapable digital architectures, it has become more urgent and more crucial to critically investigate their problematic epistemological dimension.
The video begins with an introduction of Hélène Liu and is followed by her talk that concludes with pointers toward a more regenerative ecology of knowing deeply inspired by the knowledge and insights shared during the Capra course (capracourse.net). After her presentation we hear reactions and reflections by Fritjof Capra, the teacher of the Capra Course and co-author of The Systems View of Life.
Presenter: Hélène Liu
Helene holds Masters degrees from the Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris-University of Paris (Economics and Finance), the University of Hong Kong (Buddhist Studies) and a PhD from the School of Design at the Polytechnic University of Hong Kong. She is a long-term meditator and student of Vajrayana Buddhism. She recently produced and is releasing her first music album, The Guru Project (open.spotify.com/artist/3JuD6YwXidv7Y2i1mBakGY), which emerged from a concern about the divisiveness of the algorithmic civilisation. The album brings together the universal language of mantras with music from a diversity of geographies and genres, as a call to focus on our similarities rather than our differences.
NB: The link to the Vimeo is https://vimeo.com/839319910
In the early days of the commercial internet, websites just used cookies to track.
Today, tracking has become much deeper and more sophisticated. The advertising tech industry has developed new ways to track users (NB: what I call the advertising tech industry is basically Facebook, google and all these data brokers or “consumer intelligence” companies).
The key to programmatic advertising, this entire ad industry upon which the entire internet as we know it today runs off of, is IDENTITY.
It monitors and scoops up all the information about everything people do on the internet, i.e., all the big data. But then they need to associate actions and data and insight with individual identities (if you visit YouTube everyday from your home, office, cafe and gym and also do so from your MacBook, mobile, tablets and computer, those are all disparate tidbits of info that need to be unified and linked under your identity for it to be valuable information).
So the key for a data industry players now is all about managing the unique user identities/profiles, each of which they will gather and add behavioral tracking and other data to.
In their systems, I have a profile, you have a profile, etc… but not a profile in the sense that we have made an account with the data company, but rather based on the dossiers they have on all of us.
Here is an interesting article listing out some key ID data companies. They are the ones that compile and maintain shadow identities of people.
The article outlines how each company creates an ID (by email address, IP address, postal address, cookies, device software/hardware information, combination of these, etc…).
Here is a graph summarising the sources contributing to building profiles.
This graph helps you to take action to protect your privacy for each of the items listed above.
Check the previous posts on this blog for more privacy tips.
Undersea cables are the unseen backbone of the global internet.
Robin Chataut, Quinnipiac University
Have you ever wondered how an email sent from New York arrives in Sydney in mere seconds, or how you can video chat with someone on the other side of the globe with barely a hint of delay? Behind these everyday miracles lies an unseen, sprawling web of undersea cables, quietly powering the instant global communications that people have come to rely on.
Undersea cables, also known as submarine communications cables, are fiber-optic cables laid on the ocean floor and used to transmit data between continents. These cables are the backbone of the global internet, carrying the bulk of international communications, including email, webpages and video calls. More than 95% of all the data that moves around the world goes through these undersea cables.
These cables are capable of transmitting multiple terabits of data per second, offering the fastest and most reliable method of data transfer available today. A terabit per second is fast enough to transmit about a dozen two-hour, 4K HD movies in an instant. Just one of these cables can handle millions of people watching videos or sending messages simultaneously without slowing down.
About 485 undersea cables totaling over 900,000 miles sit on the the ocean floor. These cables span the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, as well as strategic passages such as the Suez Canal and isolated areas within oceans.
Laying cables under the sea
Each undersea cable contains multiple optical fibers, thin strands of glass or plastic that use light signals to carry vast amounts of data over long distances with minimal loss. The fibers are bundled and encased in protective layers designed to withstand the harsh undersea environment, including pressure, wear and potential damage from fishing activities or ship anchors. The cables are typically as wide as a garden hose.
The process of laying undersea cables starts with thorough seabed surveys to chart a map in order to avoid natural hazards and minimize environmental impact. Following this step, cable-laying ships equipped with giant spools of fiber-optic cable navigate the predetermined route.
As the ship moves, the cable is unspooled and carefully laid on the ocean floor. The cable is sometimes buried in seabed sediments in shallow waters for protection against fishing activities, anchors and natural events. In deeper areas, the cables are laid directly on the seabed.
Along the route, repeaters are installed at intervals to amplify the optical signal and ensure data can travel long distances without degradation. This entire process can take months or even years, depending on the length and complexity of the cable route. https://www.youtube.com/embed/yd1JhZzoS6A?wmode=transparent&start=0 How undersea cables are installed.
Threats to undersea cables
Each year, an estimated 100 to 150 undersea cables are cut, primarily accidentally by fishing equipment or anchors. However, the potential for sabotage, particularly by nation-states, is a growing concern. These cables, crucial for global connectivity and owned by consortia of internet and telecom companies, often lie in isolated but publicly known locations, making them easy targets for hostile actions.
The vulnerability was highlighted by unexplained failures in multiple cables off the coast of West Africa on March 14, 2024, which led to significant internet disruptions affecting at least 10 nations. Several cable failures in the Baltic Sea in 2023 raised suspicions of sabotage.
The strategic Red Sea corridor has emerged as a focal point for undersea cable threats. A notable incident involved the attack on the cargo ship Rubymar by Houthi rebels. The subsequent damage to undersea cables from the ship’s anchor not only disrupted a significant portion of internet traffic between Asia and Europe but also highlighted the complex interplay between geopolitical conflicts and the security of global internet infrastructure.
Protecting the cables
Undersea cables are protected in several ways, starting with strategic route planning to avoid known hazards and areas of geopolitical tension. The cables are constructed with sturdy materials, including steel armor, to withstand harsh ocean conditions and accidental impacts.
Beyond these measures, experts have proposed establishing “cable protection zones” to limit high-risk activities near cables. Some have suggested amending international laws around cables to deter foreign sabotage and developing treaties that would make such interference illegal.
The recent Red Sea incident shows that help for these connectivity challenges might lie above rather than below. After cables were compromised in the region, satellite operators used their networks to reroute internet traffic. Undersea cables are likely to continue carrying the vast majority of the world’s internet traffic for the foreseeable future, but a blended approach that uses both undersea cables and satellites could provide a measure of protection against cable cuts.
Robin Chataut, Assistant Professor of Cybersecurity and Computer Science, Quinnipiac University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Read this article by Joseph Stiglitz (see bio below) in Project Syndicate about the nascent steps to protect data privacy in the US. In February 2024, the Biden administration published an executive order to ban the transfer of “certain types “sensitive personal” data to some countries.
This is a drop in the ocean and the US is way behind in terms of protecting their citizens’ data from being exploited by the players in the data economy (compared to the EU for example). However, it is probably the beginning of a trend toward increased protection against a predatory system that has created too many anti competitive practices and social harms to be listed here. Admittedly, the US is walking on eggshells because regulating the digital seems directly at odd with the US competitive advantage in this domain.
“The firms that make money from our data (including personal medical, financial, and geolocation information) have spent years trying to equate “free flows of data” with free speech. They will try to frame any Biden administration public-interest protections as an effort to shut down access to news websites, cripple the internet, and empower authoritarians. That is nonsense.”
Over the past 20-25 years, the narrative about digital technology has been consistently driven by Big Tech to hide the full extent of what was really happening. The idealistic beliefs of democratisation, equality, friendship, connection from the early internet served as a smokescreen to the development of a behemoth fundamentally exploitative data industry that pervades all areas of the economy and society.
Today, large tech monopolies use indirect ways to try to quash attempts to change the status quo and counter Big Tech abuses.
“Tech companies know that if there is an open, democratic debate, consumers’ concerns about digital safeguards will easily trump concerns about their profit margins. Industry lobbyists thus have been busy trying to short-circuit the democratic process. One of their methods is to press for obscure trade provisions aimed at circumscribing what the United States and other countries can do to protect personal data.“
The article details previous attempts to ban any possible provisions preventing executive and congressional power over data regulation and establish special clauses in trade pacts to grant secrecy rights (an ironic state of affairs considering that the early Internet was developed on exactly opposite values). It is important to realise that most efforts are spent on surreptitious (INDIRECT) ways to limit any possibility of regulation through trade agreements for example, what Stiglitz calls “Big Tech’s favoured “digital trade” handcuffs“.
Stiglitz concluding remark reminds us that the stakes are high: ultimately, the choices made today have the potential to impact the democratic order.
“Whatever one’s position on the regulation of Big Tech – whether one believes that its anti-competitive practices and social harms should be restricted or not – anyone who believes in democracy should applaud the Biden administration for its refusal to put the cart before the horse. The US, like other countries, should decide its digital policy democratically. If that happens, I suspect the outcome will be a far cry from what Big Tech and its lobbyists were pushing for.“
Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics and University Professor at Columbia University, is a former chief economist of the World Bank (1997-2000), chair of the US President’s Council of Economic Advisers, and co-chair of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices. He is Co-Chair of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation and was lead author of the 1995 IPCC Climate Assessment.
© 2024 Datafication & Technology
Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑