Recently in Open Culture/Tech Category

Thanks to Ming for this.

Britt Blaser says some very interesting things about money and capitalism, which I'm trying to wrap my mind around. He says we're watching the death throes of what he calls "Managerial Capitalism", which I agree with. And he also seems to feel that a more grassroots kind of self-organizing, reputation based kind of economy ought to replace it, which I also agree with. And then he says:

"Money is Free. Get Used To It."

Capitalistically funded and traditionally managed big companies are terribly inefficient and deliver things many people don't really want, and they're bad at leading people to fulfill their potentials and use their skills really well. So, why are they still the main thing? I'd say, because of the first point, that the people who create them are more well-informed about some important things than you and I. Not well-informed about what we really want, or the best ways of producing that, but well-informed about capital - how to get it, keep it and increase it. And how to keep the general public in the dark concerning your game. They make it look like we all can be co-owners of the capital, owning stocks, investing, having good credit, having a nice credit line, etc. But that is just a distraction, I think. The real thing that would make a difference would be the information about how to organize people and resources efficiently and effectively, without needing investment capital and without needing managers. I.e. the knowledge of how to bring the elements into synergy, without requiring the one guy with all the money to be in charge.

I agree wholeheartedly with Ming on this. I don't think that the current form of capitalism is anything remotely resembling a free-market. I support the idea of people creating community around entirely different economic principles. For me the key is free and consensual. What we have instead is a top-heavy, hierarchical, corporate-centered tyranny that uses the strong-arm of the law (read "ability to imprison or kill you") to get what they want at the expense of democratic principles, environmental sanity, innovation, and basic civil liberties. See the story below on the recent blow to the spirit of copyright to see my point. Its my strong feeling, that without these strong-arm protections that corporations enjoy, they would die and give way to a more transparent, accessible and bottoms-up type of adhoc organization that is responsive to peoples needs. Since such an organization would be more responsive to the market, in a true free-market such organizations would win in the the marketplace over the corpocracies we have now. So I suppose I'm more accurately a left-leaning libertarian free-market capitalist if there is such a thing. Of course I've always referred to myself as an up-winger.

By Paul | Permalink | Comments (2) |

You may have read, "the end of free is near" for content on the web. There is even a high profile blog devoted to it. But I beg to differ. Consider this:

The number of amateur sites and blogs far outweighs the number of heavyweights and big media content providers. In fact the amount of quality content since the wide-spread emergence of blogs is so great, that the actual content provided by the big players is negligible by comparison. But the story goes, that these higher quality writers need to make a living. Sure, I'm not arguing that, but there are just as many high quality writers who have their own blogs who make money doing something else for their primary income. And when you take the advent of smart news aggretators like Amphetadesk, it only makes the task of getting the news you need that much easier. When a site starts charging for content, the Net effect will treat such charged content as censorship and route around it.

So what is my prediction? I'm predicting the opposite of other more prominent techno-pundits: 2003 will be the year of the end of "the end of free". Instead we are going to see a massive proliferation of amateur writing permeate the net in unprecedented ways. And with increasingly sophisticated filtering and search tools, we will be able to keep up with the best of the best based on our own web-of-trust and customized reputation systems. I also expect that the best writers will be able to get payed for their work through pay-pal and other voluntary tipping mechanisms. I know of several writers who have managed to get some money from their very kind and loyal readers.

By Paul | Permalink |

There has been an ongoing discussion about Digital Identities between Doc Searl, Eric Norlin and David Weinberger. And this months CIO has a great survey of which #8: Identity Crisis talks about the necessity of decentralizing our identities. It makes the very important point that if we rely on increasingly unique biometric identifiers it would only make the problem of identity theft worse. If someone is able to spoof your fingerprint or other biometric identifier, then how would you be able to prove you were you? The answer lies in giving you back control of your identity. After all, as long you have control over your identity, does Amazon really need to know who you are, as long as you can secure payment?

John Gilmore is also challenging identity by refusing to give his ID to board an airplane.

Freedom of Travel. I'm suing Attorney General John Ashcroft and various federal agencies, to make them stop demanding that citizens identify themselves in order to travel. Not only airports, but trains, buses, and cruise ships are now imposing ID requirements. This violates several constitutional rights. Stop showing ID whenever someone asks (or demands) it, and you will start to discover just what your rights are.

From this months CIO:

"As long as security relies on identity, then ID theft becomes an effective way of committing fraud," Schneier adds. "And creating stronger IDs [through biometrics] only makes the problem worse."

Likewise, putting all of your customer information in one central database only heightens the chance that identifying information will be stolen. After all, it's much easier to break into a large centralized database than small separate databases. And resourceful thieves will always find a way around the toughest security, as Ford and Experian have learned to their chagrin.

To avoid a similar disaster on their turf, CIOs should insist their company's customer data be kept in separate databases protected by a number of different security measures. And they should push their company to adopt safer business practices that require customers and employees to use a number of different identifiers to gain access to personal data. For retailers, that might mean implementing other business safeguards, such as matching the shipping address with the home address on customers' credit reports. In the meantime, legislation that bans the use of Social Security numbers and other personal identifiers in instant credit e-mails or letters has already been passed in California and is being considered in other states.

"If you had a dozen IDs and they weren't linked together, now that would be difficult to steal," Schneier says. "Decentralize, distribute. There is never one answer to security.

By Paul | Permalink | Comments (1) |

I think as wireless, wearable internet access become ubiquitous, we are going to see consumer power re-assert itself in an unprecedented way. Imagine for example, CueCat (a technology previously with little purpose), except this time each barcode is cross-referenced with a moblog not only neatly containing everyone's opinion of this product, but also its ethical/corruption index. These types of measurements would be made via decentralized adhoc smart mobs in conjunction with individual reputation systems. So, not only will you be able to vote with your pocketbook, but you will be able to make informed, even ethical consumer decisions based on people you trust. I can see this web-of-trust rapidly superseding top-heavy "consumer" capitalism, transforming it into a bottom-up grass-roots participatory capitalism.

By Paul | Permalink | Comments (1) |

I just read another great article on open spectrum by David Weinberger; something I have hyped here often. I feel I cannot post enough about this, and this is another good piece describing both the short and long-term but also the deep-term effects open spectrum could have on society - primarily that of participatory democracy. Lets hope this time it comes to pass.

Short term, we will see a sudden breaking free from wireless gridlock: New bandwidth available everywhere. New local radio stations. Wireless connectivity among appliances in the house. Innovations wherever action at a distance or ubiquitous access makes sense.

Long term, Dewayne Hendricks (founder of The Dandin Group and a member of the FCC's Technological Advisory Council) says that we're in the position Marconi was in 100 years ago when wireless communications were first invented. We can't begin to imagine what's possible, including -- and Hendricks is serious about this -- Star Trek-style transporters before this century is out.

Deep term, the unleashing of wireless connectivity will eat away at one of our last remaining social dependencies on broadcast media. Right now, if you want to broadcast you have to get permission from the Feds and you have to have lots of dough. We end up with a society that sits on a couch, facing forward, listening to what people with money have to say. Our freedom is defined by the channel changer nearby. With open spectrum, a bottom-up conversation can begin over the ether, helping to make participatory democracy real.

By Paul | Permalink | Comments (1) |

In Capital, Power and Ecology I suggested that "ecological" constraints are inherent in a global economy, and how capital rewards liberty over tyranny. So far capital has won hands down, lets hope it can survive the current onslaught of corruption and criminality long enough to see us out of global war and irreversible ecological disaster.

In the meantime there are many other developments on the technological front that hold promise for liberating capital, free enterprise, and fostering greater degrees of participatory democracy than ever seen before. Tools like reputation systems and p2p adhoc wireless mesh-networks are so disruptive in their potential its hard to predict what their effect will be, but they are sure to change society as radically as the internet itself - I would say much more so. For starters, adhoc wireless smart mobs will greater power over where capital flows. Companies like World Com and Enron who refuse to open their books and become more transparent will be much less likely to attract capital and investment than those companies that do. Therefore the drive of companies is to become increasing transparent and accountable to their "stakeholders" who in turn have the ability to move their capital around with the simple push of a button. This represents and eminent power shift away from centrally controlled hierarchies to bottom-up grass-roots capital structures. The future of the corporation is built from the bottom-up not the top-down. Meanwhile we are likely to see radical advancements in medicine, longevity, cheap space access, nanotechnology, and environmentally sustainable energy systems.

Then we have the current tyranny of the content industry as embodied by the RIAA and MPAA and other outdated business models built on scarcity. At the moment, the media giants seem to be winning with draconian legislation like the DMCA as part of their arsenal. But don't loose hope yet. These too ultimately restrict the flow of capital as well. What we are seeing are old modes of capital and collusion being increasingly threatened by more liquid and liberated economies of scale and zero duplication cost of the internet. Regardless of the legislative and technological restrictions implemented in the US, their are other countries who are not as keen to follow in the same footsteps.

China, not normally a bastion of freedom and democracy, is adopting open-source software at a blinding pace despite Microsoft's best efforts to shove their bloated, expensive and restrictive licensing schemes down their throats. And while AMD and Intel build in digital restrictions into their processors, China has started its own processor initiative called 'Dragon'. Kind of ironic, that a nation know for its gross human rights abuses could potentially be a bastion of digital liberty. China is not pursuing this path because of their freedom loving nature, but to increase their economic independence and capital liquidity. It just happens that increasing capital requires a corresponding increase in liberty if its to become sustainable. If China develops their own microprocessors and uses free open-source software, they are beholden to no one for their capitalization, especially the "imperialistic" US. So while the US chokes on expensive and restrictive digital lock-downs, China will be enjoying a more open platform. So in the global economy where do you think the capital will go? If the US hopes to compete in the global marketplace, its either going to have to loosen its digital restrictions or loose its place as the economic super-power. So the question is can the US continue as an economic superpower without bankrupting itself through global imperialism and domestic tyranny?

We will soon find out.

By Paul | Permalink |