[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
INFOWAR: Re: Info Weapons; INTELLIGENCE ARMS RACE
---------------------------------------------------------
ARS ELECTRONICA FESTIVAL 98
INFOWAR. information.macht.krieg
Linz, Austria, september 07 - 12
http://www.aec.at/infowar
---------------------------------------------------------
WearComp and WearCam as nomadic personal infowar machines:
Personal empowerment through the use of Reflectionist media
as a protective element.
(Adapted from USENIX98 closing keynote speech, at the suggestion
of Geert Lovink; text adapted with some suggestions from and interaction
with Tom Sherman of Syracuse University)
Prof. Steve Mann, University of Toronto
John S. Quarterman asks the questions: ``Will the U.S. continue to
contain more than half of the Internet? Will one company make all the
software?''. Similarly we may ask: Will one educational institute
manufacture all the world's ideas? Will one security company place us
all under surveillance?
That the U.S. government, together with a single company, might
control the world's information flow and software, and thus
indirectly, the world's thoughts, ideas, etc., is a troubling thought
to many. One possible solution to this problem is in the tradition of
science, and thus the notion of disclosure and open peer review, as a
basis for allowing anyone the option of acquiring, and thus advancing
the world's knowledge base. A further construct called ``Humanistic
Intelligence (HI)'', motivated by the philosophy of science, is
proposed. HI provides a new synergy between humans and machines that
seeks to involve the human rather than having computers emulate human
thought or replace humans. Particular goals of HI are human
involvement at the individual level, and providing individuals with
tools to challenge society's organizational hegemonies and
pre--conceived notions of human--computer relationships. An emphasis
in this article is on computational frameworks surrounding ``visual
intelligence'' devices, such as video cameras interfaced to computer
systems.
Software hegemony, seamlessness of thought, and the building of
computer science upon a foundation of secrecy, present a series of
problems to the individual. Advanced computer systems is one area
where a single individual can make a tremendous contribution to the
advancement of human knowledge. A system that excludes any individual
from exploring it fully, may prevent that individual from ``thinking
outside the box'' and therefore advancing the state--of--the--art.
Some of the new directions in Human--Computer Interaction (HCI)
suggest bringing advanced computing into all aspects of life.
Computers everywhere, constantly monitoring our activities, and
responding ``intelligently'' have the potential to make matters worse,
from the above perspective, because of the possibility of excluding
the individual user from knowledge not only of certain aspects of the
computer upon his or her desk, but also of the principle of operation
and the function of everyday things.
SPREADING OF STERILITY
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, working together with
Delta and Pine Land Company, has engaged in genetic engineering
research to develop seeds that will produce sterile plants.
This effort, they claim, will boost sales of new seeds by
preventing farmers from using seeds obtained from their previous
year's plants.
Preventing farmers from re-planting from a previous year's crops
will force them to buy new seeds each year, thereby increasing
Delta and Pine Land Company's revenue.
This proposed invention has created outrage in the community,
and critics have pointed out that the invention could threaten
the world's food supply through the spreading of sterility.
Moreover, there is concern that this single corporation
would control the world's food supply.
Furthermore, this would end the centuries-old practice of
farmers doing cross--breeding themselves to adapt plants to local
soil and climate conditions.
HEGEMONY OF THE SOFTWARE BARONS
What do seeds have to do with advanced computing systems?
Delta and Pine's ability to genetically turn
the reproductive system of seeds on and off
is analogous to a compiler's ability to
produce executable programs in an intellectually--encrypted
form, so that the software vendor can decide whether or not
to include source--code and other conceptual disclosure.
Programs distributed with source code are analogous to the
traditional seeds that contribute to a healthy and diverse world food
supply. Programs that are operationally disclosed (with source
code, etc.) will be adapted to local requirements, through
modification and sometimes cross--breeding with other
program source code. Each disclosed program contributes to the
knowledge base of individual users.
Not necessarily all users will modify the software, but even a
small fraction of the users doing this can and often will
improve or contribute to the knowledge base.
SEAMLESSNESS OF THOUGHT AS INTELLECTUAL MONOCROPPING
A varied supply of ideas, like biodiversity, leads to
advancement in thought, and new paradigms in computing.
Thus a single entity controlling all the world's supply of
software, and in some sense, thought (e.g. a single
entity providing all of the world's WWW browsers, and
therefore, in some sense influencing the world's Internet
content, or a single entity providing all of the world's
dictionaries or automatic spell checking programs, in some
sense influencing the use of language), could
reduce the world's diversity of thought.
Seamlessness of thought may reduce
intellectual diversity, in the same way that monocropping
reduces biodiversity.
COMPUTER SCIENCE OR COMPUTER SECRECY
Science provides us with ever--changing schools of thought,
opinions, ideas, and the like, while all building upon
a foundation of verifiable (and sometimes evolving) truth.
The foundations, laws, and theories of science, although true by assumption
may at any time be called into question as new experimental results unfold.
Thus a situation in which one or more of the foundation elements
are held in secret is contrary to the principles of science.
Although many results in science are treated as a ``black box'',
for operational simplicity,
there is always the possibility that the evidence may want to
lead us inside that box.
Imagine, for example, conducting an experiment on
a chemical reaction between a proprietary
solution ``A'', mixed with a secret powder ``B'',
brought to a temperature of 325 degrees T. (Top secret
temperature scale which you are not allowed to convert to
other units).
Now it is quite likely that one could make some new discoveries
about the chemical reaction between A and B, without knowing
what A and B are, and one might even be able to complete
a doctoral dissertation and obtain a PhD for the study of the
reaction between A and B (assuming a large enough quantity
of A and B were available). However, one might ask where
one would publish these findings, except maybe in the
Journal of Irreproducible Results.
OBVIOUS OR OBFUSCATED
Imagine a clock that was designed so that when the cover
was lifted off,
all the gears would fly out in different directions, so that
it would be more difficult for a young child to open up
his or her parents' clock and determine how it works.
Alternatively, imagine the clock were loaded with explosives,
so that it would completely self--destruct upon opening.
Assuming a child survived such a bad experience, it is
still doubtful that devices made in this manner would be
good for society, in particular, for the growth and
development of young engineers and scientists
with a natural curiosity about the world around them.
As the boundary between software and hardware blurs,
devices are becoming more and more difficult to understand.
This difficulty arises in part, as a result of deliberate
obfuscation on the part of product manufacturers.
More and more devices contain general--purpose microprocessors,
so that their function depends on software. Specificity of
function is achieved through specificity of software rather than
specificity of physical form. By manufacturing everyday
devices in which there is provided only executable
code, without source code, manufacturers have provided a first
level of obfuscation. Furthermore, additional obfuscation
tools are often used in order to make the executable task image
more difficult to understand. These tools include strippers that
remove object link names, etc., and even tools for building
encrypted executables which contain dynamic decryption function
that generates a narrow sliding window of unencrypted
executable, so that only a small fragment of the
executable is decrypted at any given time. In this way,
not only is the end--user deprived of source--code, but the
executable code itself is encrypted, making it
difficult or impossible to look at the code even at the machine
code level.
Moreover, devices such as
Complex Programmable Logic Devices (CPLDs), such
as the Alterra 7000 series,
often have provisions to permanently destroy the data and address
lines leading into a device, so that a single chip device
can operate as a finite--state machine yet conceal even its
machine--level contents from examination.
(An excellent tutorial on FPGAs and CPLDs may be found in\cite{jayar96}.)
Devices such as Clipper chips go a step further by incorporating
fluorine atoms, so that if the user attempts to put the device
into a milling machine, to mill off layer--by--layer for
examination under an electron microscope, the device will
self--destruct in a drastic manner that destroys structure.
Thus the Clipper phones could contain a ``trojan horse'',
or some other kind of ``back door'', and we might never
be able to determine whether or not this is the case.
This is yet another example of deliberate obfuscation
of the operational principles of everyday things.
Thus we have a growing number of general--purpose
devices whose function or purpose depends on software, downloaded
code or microcode. Because this code is intellectually
encrypted, so is the purpose and function of the device.
In this way, manufacturers may provide us with a stated
function or purpose, but the actual function or purpose may
differ, or may include extra features, of which we are not
aware.
ENVIRONMENTAL INTELLIGENCE GATHERING DEVICES
There are a number of researchers who have been
proposing new computer user--interfaces based on environmental
sensors.
Increasingly we are witnessing the emergence of
``intelligent highways'', ``smart rooms'', ``smart floors'', ``smart ceilings'',
``smart toilets'', ``smart elevators'', ``smart lightswitches'', etc..
However, a typical attribute of these ``smart spaces'' is that they
were architected by someone other than the occupant.
Thus the end--user of the space often does not have a full disclosure
of the operational characteristics of the sensory apparatus and the
flow of intelligence data from the sensory apparatus.
WEAPONS OF SELF-DEFENCE: THE PERSONAL INFORMATION SHIELD
What is proposed is a computational framework for individual
personal empowerment. This framework involves the architecting
of a new kind of personal space, through an apparatus that is
owned, operated, and controlled by the occupant of that space.
In some sense, it is like a building, built for one occupant,
and collapsed down around that one occupant. This computational
framework for HI is called ``WearComp'', and will now be described.
WEARCOMP AS INFO WEAPON
Typical embodiments of WearComp comprise a body--worn computer system,
a visual display over one or both eyes with text and graphics
display capability, and an input device
consisting of typically five or more pushbutton switches
that may be operated by one hand. Other input devices typically
include a microphone and video camera positioned such that it
provides a view of the same subject matter the wearer sees.
While this apparatus may sound, at first, unwieldy,
it has evolved, over the last 20 years or so, into a normal--looking
(e.g. unobtrusive) form of clothing (http://www.wearcam.org/wearpubs.html).
HUMANISTIC INFO WEAPONS OF SELF-DEFENCE
Personal Imaging is a camera--based computational framework in
which the camera behaves as a true extension of the mind and body,
after a period of long--term adaptation.
MEDIA AS PROTECTIVE ELEMENT
WearCam may function as a personal safety device:
Imagine, perhaps as you walk down some quiet street late at night,
an assailant wielding a sawn--off shotgun, demanding cash from you.
You would not like have time or opportunity to pull out a
camcorder to record the experience, but since the eyeglasses
are worn constantly, you would have captured the experience.
Consider also the implications on human rights violations, police
brutality, etc..
INTELLIGENCE ARMS RACE
While there will no doubt be more environmental intelligence
than personal intelligence, there is at least the hope that
there might be an end to the drastic imbalance between
personal intelligence and environmental intelligence.
The individual making a purchase in a department store
may have several cameras pointing at him to make sure that
if he removed merchandise without payment that
there would be evidence that he did not pay for the item.
However, in the future, he will have a means
of collecting evidence that he did pay for the item,
or a recorded statement of a clerk about the refund policy.
More extreme examples, such as the case of Latasha
Harlins (A customer falsely accused of shoplifting, and fatally
shot in the back by a shopkeeper as she attempted to walk out of
the shop) also come to mind.
STANDOFFS AND SHOOTOUTS:
In this sense, WearCam becomes an equalizer much like the Colt45
in the Wild West. When there's a standoff, it doesn't matter
whether one person has a big gun and the other has a small gun,
so long as there is enough ammunition for mutually assured destruction.
In the WearCam case, it is simply a matter of mutually assured
accountability, through pictures taken of the other person's
activity and conduct. The pictures do not even need to be really
taken, so long as there is a possibility that they could have been.
In this way, the adversary must be on his/her best behaviour at all
times. Hence a look-alike apparatus, http://wearcam.org/maybecamera.html
may work as well as a real WearCam.
References:
http://www.wearcam.org/lvac/index.html
(retrospective exhibit of various embodiments of WearComp invention as it
has evolved over the last 20 years); see also http://wearcam.org/art.html
Leonardo 31(2)
Reflectionism and Diffusionism: New tactics for deconstructing the
video surveillance superhighway, rough at http://wearcam.org/leonardo.ps.gz
The Data Dandy and Sovereign Media
An Introduction to the Media Theory of ADILKNO
Geert Lovink
International Symposium on Electronic Art, Helsinki, Finland, 24 August 1994.
(alternative anti-hegemonic media strategies)
http://www.linux.org
(fully disclosed operating system as alternative to MS-Windows hegemony)
http://www.usenix.org
(in particular, the freenix technical session tracks)
http://hi.eecg.toronto.edu/wearpubs.html
An excellent tutorial on FPGAs and CPLDs may be found in
"FPGA and CPLD Architectures: A Tutorial", Stephen Brown and
Jonathan Rose, IEEE Design and Test of Computers;
other links at http://wearcam.org/jayarpubs.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are subscribed to the English language version of INFOWAR
To (un)subscribe the English language version send mail to
infowar-en-request@aec.at (message text 'subscribe'/'unsubscribe')
To (un)subscribe the German language version of send mail to
infowar-dt-request@aec.at (message text 'subscribe'/'unsubscribe')
Send contributions to infowar@aec.at
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFOWAR] [subscribe]