embedded or surface-worn devices. Data trails will follow us around like so many little sparks; dancing points not of light but of 1s and 0s. These data trails are already here. I am reminded of Aleksandr Solzhenitsynâs remark in his 1968 book Cancer Ward :
As every man goes through life he fills in a number of forms for the record, each containing a number of questions. . . . There are thus hundreds of little threads radiating from every man, millions of threads in all. If these threads were suddenly to become visible, the whole sky would look like a spiderâs web, and if they materialized as rubber bands, buses, trams and even people would all lose the ability to move, and the wind would be unable to carry torn-up newspapers or autumn leaves along the streets of the city. They are not visible, they are not material, but every man is constantly aware of their existence. . . . Each man, permanently aware of his own invisible threads, naturally develops a respect for the people who manipulate the threads. 5
The threads are strings of information. They are the ties that bind us to one another, and society to us. What big data and the hyperconnectivity of knowledge are doing is making these connections brighter, more numerous, stronger and fundamentally easier to pluck. And so our respectâif that is the wordâshould also grow for those who have, or wish to have, their hands on these strings. Let us hope their motivations are pure, or at least neutral, while we stay on guard for the opposite. As Bertrand Russell once remarked in a somewhat different context, advances in technology never seem to bring along with themâat least, all by themselvesâa change in humanityâs penchant for greed and power. That is a lesson I hope we heedâeven while we look forward to the benefits the Internet of Us will bring.
Many of us share the same concerns. After the initial launch of Google Glass, the reaction was more negative than expected. While many were excited about the technology, it seemed that just as many were worried about its potential for invading privacy; others were concerned about its potential for distracting drivers. These practical objections were serious. But I canât help wondering if the concern went deeper. Before its launch, Google cofounder Sergey Brin was reported to have said, âWe started Project Glass believing that, by bringing technology closer, we can get it more out of the way.â 6 Brin was meaning to emphasize the fact that Glass allows you to take pictures without fumbling for your camera. But he inadvertently put his finger on a more basic fear of the Internet of Us. We are getting technology out of the way by pulling it closerâin the case of Glass, literally making us see through it. We know technology can always alter our perspective.But this perspective-altering effect can only increase as it migrates inward.
We must be careful that we donât mistake the âusâ in the Internet of Us for âeverything else.â The digital world is a construction and, as Iâve argued, constructions are real enough. But we donât want to let that blind us to the world that is not constructed, to the world that predates our digital selves. And the Internet of Us is not only going to affect how we see our world; it will affect our form of life. One aspect of this concerns autonomy. The hyperconnectivity of knowledge can help us become more cognitively autonomous and increase what I called epistemic equality. But Iâve argued it can also hinder our cognitive autonomy by making our ways of accessing information more vulnerable to the manipulations and desires of others. And it can lead us to overemphasize the importance of receptive knowingâknowing as downloading.
Humans are toolmakers, and information technologies are the grandest tools we have at the moment. Our tool-making nature shapes how we understand the world and our role within it. It
As every man goes through life he fills in a number of forms for the record, each containing a number of questions. . . . There are thus hundreds of little threads radiating from every man, millions of threads in all. If these threads were suddenly to become visible, the whole sky would look like a spiderâs web, and if they materialized as rubber bands, buses, trams and even people would all lose the ability to move, and the wind would be unable to carry torn-up newspapers or autumn leaves along the streets of the city. They are not visible, they are not material, but every man is constantly aware of their existence. . . . Each man, permanently aware of his own invisible threads, naturally develops a respect for the people who manipulate the threads. 5
The threads are strings of information. They are the ties that bind us to one another, and society to us. What big data and the hyperconnectivity of knowledge are doing is making these connections brighter, more numerous, stronger and fundamentally easier to pluck. And so our respectâif that is the wordâshould also grow for those who have, or wish to have, their hands on these strings. Let us hope their motivations are pure, or at least neutral, while we stay on guard for the opposite. As Bertrand Russell once remarked in a somewhat different context, advances in technology never seem to bring along with themâat least, all by themselvesâa change in humanityâs penchant for greed and power. That is a lesson I hope we heedâeven while we look forward to the benefits the Internet of Us will bring.
Many of us share the same concerns. After the initial launch of Google Glass, the reaction was more negative than expected. While many were excited about the technology, it seemed that just as many were worried about its potential for invading privacy; others were concerned about its potential for distracting drivers. These practical objections were serious. But I canât help wondering if the concern went deeper. Before its launch, Google cofounder Sergey Brin was reported to have said, âWe started Project Glass believing that, by bringing technology closer, we can get it more out of the way.â 6 Brin was meaning to emphasize the fact that Glass allows you to take pictures without fumbling for your camera. But he inadvertently put his finger on a more basic fear of the Internet of Us. We are getting technology out of the way by pulling it closerâin the case of Glass, literally making us see through it. We know technology can always alter our perspective.But this perspective-altering effect can only increase as it migrates inward.
We must be careful that we donât mistake the âusâ in the Internet of Us for âeverything else.â The digital world is a construction and, as Iâve argued, constructions are real enough. But we donât want to let that blind us to the world that is not constructed, to the world that predates our digital selves. And the Internet of Us is not only going to affect how we see our world; it will affect our form of life. One aspect of this concerns autonomy. The hyperconnectivity of knowledge can help us become more cognitively autonomous and increase what I called epistemic equality. But Iâve argued it can also hinder our cognitive autonomy by making our ways of accessing information more vulnerable to the manipulations and desires of others. And it can lead us to overemphasize the importance of receptive knowingâknowing as downloading.
Humans are toolmakers, and information technologies are the grandest tools we have at the moment. Our tool-making nature shapes how we understand the world and our role within it. It
Similar Books
