cover
ISBN: 0300151241

US-centric examples (but then many of the web and internet trends seem to be driven by innovations from US).

In brief: The internet started with no controls but this led to abuse and subsequent restrictions that limits generative aspects of original internet, and is bad in the long run. To stop this trend (one trend being the “applianization” of devices), strategies include establishing formal behaviours (e.g. Changes to law; stds like Net/ API Neutrality) and informal/ community-driven efforts.

P150. “We need a strategy that blunts the worse aspects of today’s popular generative Internet and PC without killing these platforms’ openness to innovation.”

The title is clever.

The phrase “future of the Internet” leverages on the typical positive connotations about internet technologies, and then the subtitle stumps you: “how to stop it”.

And you think: “why would anyone want to stop something that’s good? Unless there’s something bad about the Internet that I’m unaware.”

The basic premise is that the Internet is inherently good. The “bad” in the future is how formerly generative approach of the Internet is threatened by the trend of “Applianization”.

Specifically, the way it was conceived and built was based on the premise that users will not exploit security loopholes. It can be argued that the Internet itself is one loophole where security is concerned; to be truly safe would be to disconnect totally. The danger, according to the author, is that devices are shifting generative power and control from the many to the few.

P2. Introduction: contrasted the launch and development of Apple II and iPhone. Both were revolutionary but the Apple II was generative while the iPhone wasn’t. That Apple II was a blank slate (dramatically popularized when VisiCal software was developed by a third-party). The iPhone came built with features and Apple didn’t allow it to be tinkered with. “Whereas the world would innovate for the Apple II, only Apple would innovate for the iPhone.”

Zittrian suggests computing devices are becoming more like appliances rather than platforms that allow innovative applications to be generated. (but some would argue otherwise, with the many popular IPhone apps)

P21. How early telephone network and service provider AT&T even disallowed peripheral attachments to be used with its phones (Hush-a-phone attachment) but was overruled by the appellate court.

P23 how early “internet” networks were individual propriety systems (e.g. Compuserve, AOL) that couldn’t talk to each other and disallowed development of network services by 3rd parties. Very different from today’s Internet (which was developed by ARAPNET)

P36. The first internet computer virus, written by Robert Tappan Morris, Jr.

(is author suggesting that the increasing malicious computer attacks, possible because of the inherent generative feature of through internet, are leading to an inevitable appliance-driven devices model rather than generative-driven devices.)

P75/ 76. Table explaining generative and less-generative day-to-day objects.

P77. Software doesn’t necessarily have to be free or its code readily accessible to be generative. E.g. Windows OS allows other apps to run on it. Conversely, TiVo runs on a Linux code that anyone can access but doesn’t allow any other app to be built unless it’s based on the designated code (did I get that part right?)

P78/ 79. Creative Commons cited as generative. “… occurs on the backdrop of Copyright law…”

p95. how blogs are generative at the content level. Mentions why Cunningham decided to start Wikis.

P96. “Generative technologies need not produce forward progress, if by progress one means something like increasing social welfare. Rather, they foment (sic?) change.”

P97. One shortcoming of generative platform is the potential for a “digital pearl harbour”, i.e. Malicious and pre-emptive attacks.

P100. “a failure to solve generative problems at the technical layer will result in outcomes that allow for unwanted control at the content and social layers.”

P104. power of vendor to reprogram “television-like appliances” over a network with ease.

P113. Google in China.

p125. Suggests APIs model (like Google Maps) while generative, aren’t the same as generative PC model. The API owner can switch things off, whereas once a PC is sold, owner can install any software (basically it is disconnected)

p127. Lessons from Wikipedia. Cites Dutch city of Drachten and their “verkeersbordvrij” (free ostensible nearly all road signs) traffic mgt experiment. Found that drivers now see other drivers rather than cars. Forced them to pay attention.

P131. origins and development of wikipedia (Jimmy Wales made his fortune with Bomis, a search engine that helped look for “erotic images”)

P168. Suggests that solution to social problems is to utilise social incentives. E.g. Wikipedia vandals effectively managed by the tool, i.e. ease of reverting page history and community policing via alerts to changes. Case of Google detecting sites with malicious software and displaying warning signs to users on search results (while site owners complained they were unaware of malicious code, author suggests the solution was ultimately reached by forcing site owners to clean up their sites rather than place the burden on users to install anti-virus s/W).

P173. “we need a latter-day Manhattan Project, not to build a bomb but to design the tools and conventions by which to continually defuse one.” (from users to developers to lawyers).

P175 Chpt 8. On strategies to ensure generative internet: Data portability (across service providers/ platforms); Network Neutrality; API Neutrality; Maintaining privacy as (“software become service”).

Mentions Creative Commons as a response to ambiguous copyright law. P 192-193.

Concern of abuse by authoritarian states is a recurrent theme. Though Zittrian does acknowledge the need for legal compliance. Suggests individual accountability rather than shutting down generative services(P194). Also that ethical norms and community enforcement also play a part to minimise abuse of generative platforms.

P204. Interesting notion that RFID technology could be a (worrying) means of imposing differentiated prices based on individuals. The fear is that those who can afford it are priced more, or given more discounts to encourage further purchase. I think the tool can be used for both good and bad.

Idea of driver-ratings system. Where drivers, via a system, can rate fellow drivers. A peer-aassessment system. Acknowledges potential abuse (e.g. Rating a driver poorly simply because they are of a different gender/ race/ display bumper sticker of a political party)

P210 “The intellectual property conflicts raised by the generative Internet, where people can still copy large amounts of copyrighted music without fear of repercussion, are rehearsals for the problems of Privacy 2.0.”

P211. Hong Kong “Bus Uncle” incident cited as how “we are all on notice”. Guy was subsequently beaten up. Also in South Korea a woman who refused to pick up her dog poo in the subway car even when offered a tissue. She was identified and apparently quit her job. Www.washingtonpost.com 7 jul 05 (jonathan krim). Concept of “Reputation Bankruptcy” (P229)

That citizens will monitor themselves. Already happening; multiple photos and videos of events taken by people, of people.

P212 “although people want privacy for themselves, they will line up to see the folly of others”

P225 main force of Creative Commons is not in the courts but in cultural mindshare. It alerts content owners/ creators to basic but hidden rights to share one’s work, and alerts users of the general Rights-orientation of the owners.

P235. Covers the XO (One Child One Laptop) project. “it’s a education project, not laptop project”. How XO is generative (encourages kids to hack into the OS and build their own apps). Critics of XO project say being exposed to Internet will make the children develop a sense of envy; warring factions may utilise it as a cheap battle network device.

P245 “… our Net technologies are experiencing the first true shock waves from their generative successes.”

suggests there is no one single solution but a balance between users who feel they own the space, coders and programmers, creative and artistically skilled people (end-user content creation); formal structures and policies from governments.

P246. “The deciding factor in whether our current infrastructure can endure will be the sum of the perceptions and actions of its users.”

Advertisements