Slashdot Mirror
Harvard Prof Says Computers Need to Forget
Jessamine writes "A Harvard professor argues that too much information is being retained by computers, and the machines need to learn how to forget things as humans always have. "If whatever we do can be held against us years later, if all our impulsive comments are preserved, they can easily be combined into a composite picture of ourselves," he writes in the paper. "Afraid how our words and actions may be perceived years later and taken out of context, the lack of forgetting may prompt us to speak less freely and openly." Will such massive databases make us all act like politicians? Is data retention creating a "panopticon"? These are questions that the good doctor raises."
Perhaps people should think a little more before they open their mouths, or in this case, apply their fingers to their keyboards. A computer record of your silliness is not much different than a person remembering some stupid thing you said many years before ... but at least it's more accurate.
Won't we eventually forget where we saved this stuff? Seriously, though, maybe a better solution is for people to stop getting offended about everything. Maybe if we weren't so obsessed with whether someone had ever posted something on the internet indicating they deviate slightly from societal norms and using that information to decide whether someone is qualified for a job or service this wouldn't be an issue.
Making you think you're crazy is a billion dollar industry.
That's the dumbest fucking idea I've heard since I've been working for Microsoft
Before adopting WHATWG, read the moonlight.NET EULA [http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx]
If the worry is that things can be taken out of context then we have only two options: remember everything so context can be retained, or remember nothing. If computers 'forget' (can't we just say 'delete'?) some things and retain others then we'll have problems contextualising content.
Personally, I'd rather computers stored everything. Human history is only as rich as it is because scholars hundreds, even thousands, of years ago wrote things down. The periods of our past where writing was unusual are only known about through what amounts to educated speculation. How sad would it be that in the next thousand years there's no record of what we did and said because we're fearful of what some mysterious power might do with the archive?
The tin-foiled paranoids should be more worried about what a rogue power would do without any history to look back on. It works both ways: "Where were you on May 10th 1977? You don't remember? You have no record? YOU HAVE NO ALIBI! You must be guilty!".
http://twitter.com/onion2k
When a program crashes and "forgets" all the information you had put into it, you get angry no? Think before you type sir. The entire concept of a computer was to NOT forget. They started out as calculating machines, if machines could "forget" then it would defeat the entire concept driving the technological advances made towards computers.
"The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec^2" -Marcus Dolengo
Retention of data is, for good or bad, something that happens and will continue to happen. That's what Information Technology is about. This phenomenon is not new. Politician have known this for ages, and a journalist can easily dig into the past to find some crusty anecdotes about a politician's twenties. The fact is that nobody cares. Everyone has made stupid thing during their youth, done stupid things in private, and everyone knows that this doesn't matter much.
Here in France we have had photos of Chirac selling a communist newspaper while he was young or our ex-prime minister dancing shirtless at a private party. It didn't matter much.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
People need to learn to protect their private data.
People need to make sure potentially self-harmful things they say on the net can never be connected to their real persona.
People used to protect and hide their diaries, now they just put it in the net for everyone to read.
This is SILLY, computers will not forget and won't have to forget.
It's the PEOPLE who have to REMEMBER that.
If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart.
If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain.
- falsely attributed to Winston Churchill
What the good doctor is missing is that you are the whole picture. Everything that happened in your life, good and bad has lead you to where you are today. To deny/forget the bad would make you less of a human. I am still that 11 year old kid who played D&D and cried when that jerk of a DM killed my 35th level mage that I cheated to make. I'm still the guy who in high school managed to seduce the hottest girl in school. I'm still the guy who took 4 grams of mushrooms on a road trip from Austin to New Orleans to make the time pass (though I wasn't driving). I'm still the guy who was on the Longhorns SouthWest Conference championship Lacrosse team. I'm still the guy who failed out of college 3 years later. I'm still the Sp.ED teacher who worked for 7 years teaching autistics before realizing I could live up to my family obligations on a Sp.Ed teachers salary. I'm still the guy who defaulted on some significant debts in my 20s. I'm still the jerk who told that girl I loved her only so I could sleep with her...
I'm still the good husband and mighty developer I am today. But all because of all that stuff in the past.
I completely understand what was IMPLIED by the article, but I that that is an issue of privacy, not of computing. And to imply that people should forget about their past (or others) doesn't seem like a good idea. I am about as anti-religion as you can get, but I recognize the powerful words "...and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us."
Forgive, but don't forget. Remember where you came from, and what you overcame.Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
I disagree with the conclusions of Mayer-Schönberger, though I agree with the main logic of his argument.
I believe making all public archives "forgetful" would be (A) disastrous to research in history, philology, and linguistics (e.g.) and of course to political accountability, and (B) almost impossible, at least without a technological monoculture (e.g. Microsoft runs all the blogs).
Instead, we have to adapt our culture to the inevatible presence of modern technology. This means that if someone once made racist, paedophiliac, hateful, misogynic, androgynic, stupid, schizofrenic etc. remarks, this should not in any way be held against them when they later in life want to become a politician, teacher, babysitter, policeman etc. We will simply have to assume that people can change and restrict ourselves to looking at their most recent behaviour and opinions.
Changing our culture in such a way might sound impossible (and to some people undesirable), but I think it's far more possible (and desirable) than changing our technology in the way Mayer-Schönberger proposes.
It is also possible that such a cultural change would be a natural consequence of information about everybody becoming available, rather than it making us all into politicians.
The good doctor is complaining because people might feel pressure to be more circumspect in the words and actions because their history may, at any time, return to haunt them. Is that really a bad thing, or is he just worried that all those years of being subscribed to Marxist Weekly (or whatever) may undermine his credibility as a professor of government?
Canthros
I wish that the USA was this forgiving. We have a culture/media here that will latch on to any "indiscretion" and run with it for all we can - until the next juicy tidbit pops up. Especially if the subject is in any way evasive or defensive about it - that's like blood in the water for the sharks.
- Jasen.
Politician have known this for ages, and a journalist can easily dig into the past to find some crusty anecdotes about a politician's twenties.
A journalist can easily dig into the past today with today's technology, but in the past it did require a bit more effort. That's the difference we're facing. It's not only easier, but our lives have become a lot more persistent- current technology has allowed our past to become an increasingly pervasive aspect of our present.
The "uturns" and "flipflpos" people are talking about isn't were a politician says he believes X now and then later in life believes Y.
What it is and I rightfully agree with the criticism and it being a problem is were a politician is claims belief X in front of one crowd and belief Y in front of another or changes his position for no other reasons then they think it will get votes. I can give a sorts of reasons why I changed my position if you vote for me or at least don't vote against me. This doesn't mean I won't still believe the way I did before, I just won't publicaly show it and most if any work on the subject will be hidden to make it difficult to detect any variance. I can even claim the support was for a rider to a bill that needed passed and not for going against me newly stated position. This is why you have politicians who opposed war in the past, voted us into the wars we are in today, and now appose the wars again. One could say that they only supported the wars because the public did, if they had stuck by their guns, Iraq might not have ever happened. And yes, that had all the same information about the wars that the president did. They cannot say they were mislead any more then the president was.
Now, OTHOH, if I see a politician who has changed his position for whatever reason and there isn't some great polling debate showing it as a way to get reelected, I would tend to agree with their sincerity. All most of us are asking for is consistency and honesty in their campaigns. Not someone who changes their mind based of the direction of the political wind at the time. Any number of large organization can create a media storm and change the opinions of the vast majority of people and in effect control the political process and climate when the uturners and flipflopers are in a position of power. It is like RIAA convincing congress that the people support their rubber stamped laws and then having congress enact them.
Personally I welcome something like this. Maybe it will get the American public to finally realize that talking about sex is not this big bad thing that we should shun people for.
What Churchill considered a conservative is very different from the current US neocon.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
An optimist would say that Rudy Giuliani's national popularity represents a swing away from this mode. A pessimist would say he's getting a free pass because he's a Republican.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
This has a somewhat unpleasant taste.
Let's consider two situations, situation A and situation B:
In situation A, you worked with someone thirty years ago in a high-pressure environment. Your perception was that the person, Ronald Railey, did really bad things in this situation. Thirty years have passed however, you do not quite like being exposed in front of a hundred million people and having your personal life changed dramatically, and so this is not something you go around proclaiming loudly. Someone who are negatively disposed to Ronald Railey however hears that he may have done something bad, and they come around to talk to you. You tell them of the situation, but that you would prefer not to proclaim it. They offer you money if you will agree to an interview, which you accept. You provide the interview, and present things as you remember them.
In situation B, you worked with someone thirty years ago in a high-pressure environment. You had no particular perception about the person, Ronald Railey. Thirty years have passed now. Someone who are negatively disposed to Ronald Railey however hears that he may have done something bad, and they come around to talk to you. They offer you money to speak badly about him. You fabricate some negative stories of how Ronald Railey acted in the interview.
From the way you use your words, it seems to come across ("paid to speak negatively about") - that you are implying, without directly claiming that situation B is the case, and that therefore this says nothing about Ronald Railey's character. If this is the correct interpretation, how can you know that situation B is the case and not situation A?
You could of course say that "the act of the person speaking about a topic benefitting financially from their statement throws an extreme doubt on the validity of it, so much that, especially years after the event and given a contrary voice, nothing meaningful can be concluded and it should not even be considered a possibility", but then you would have to all of 1) your categorical imperative should apply to all of these cases, not just ones where Democrats are in the fire lane, 2) bear in mind that in these days pretty much everyone who has something to say that people are interested in will benefit from it in terms of either money or travel and dining.
Here's a second question for you:
Let's say a politican in a position of authority is on his way to a not particularly important meeting, and he is pressed for time, but not late. He has not had any bad experiences recently, or anything that could be expected to impact his mental state. He knows there are no reporters around, but that there are people around, although he has no reason to believe they know it is him in the car.
When backing out of the parking lot, he reverses into a parked car, and makes a big dent in it. He gets out of the car, pulls a piece of paper out of his pocket, puts it on the other car's windscreen, and drives off. It later turns out that the piece of paper was blank. When asked about this later and accused of pretending to leave his details he apologises briefly, but gives no other comment other than that he was generally stressed on the day.
What does this contribute about this person's character, and by extension, his fitness to work for the good of a large group of people?
Perhaps, before you postulate the categorical imperative for this class of actions, you would prefer to first know the name and political affiliation of the person who would be classified by it?
This is exactly why computers shouldn't "forget". Your comment, and the majority of that post, provides invaluable cultural insight into the thoughts of a community on a device, which, years later, would become an everyday item.
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill