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.
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
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.
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.
What Churchill considered a conservative is very different from the current US neocon.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.