Slashdot Mirror
Review:The Control Revolution
There are lots of books these days about the Net and the Web - what they mean, how we're drowning in too much information, how memes move around, how to design websites, make money off of e-trading, use C+++, install Linux.
But only a handful nail the big ideas down as well as Andrew L. Shapiro has in "The Control Revolution: How the Internet is Putting Individuals in Charge and Changing the World We Know" (Public Affairs Books, $US 25).
"The Control Revolution" isn't exactly a stirring term for what the Net and the Web are doing to life, but Shapiro is right. The Web is a series of social as well as technological revolutions. His definitions of the "Control" part make sense:
l. The potentially monumental shift in control from institutions to individuals made possible by new technology such as the Net.
2. The conflict over such change between individuals and powerful entities (governments, corporations, the media).
3. The unexpected, and not always desirable, ways in which such change could reshape our lives.
Shapiro has a sharp eye for the politics of technology and institutions. He writes about the politics of code in shaping the Net, the sweeping political power of interactivity, and the decline of middlemen brought about by revolutionary new software advances like the MP3 player and eBay. He also writes about the inevitable resistance to many of these changes.
Few Net writers have looked at the politics of coding, and few non-programmers have ever thought about it. Shapiro writes that just as the Net's growing rapidly, it's form can also be changed very quickly. "That's because although the Net depends on physical hardware - networks of computers and wires - it is defined mostly by code."
And most Net users can't write code, have never seen it, and know nothing about it.
So control of code, he points out, may become a powerful political power. Easily altered with a few keystrokes, code may be at the heart of political power struggles in the digital age.
In "Where Do You Want to Go Today? Microsoft and the Illusion of Control" - Shapiro looks at Gates, Inc. It's a dispassionate, revealing look at a particular corporate culture that is so worshipped and demonized that it's become nearly impossible to think rationally about it.
In a detached, credible way, Shapiro writes about the strengths and weaknesses of the Internet's most loved, patronized and hated corporation. He writes, for example, about how Microsoft's executives have gotten themselves into a dangerous mindset that, "if they don't control everything, they'll control nothing," perhaps the first plausible explanation I've seen of the power-mad bumbling revealed in the company's ongoing legal nightmares in Washington.
Shapiro also writes about another controversial issue few people on the Net or Web want to deal with - how new blocking, filtering and other "convenience" and anti-spamming softwares (yes, much more sophisticated than Kill Files ever were, and much less motivated by self defense and protection) are changing the ground rules of free speech on the Net and the Web, allowing the dissenter's voice to be excluded effortlessly and instantly.
Shapiro is a scholar and a lawyer, and "The Control Revolution" is thorough, meticulously supported, sometimes dry but almost always thoughtful and dead-on.
We need to grasp, he argues, that living well in the digital age means more than just having complete dominion over life's decisions. Personal freedom requires also knowing when to relinquish authority, either to chance or to the wisdom of others. And that for the sake of democracy, the people using the Net and the Web need to consider a new kind of social and political compact - not a starry-eyed declaration of cyber-independence, but a realistic compromise between personal liberty and communal obligation.
Shapiro stumbles a bit here. His call for this kind of dialogue is stirring and sensible, but it reads more like an op-ed piece than a realistic solution to the enormous social and political challenges presented by the growth of the Network, and the particular challenges to open discussion of common issues. His appeal for a moderate rationality is too detached from reality. The kind of discussion he argues for - the kind necessary for new social compacts -- isn't even remotely likely to occur on the chaotic, free and ferociously individualistic Net or the Web, outside of a few carefully-screen websites, mailing lists or weblogs.
People who write or post publicly on the Web - even those who love it - despair of ever having rational, non-hostile public discussions. Few would believe any sort of broad, rational, civil discussion about politics or society is likely in the near future. Online discussions are quarrelsome, frequently vicious, disjointed and diverse - in a way, that's sort of the point.
They are much freer and inherently less organized and directed than the kind of forum Shapiro seems to want, and rarely, if ever, provide any sort of concensus or coherent thread on issues.
Still, if Shapiro can't solve the Net's civic problems, he's sure grasped the import of the biggest single idea emerging from the online world: the movement of power, influence and freedom away from institutions and companies and towards individuals.
This notion of individual liberty is an old, profoundly powerful idea, dating back to the Enlightenment and the American and French Revolutions. But the early revolutionaries were just looking to beat back monarchies. They never imagined individual people would ever have the power the Net and the Web is giving them over culture, business and information and, almost inevitably, over politics.
Shapiro has this brilliantly nailed this notion down, rising above Luddite alarms, Utopian digital fantasies, programming jargon and the media hype now surrounding computing.
It's hard to imagine a more timely book about the real significance of the Internet - how it's continuing (maybe beginning) the long and bitterly difficult process of putting individuals in charge of their world.
Pick this up at Amazon.
The problem with your hypothesis is that the steady growth of intrusion and surveillance -- public-sector and private-sector alike -- conditions the public to consider decreasing amounts of privacy "normal". Here, frog, this water isn't really much hotter than what you're used to....
By the time citizens get angry over this phenomenon, the alliance of advertisers, marketers, and government spooks will be too politically powerful to oppose. The War on Privacy will escalate just like the War on Drugs, and for the same reason -- because it's too profitable to resist, and because the people in opposition are too easily branded Bad People.
Questions:
- How do we build enough consensus to make decisions in a cyber free-for-all?
- In an Information Society, will we just replace the old money based elites with new knowledge based elites?
- If industrial age revolutionary firebrands sparked the revolutions of 1776, 1789, and 1917, (etc), who will spark the revolutions of the information age? Will we have a cabal of disgruntled sysadmins shutting down the Net until their demands are met or will their tactics and aims be more subtle?
- Who moderates the crazies?
- Who decides who the crazies are, if they are to be moderated?
- Will an elite of super geniuses guide the bleating masses of sheepishly dim humans? Or will we sink to the level of majority medocrity with the voices of genius moderated out because they're crazy?
- How can any single human in 1999 have the slightest inkling of a clue as to what's in store for us when the _social_ effects of an information revolution finally hit with full force?
Thanks for the chance to squint at the Monster's shadow, but I still don't know what it looks like.
-MikeR-
It can be either a tremendous opportunity to put YOU in control of YOUR life....or it can be a way for others to be in control of you.
- If you don't like the export ban, then get around it...there are ways and you know it.
- If you don't like having your email read, use PGP
- If you don't want your credit card transactions monitored, then you're already in trouble because the net doesn't offer any opportunities that didn't exist for credit card criminals 5 years ago.
I guess all I'm saying is, don't just sit there and say that the net's being used to control people. The only people that let the net control them are the same ones that are already being controled by TV, Newspapers and any other news source out there.Werd.
The nice thing about this sort of thing is that *you* are their only source of information. They have no control you don't give them.
Boycotts make a small point, but in my (admittedly peculiar) opinion, a much better approach to sites which demand your entire CV before viewing anything interesting is to actively corrupt their database by feeding in bogus information.
It doesn't take much creativity to cobble up a fake name and address; the only thing you need besides that is a pseudonymous email address (which take all of ten minutes to create at hotmail, iname, yahoo, or dozens of others).
Doing this raises the cost of collecting such databases while reducing their usefulness. It doesn't cost us anything, since we still get what we want from them, and they ultimately have no way of tracking us down.
-Mars
I think its somewhat the other way around... Now, companies and those in power have MORE access to information about us... Since there really is no good anonymous way to purchase things over the internet, we are headed for trouble. Eventually, most companies will push to do all business on the net... (as Oracle has recently). Its cheaper for them and they can do easy market research.
I would argue that many (most?) aspects of net culture will never be available to those with "room-temperature-IQ's." I fear an impending societal division that will reshape class structures: net users and non-net users. The difference will be that the division will be along intelligence lines.
Access to information as readily available as on the net also increases ability to learn and hopefully perceived intelligence too, so this new net class will grow. But it will never grow to encompass all.
--Bob
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
Good question.
I sent Deneba a tactful e-mail expressing my concern. They responded by nearly blowing me off. I was told that my concern would be forwarded to management, but there was no alternative method proposed to get me a demo version of the software. This is fine by me...my objective is to KEEP as much of my money as I can....it's up to the Deneba's of the world to convince me that I should exchange some of it for what it is they're offering. Deneba came up way short.
It is my opinion that consumers, though presented with the *means* of exercising greater control, will utterly and miserably fail to do so, and the reason is simple: As long as there is a carrot on a stick, many net users/consumers will *relinquish* control.
I've visited two sites with demo software, for example (one was Deneba's site, since I was interested in looking at the most recent upgrade to Canvas.) But much as I would have liked to look at a demo, the problem was their insistence that I submit to a third degree before being allowed to download the software. I will *not* trade my personal information in order to consider buying a product. Deneba has it completely wrong - it is THEY who should be offering INCENTIVES for people to consider and purchase their products, NOT the other way around.
While I recognize that there are quite a few net users who feel this way, there aren't ENOUGH of them. Companies like Deneba need to know that requiring someone to tell you who they are (and scads of other information) BEFORE they even decide to buy the product, is unacceptable. People will only have control so long as they're willing to TAKE control - but as long as spineless net users are willing to trade their personal information for any perceived benefit, the ONLY ones who will have control are the ones collecting (and using) the information.
Although I agree with Mr. Katz and the author to a certan degree, I would argue that the Internet is not going to be _that_ big of a societal change until it becomes as accessible to the average room-temperature-IQ public as automobiles were when their invention changed society. Whereas anyone with at least an arm and a leg and an ass to sit can learn how to drive a car with a reasonable level of competancy, it takes intellegence to access the Internet, even through point-and-drool providers like AOL.
Besides, most people are quite comfortable being told what to do their entire lives. They don't feel the need to control their own lives, because then they wouuld have to take responsibility for their decisions. It's easier to just sit back and let some corporation and/or government control one's life. Note the ratio of entrepreneurs to employees.
The Internet is not going to change the lives of the everyday masses, the strong majority in the world (at least in the U.S.)--people who back over their own mailboxes and buy whatever books Oprah tells them to.
One thing I've said for years is if you want to kill off wars between nations, get the peoples of the nations talking to each other. Get them in daily communication, and building cross national friendships. The original way I thought of doing this was to make all long distance phone calls (national and international) part of basic phone service. It looks like the net is going to be the initial leader in providing the communication. Some leaders may eventually recognise that it has a major role in world peace. Think about this, if you were close friends with somebody in another country, would you condone your government attacking that country? Yes the net is one more step in the the people taking control of their lives away from governments, etc. Nolonger will the relations between two countries be goverened by what their leaders think of each other, but by what their peoples think of each other. When peoples in two different nations communicate, they will realize that they really aren't that much different. Everybody wants to put food on the table, everybody wants shelter, everbody wants relaxation and enjoyment, everbody wants... the list goes on and on. You look all accross the world, and these are constants. People will see all the various forms that satisfy these needs, and most will realize that it's just a different way, not necessasarily better or worse, just different.
You have to admit that it works both ways - Look at the damage done to a highly "controlling" institution - Briton's MI6 - by one ex-employee, without that organization being able to retaliate.
With every attempt to monitor and track there comes a groundswell that - at least partially - negates the original "Big Brotherism". Just look at the reaction to the id circuit in the new Pentium III chip, or Microsoft's gathering of information during product registrations.
It will be ten years or so before this whole "new world" of the internet society starts to settle down and be civilized. Until then, there are going to be a lot of attempts from every corner to try to insure that that group, institution, political organization, or any other sub-set of society, becomes one of the eventual "top dogs".
It is up to each of us to stay aware of what happens around us, and speak up when someone tries to impose excessive controls, or tries to do limit the personal freedoms that should be (and in some countries, are specified by law) the right of every human on earth.
- the "average room-temperature-IQ public" has purchased somewhere around 40 million computers in the last 5-7 years. Most are familiar with the Internet, and use it to gather different kinds of data, communicate (e-mail), and do other kinds of things that didn't happen so quickly prior to the 'Net.
- "...as automobiles were when their invention changed society." I think what you were really reaching for is that the internal combustion engine has changed society. For example, prior to IC engines, a large "mobile weapon of war" was one that could be pulled behind a large animal or placed on a ship. Shipping was mostly limited to train lines, which is why big cities grew up around the more successful rail-shipping lines.
- "Whereas anyone with at least an arm and a leg and an a-- to sit can learn how to drive a car with a reasonable level of competency...it takes intellegence to access the Internet, even through point-and-drool providers like AOL.I disagree with this point entirely, my friend. I'd have to say I've experienced 100X as many incompetent drivers as I've ever seen incompetent Internet users. Even including point and droolAOL.
...most people are quite comfortable being told what to do their entire lives. Correction. Most people are angry when they feel like they are not in control of their - Note the ratio of entrepreneurs to employees. Well, I've been both. Fact is I'm currently a highly empowered employee, and I've given myself the same wages without the headaches of running my own company. So perhaps your ratio has less to do with the sheep vs. sharks mentality implied through most of your post.
We're together on one thing though...how does Oprah sell so damn many books?own lives, they feel futile, and may ultimately choose not to take responsibility for their decisions, or find their own (alchohol, drugs, gambling -- choose your addiction) ways of escaping the futility. Guess what. Most 'Web surfers I know feel empowered and hava a habit of bringing others into the Digital age.
On second thought, maybe not. Consider this: what's the ratio of books purchased through Amazon.com compared to the books sold in response to Oprah. It's all about choice, and the web is opening up a whole new world that most of us haven't quite figured out yet.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
This is not a reply to Katz' article but to some of the people posting here. Note that *many* people on this planet are struggling to survive on a daily basis. They're not concerned with issues like net security and possibilities of the net for the individual. So, before there will be a global revolution-kind-of change by many people being connected this new and without doubt exciting way, many long-existing problems of literally billions of people will have to be solved first.
Your the naive one if you think your government was doing this all along. What is happening is quite the contrary: suddenly we have the tools to protect us from their eyes, and they are using the most desperate of methods (like the rediculous crypto bans) to keep us from using them. And it is going to be their fall, not ours.
And credit cards have been around much longer than the Internet revolution (yes I know the net itself is older) has. They are not an IT, more like bad bagage that we _have_ to rid ourselves of.
There's an interesting coincidence here ion that a fantastic 1989 book by James Beniger has the same title and is still quite relevant: "The Control Revolution : Technological and Economic Origins of the Information Society". Highly recommended.
-Ben