Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies


The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.


Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view




whats new at ieet

NASA Can Get Humans to Mars by 2033 (Without a Budget Increase!)

Where does intelligence come from?

8th Beyond Humanism Conference

The Universal Balance of Gravity and Dark Energy Predicts Accelerated Expansion

What’s Killing the American Middle Class?

Rituals Improve Life According to Ancient Chinese Philosophers


ieet books

Philosophical Ethics: Theory and Practice
Author
John G Messerly


comments

almostvoid on 'Where does intelligence come from?' (May 26, 2016)

almostvoid on 'The Future of PR in Emotionally Intelligent Technology' (May 25, 2016)

almostvoid on 'Rituals Improve Life According to Ancient Chinese Philosophers' (May 25, 2016)

almostvoid on 'Optimize Brain Health by Balancing Social Life with Downtime' (May 23, 2016)

instamatic on 'Faithfulness--The Key to Living in the Zone' (May 22, 2016)

R Wordsworth Holt on 'These Are the Most Serious Catastrophic Threats Faced by Humanity' (May 22, 2016)

Giulio Prisco on 'Faithfulness--The Key to Living in the Zone' (May 22, 2016)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



JET

Enframing the Flesh: Heidegger, Transhumanism, and the Body as “Standing Reserve”

Moral Enhancement and Political Realism

Intelligent Technologies and Lost Life

Hottest Articles of the Last Month


Ethicists Generally Agree: The Pro-Life Arguments Are Worthless
May 17, 2016
(4224) Hits
(10) Comments

Artificial Intelligence in the UK: Risks and Rewards
May 12, 2016
(3279) Hits
(0) Comments

Nicotine Gum for Depression and Anxiety
May 5, 2016
(3014) Hits
(0) Comments

3D Virtual Reality Is the Best Storytelling Technology We’ve Ever Had
May 5, 2016
(2833) Hits
(1) Comments



IEET > Security > Cyber > Rights > Privacy > Life > Access > Innovation > Vision > Philosophy > Futurism > Contributors > Anthony Miccoli

Print Email permalink (4) Comments (3484) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


The Internet of Things and the Great Recalibration


Anthony Miccoli
By Anthony Miccoli
blog.posthumanbeing.com

Posted: Jan 20, 2016

I’ve been playing catch-up since my tenure application and my class preps for the Spring semester, but I’ve finally been able to re-engage with my usual sites, and all of the fantastic content in my Google+ communities.  One thing that’s been coming up in various iterations is the concept of the “internet of things.” In a nutshell, the term loosely (and, I think perhaps a little misleadingly) refers to a technological interconnectivity of everyday objects: clothes, appliances, industrial equipment, jewelry, cars, etc, now made possible by advancements in creating smaller microprocessors.

This idea has been around for quite some time, and has been developing steadily even though the general public might have been unaware of it. RFID chips in credit cards, black boxes in cars, even traffic sensors and cameras: they have all been pinging under our general perception for years—almost like a collective unconscious.  

But now, various patterns and developments have aligned to bring the concept itself into public awareness. While WiFi or even internet access is far from ubiquitous, we are becoming “connected enough” for these technologies to gain traction and—as Intel, Google, and a host of other tech companies hope—become something we expect. And I believe it is this expectation of connectedness which will once and for all mark the end of an antiquated notion of privacy and anonymity. 

Yes, I know. Snowden. The NSA. Massive black and grey operations poring through every text we send, every dirty little Snap we take, every phone call we make, and email we send. But I believe the bluster and histrionics people are going through are actually the death-throes of an almost Luddite conception of what “privacy” and “information” actually are. 

This thought came to me long ago, but I wasn’t able to really articulate it until this past semester, when I was covering Kant in my intro to philosophy course. In the landscape of western philosophy, Kant created a seismic shift with a very subtle, even elegant, yet really sneaky rearticulation of one specific philosophical concept: a priori knowledge. Instead of characterizing a priori knowledge as an innate concept like infinity or freedom, he presented it as an innate capacity or ability. That is to say, the concept of “freedom,” isn’t in itself a priori, but our capacity to reason about it is. Of course, it’s more complicated than that, but generally speaking, my students come to realize that Kant essentially recalibrated the spectrum of a priori/a posteriori knowledge. And Western philosophy was never the same again. The potential relativism of empiricism was contained, while the solipsisms of rationalism were dissipated.  

I believe that we are witnessing a similar seismic shift in our conception of what information is, and by extension, what we consider to be “private.” Only history will be able to determine if this shift was a leap or an evolutionary creep forward. Regardless, I’m hoping that as more material objects become woven into the fabric of the data cloud, that it acts as a way to recalibrate people’s thoughts on what exactly information is, more specifically, how that information doesn’t “belong” to us. 

Our information is as susceptible to “loss” or “destruction” as our bodies are. Our information can degrade just as our bodies can. We can “protect” “our” information only as so far as we can protect our bodies from various dangers.  Granted, the dangers can be very different, however, we have as much chance of keeping our information private as we have of keeping our “selves” private.  Of course, biologically, in the phenomenal world, we can live “off the grid” and be as far away from others as possible. But the cost is paranoia and a general distrust of humanity in general: essentially, a life of fear.  Similarly, there is no way to completely protect our information without also withdrawing it completely from a technified world.  But again, at what cost?  I think it’s one that is similar to all of those who sit in their compounds, armed to the teeth, waiting for a collapse of civilization that will never come.  

The internet of things, as it evolves, will slowly grow our expectations of connectivity.  We will opt in to smart cars, clothes, houses ... and I’m sure one day, trees, forests, animals ... that seem to intuitively adapt to our needs. From the dawn of time, we have always altered the physical world to our needs.  What we see happening today is no different, except that we now have a discourse to self-reflexively question our own motives. I always wondered if there was some kind of “cusp generation” of early humanity who distrusted cultivation and agriculture, as a ceding of humanity’s power to nature itself?  An old hunter looking at his grandchildren planting things, thinking that they were putting too much faith, reliance, and attention in dirt. And, probably, that eventually the things that they grew would somehow eventually kill them (and I’m sure there was a sense of pure satisfaction from the paleo-Luddite when someone choked to death on a vegetable, or got food poisoning). 

Our expectations of connectivity will overcome our attachment to “private” information. The benefits will outweigh the risks; just as the benefits of going outside outweigh the benefits of being a hermit. 

I’m not saying that we should start waving around our social security numbers or giving our bank account numbers to foreign princes who solicit us over spam. We don’t walk into a gang zone waving around cash, or dangle our children in front of pedophiles.  We must protect our “information” as much as we can, realizing that reasonable safeguards do not—by any stretch of the imagination—equal anonymity. If we wish to be woven into an internet of things, then we must more actively recalbrate what our notion of “privacy” and even “anonymity” is. And given the historical development of civilization itself, we will cede aspects of privacy or invisibility in order to gain a greater sense of efficacy. An internet of things that more efficiently weaves us into the world of objects will heighten that sense of efficacy. It already has. When our cars customize themselves for us when we open the door, or when our houses adjust all manner of ambient conditions to our liking, or even when Google autocompletes our searches based on our geographical location or past searches, our sense of efficacy is heightened; as is our sense of expectation.

As for what this recalibration brings, I believe it will—like other technological developments—be part of a larger field of advancements which will allow for us to become more ontologically ready for even bigger leaps forward. Perhaps after a few decades of a more widespread, almost ubiquitous internet of things, the emergence of an AI will actually seem more natural to us. I think in the more immediate future, it will ease fears of various transhuman values; augmentation of our biology will not be as threatening for some as might be today.

In any movement, there is an avant garde—literally the “advance guard” or “fore-guard;” the innovators and dreamers who experiment and push ahead. And often, like Kant, they allow cultures to recalibrate their expectations and values, and rethink old notions and standards. Each time we use a credit card, click “I agree” on a terms of service box, or sign in to a various web account, we’re pushing that advance ever forward ... and that’s not a bad thing. 


Anthony Miccoli is the Director of Philosophy and an Associate Professor of Philosophy and Communication Arts at Western State Colorado University in Gunnison, Colorado. He holds a Ph.D. from the State University of New York at Albany.
Print Email permalink (4) Comments (3485) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg


COMMENTS


no. After all it was Morse that gave us connectivity. And no angst. Except for outlaws in America’s wild west or bush-rangers DownUnder. I don’t think a smart fridge is even required. Or preheating a flat in winter. What are we ? Whimps? Smart cars will still cause congestion because the conned-sumers never learn. It will actually make us dumber -if that is possible given the detritus on social media - for the more apps we use the less the brain is engaged unless it is hard-soft wired and then we will be well and truly dominated by the machine. Only those who are Isolates will be human. The other, the symbiots will be slaves to the program. But then historically the masses never expressed themselves individually. Though the internet-of-things promises paradise that may only occur if the endorphin’s get a boost or serotonin boosters lull is into complacency. Bit like what TV does now. The only way out will be to disconnect. And knowing our control obsessed executive parliamentarians they will make that illegal.





This article seems intended to refute an absolute idea of privacy as a pure and abstract concept.  As a principled defender of privacy rights, I don’t think of them that way, but rather as a precondition for many other freedoms and for democracy.  If those with more power than you can monitor your actions, they can control those actions too.

Do you want to have sex other than with a spouse?  Do you want to eat pork?  Do you want to get an abortion, or carry out abortions?  Do you want to plan a protest?  Do you want to study chemistry?  Do you want to vote in a free election?  Do you want to report a grave crime committed by the state?  Do you want to do journalism?  As a practical matter, those all require privacy.





@rms—

Can you define what you mean by “privacy as a precondition”?  Because when I read the list of questions (i.e “do you want to eat pork? Do you want to get an abortion?” etc.), I’m not seeing how “privacy” is a precondition or requirement for any of those actions.

I’m not disagreeing with your overall point, but I think the disconnect may be in the way each of us may be defining privacy ...





@Anthony Miccoli: Depending on the politics of the place you live, you may suffer terrible consequences for doing those things if you don’t have privacy.





YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: IEET Article by Roland Benedikter Translated into Arabic

Previous entry: Le choix d’une vie très longue en bonne santé : pourquoi ? (2/4) : Effets possibles

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

East Coast Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
56 Daleville School Rd., Willington CT 06279 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-428-1837

West Coast Contact: Managing Director, Hank Pellissier
425 Moraga Avenue, Piedmont, CA 94611
Email: hank @ ieet.org