This would be a fascinating email if one was not suspicious that successful
forgers of currency are sufficiently pedantic to know to disconnect their
computers from the internet before scanning currency notes into Photoshop.
It's a bit like knowing to close the curtains at night to stop the voyeurs -
or the bogeymen. But, to whom do these secret messages go, surely
everyone's computer should be connected to Big Brother by now. Frankly, I
think I would feel insecure if there was no conspiracy theory - it enables
everyone to feel comfortable with their own inadequacies, and me with mine.
As it is, I am rather fond of my big brother, just as I am of the idea of
irony as a fundamental principle in design education.
Kind regards
Timothy Emlyn Jones
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kari-Hans Kommonen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: Big brother? New area of ethics in Design Research?
> I think that the most important concern here is that these
> arrangements are made in secrecy, behind the backs of the customers
> and any democratic control system.
>
> Most secrets of this nature do not leak past the world's tightest
> security clearance system, so we can only imagine what other kinds of
> peepholes, backdoors, traps and spy programs the proprietary closed
> microprocessors, network routers, operating systems, and as it seems,
> regular productivity or design tools we use, contain. We can and
> should worry about what kinds of signals they consider to be of
> interest, and what they do when they wake up.
>
> In my opinion, the greatest computer related security problem is
> secret code. Any critical or irreplaceable pieces of software, or any
> software that is deemed by any nation to be critical to that nation's
> security, should be open source, because that is the only way to
> control and guarantee its quality, legality and functionality.
>
> The secret code (i.e. proprietary software) that our digital society
> is being built on, is like a set of proprietary secret laws for the
> cyberspace (see Lessig 1999). On the other hand, computer code
> differs from law in that it is not static structure, but active
> processes that can react and take action. As this example shows, we
> may as well assume that certain strategic secret code also contains
> cyberspies. They need not remain as static unintrusive observers,
> they can also be woken up by a remote message and customized
> according to emerging needs. It is hard to see how the situation
> would be in the users' or citizens' interest, especially if the
> cyberspies serve the interest of governments whose actions and
> authority the targets of spying can not influence.
>
> For design research, I would suggest, it is very important to develop
> an understanding of the wider implications of digitalization for the
> society and the field of design. The Big Brother problem falls within
> this domain. What kind of design could offer an ethical response to
> the problem? In this case open, transparent design seems to be a
> direction to consider.
>
> best, kh
>
> --
>
> Lessig, L. Code and other laws of cyberspace. Basic Books, New York, NY,
1999.
>
> .....
> At 01:13 +0000 13.1.2004, Terence Love wrote:
> >Newscan 12 Jan 2004 reports that Adobe has admitted the latest version
> >of its Photoshop software contains new technology that identifies if
> >someone tries to make a digital copy of some currencies. The software
> >generates a warning message (not clear who to). This is apparently
> >part of an understanding between Adobe and US government and
> >bankers. Newscan quotes an Adobe spokesperson "We knew
> > this sort of thing would come out eventually ... We can't really talk
> >about the technology itself".
> >
> >There are worries that this technology can be easily extended by Adobe
> >to many other sorts of material. It provides a means of censorship
> >on the designers' desk - at the point of creation of digital material.
> >
> >In design research terms, this situation opens up a completely new area
> >of design-focused ethics.
> >
> >It has potential implications for those designers working in areas
> >that current US government might not fully approve.
> >
> >Any other thoughts on the implications?
> >
> >Terry
> >
> >===
> >Dr. Terence Love
> >Research Fellow
> >Dept of Design
> >Curtin Univesity
> >Western Australia
> >[log in to unmask]
> >===
>
|