I am going to abide by the golden rule here. If I were a well-respected law professor, I would want the honest feedback that is to follow. I apologize (sincerely) if Professor Cohen does not feel the same way.
1. Beginning with the negative. The book is written in a fashion that very few people aside from Professor Cohen can possibly understand. The text is difficult to sift through, and the ideas do not seem to have a really coherent structure. In short (because I do not want to spend my time criticizing someone who was brave enough to publish a very intelligent work on a very difficult subject) I do not believe that Professor Cohen's book is a worthwhile read for non-academics. In fact, this may not be a criticism at all if there was no intention for the book to appeal to a wider audience. Regardless, this issue is one to be taken up with the publisher. I want to move on to a discussion of the substance....
2. “the design of digital architectures reflects beliefs about rational social ordering that are not themselves given.” (p. 185). We design things as we see fit. Nothing is given in this world, and Cohen admits this fact throughout her discourse. We can only do our best to approximate the "social ordering" of things, and to adapt our technologies accordingly. Should we be proven wrong, we adapt further. There is no use in reconceptualizing rational social ordering simply because the design of digital architectures is predicated on beliefs about that ordering. These things take on a natural evolution.
3. “a growing constellation of factors- business models, legal doctrines, and accepted design practice- operates to diminish the technical accessibility of the network, obscuring important aspects of the structure and operation of the networked information environment from those who inhabit it.” (p. 193) I had difficulty with this passage for two reasons. First, I am not sure I understand what it means, and second, I am not sure what the implications are. I took this to mean that a number of factors are complicating technical accessibility of the network. If this interpretation is correct, the I disagree. Devices like the iPhone and iPad have made technical access much easier for the lay person like myself. Previously, I was unable to realize the full potential of internet access simply because I was not savvy enough to understand the technical complexities of the code required to engage in more complex tasks than simply web surfing. Now, I have hundreds of apps at my disposal (many of which are free). I can play games over the network, locate whatever I need in whatever area I'm in, speak with whoever I want whenever I want, and most importantly, I can configure my "networked self" with relative ease. Just because I may not understand the underlying technologies doesn't mean I have restricted access. And I am just the first generation of "app" users. Imagine what the next generation will be capable of understanding and producing.
4. “the widespread use of information-based authentication and the resulting heightened risk of identity theft create pressures for even more identification and authentication.” (P. 168). I thought this was Professor Cohen's best point in the book, and a really brilliant one. I would equate this network problem with a real life parallel: distrust breeds distrust.
5. “In Europe, where data protection laws are stricter, there is less private sector trade in personal information, but also more government freedom to collect and store data about citizens.” (P. 167). Another very interesting point from Professor Cohen. The differences between Europe and the US with regard to data protection are seemingly very important. Who do we trust more with our personal data, private industry or the government? Although I can't be sure, I know that the government has done a pretty good job over the last hundred years with protecting the information about its citizens. We rarely have instances of data breaches (though these have increased in the internet age). We have never, however, experienced a world where private industry possesses our private information on such a large scale and therefore, we have no precedent in this arena. I think this passage illustrates an important choice we have to face as US citizens: are we willing to give up personal information without any guaranteed returns?
6. “devolution of surveillance capability into private hands enables greater control than government could achieve directly.” (P. 178). I agree generally with this point, but I don't think it has much value for us citizens unless there are things that private companies can do that the government cannot, by law, do itself. Should this prove to be the case, we may find ourselves in a situation where power shifts to the private industries that can best control/monitor the population. However, if there is nothing private industry can do that government can't, we shouldn't be worried about the devolution taking place. The more important issue is whether the surveillance capability becomes a self-propelling mechanism (ie questionable behavior causes greater surveillance, which itself causes greater surveillance). We of course do not want to end up with a police state, and especially not a police state with no government-related, accountable people at the top.
7. “the play of everyday practice thrives when openness and closure are in balance.” (P.260). Statements like these are what frustrate the reader into an inquiry that need not take place. How about qualifying this statement with some discussion of exactly how much or what kind of oppenness and closure we are referring to?
8. “The possibility of harm from unpredictable future events is an unavoidable fact; to undertake any prospective enterprise is to confront risks of all sorts. Strategies focused on the elimination of gaps in informational frameworks can magnify risk, either by exacerbating preexisting dangers or by creating new ones.” (P. 271). The pessimism comes through. This is where I fundamentally disagree with Professor Cohen. She seems to find no win-win in this new networked world, whereas I see a win-win (using the exact same analytical frame work as she uses). Professor Cohen engages in such a brilliant, convoluted argument, and yet ends her book with a sort of "c'est la vie" statement. Eliminating the gaps is exactly what the internet is for. Its purpose is free, and comprehensive information flow. It is designed to promote that flow. Of course everything in life comes with some drawbacks, but it is not helpful to anyone for Professor Cohen to make sweeping statements like the one above. Let's get real with it. What preexisting dangers do you see? What potential dangers do you foresee? Please do explain these things Professor Cohen, for without anything concrete, you have cast an unexaminable fear in us.
I do not purport to know anything more than Professor Cohen does. In fact, I purport to know A LOT less about the issues she discusses. One thing I do know though, is that books like this can tend to create more unknowns that knowns, and we as a society should see Professor Cohen's book as an extremely valuable piece of evidence that we don't know anything about how best to address the issues we are faced with yet. If a brilliant professor, writing at the level of Professor Cohen cannot adequately frame the problems we must combat, then we should be wary of taking any drastic action until we can more fully understand those problems and what we want/need out of any proposed solution. I am happy I read the book, but this, my last critique is one I hope Professor Cohen will take to heart: The "networked self" is one of the most important issues of our time. We are desparate for a torch bearer to lead the way through an overgrown forest. We cannot afford to have our society's most intelligent minds publishing books like this that are almost entirely inaccessible to the general population. We need people like you Professor Cohen to write for the masses, to give us some guidance where little exists. The more time passes, the more difficult the task we face as technology is improving at an exponential rate. My critique of your book is not a critique of you as a person or an author or an academic, so much as a critique of our system that produces brilliant thinkers who don't reconnect with their roots.
I hope I have not offended, but I have given what I myself would want given to me.
The Digital Divide
Recent Comments