On net neutrality, filter bubble, and open source architecture

Two years ago I started working on a project called crowdSOS. In 140 characters or less: crowdSOS crowdsources safety and security allowing users to report local incidents, visualize the reports, and derive insights helping them make smarter decisions on safety.

You can read more about crowdSOS app here. The app was developed both for the Apple iPhone and Android platforms and is available on the app store and google play.

As an app that relies on a collaborative model, network effects, and serving as a platform for users to engage in reporting behavior, crowdSOS is the quintessential web 2.0 software as described by Tim O’Reilly. Additionally, when designing and building the app, we did not foresee this to be an open source project, at least not immediately. But we took steps to make it collaborative for our own ease of development and maintenance – modular design, APIs, and putting code on github. Our goal was to make it easy for our developers to work together and create features that can be easily integrated into the crowdSOS system and built upon it – in essence making it a platform for collaborative work. This architecture of participation emerged naturally, much like the web2.0’ness of the crowdSOS app. The current architecture and workings of the web and demand from the users naturally push developers to adopt these basic web2.0 tenets. This design also helped us turn crowdSOS into an open source project which we made available publicly on github.

The current democratic nature of the internet allows many social entrepreneurs, like myself, freedom to pursue projects that give us a platform to speak. We can take advantage of the internet to reach to billions of people on the internet. With enough drive (and luck) we can start a movement that can rival the biggest of conglomerates or authoritarian governments. The recent debate about net neutrality threatens to take away these freedoms. With no net neutrality rules, we will create an autocratic internet where the big players get bigger ‘pipes’ of bandwidth because of their financial muscle. If net neutrality is taken away, apps like crowdSOS will be buried deep in the abyss because sites like netflix, google, and facebook will hog the bandwidth. Forget crowdSOS, a free site like wikipedia will wither away because the wikimedia foundation cannot afford to compete with large conglomerates and corporations. Net neutrality guarantees the tenets of the freedom of information act and must be maintained and fought at all costs.

Another trend, the filter bubble, also threatens the democratic nature of the internet. In essence, when you use Google, Yahoo, or Bing (seriously!?) the search results are filtered on the basis of 57 indicators that uniquely define you. So what you see on the internet search is catered for you alone. While this may seem relevant, it implies that Google is making decisions on what they believe you want to see. The results can be easily tweaked to reveal what Google or any other entity wants you to read or believe and even feel. The recent reveal offacebook experiment is a case in point. No matter if the organization’s motto is not to be evil, such concentration of power is dangerous.

While i do believe that resistance is futile when it comes to privacy in this hyperconnected world, we can take steps to maintain the democratic nature of the internet and keep it relevant for us and future generations. Until next time.

Is resistance futile?

Like it or not, you are already a cloud consumer. The services being offered through the cloud are growing exponentially – from using email (gmail) for communications, to interacting with family, friends, and colleagues through social media (facebook, twitter, and linkedin). Online cloud storage services (dropbox, g-drive, cloud drive) offer you a chance to store all your documents online nullifying the risk of losing them and making them accessible from anywhere in the world. Both Google and Apple provide automated backup of your data to the cloud from pictures you take through your phone to the emails you send. It is a great time to be a cloud consumer but this convenience comes at a cost.

With all this data being stored online the fundamental question that we ask is who owns the personal information once it is uploaded to the ether? Does the cloud service provider have any rights to this data?

Terms of service stated by Facebook and Google recognize the ultimate ownership of data by the consumer:

Facebook:  “You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings.”

Google: “Google does not claim any ownership in any of the content, including any text, data, information, images, photographs, music, sound, video, or other material, that you upload, transmit or store in your Gmail account. We will not use any of your content for any purpose except to provide you with the Service.”

On the face of it, this seems like a reasonable guarantee of privacy of your personal data. However, the fact remains that the privacy boundaries for these two giants and countless other cloud service providers have never been properly tested or explored.

The recent revelations of PRISM and the powers afforded through the Patriot Act nullify any false hope of security. When the former CIA Director and 4-star general of the US Army can be implicated through cyber investigations, what chance do all of us pawns have? While we may not be truly living in an Orwellian world, the fact remains that the Big Brother is watching and any attempts to escape will only arouse further scrutiny – case in point provided by the users of the TOR browser who became high priority targets for the NSA – full article here

Picard couldn’t resist! How can we?

So the question is, is there is any way to safeguard our privacy in the ever-changing and evolving landscape afforded by the cloud? Or is any resistance to this a futile attempt at a false sense of security?

While the escape from government maybe futile, the risks from rogue enterprises or institutions that can use your data for nefarious purposes can be countered

Advent of Web 2.0 and Growth of Collective Action

Earlier this week I read the first few (6) chapters of Clay Shirky’s book – Here Comes Everybody. In 140 characters or less: Web 2.0 has transformed the way we produce, consume, and react to media content. And key driver of it is the science of collective action.

A good definition of Web 2.0 was provided by Tim O’Reilly. He describes seven key principles of this phenomenon namely web as a platform, rich user experience, software as a service, growth and use of data, ubiquitous software, leveraging long-tail, and harnessing collective intelligence. These principles are what drive the Web 2.0 and are key to the concepts Shirky discusses in his book as well.

Shirky discusses case studies that illustrate the characteristics of Web 2.0. The case for the stolen sidekick describes how one driven individual used Web 2.0 technologies – shared forum, social media, and user-generated content – to mobilize a movement, involve NYPD, have NYPD revise its own doctrine, and retrieve a lost phone (sidekick) all within 10 days (details here). While the story of the lost sidekick highlights how a driven individual can mobilize a crowd (especially through social media), the case of Wikipedia is more illustrative of the power of collective action yielding a net positive impact on society.

Wikipedia is built on a simple technological tool – a wiki. A platform that allows users to collaboratively produce, edit, and curate content. A wiki, in my opinion, is the microcosm of the characteristics of Web 2.0. It is a web platform that can be easily implemented on any web-enabled hardware, designed for user collaboration and content creation, and is easily adaptable to the needs. (Perhaps the DPI-659 class website should be a wiki to house past content, FAQ, and require student input!).

Shirky discusses some key aspects pertaining to Wikipedia and its growth. Since its launch in January 2001 Wikipedia has had monumental growth making it the 6^th most popular website in the world (history of Wikipedia). Wikipedia operates solely on the basis of its users contributing, editing, and curating content. With no monetary benefit, what drives these individuals to contribute? Three things according to Shirky – vanity (having their name associated with an entry), utilizing available skill and time, and drive to do a good thing. Wikipedia inherently operates on the concept called the 80-20 rule – 20% of the contributors produce 80% of the content. Wikipedia’s community of contributors has the drive and will to curate the content and weed out attempts at vandalism within minutes. This philosophy keeps Wikipedia functional and avoids the age-old free-rider problem (tragedy of the commons).

I am a frequent visitor/user for a site called reddit. Reddit, is another example of a Web 2.0 tool that allows users to post news stories or general content within an area of interest. There are channels pertaining to specific subject areas (called subreddits) and users either up-vote or down-vote a posting. Like a mini democratic system, postings with the most up-votes rise to the top of the site.

Yesterday I came across a story on reddit that could easily be a case in Shirky’s book. In a subreddit titled TIFU (today I f***ed up), a system administrator posted his story of accidentally deleting a contact/mailing list that his company had spent hours and thousands of $ building. As the name prescribes, this subreddit pertains to people sharing their stories of failure or mistakes, it does not normally lead to action from readers besides sympathies. However, after posting the story on reddit, a user asked the Original Poster (OP) about how can he/she signup for the mailing list and help him out. The OP shared the link to signup for the mailing list and within 9 hours, the mailing list had more subscribers than the company had originally lost. Remember that the company spent a month building interest and attracting users for this mailing list, but with the power afforded by Reddit and its user community, the ‘failure’ of the Op turned into an opportunity.

“Here comes everybody” to save my mailing list!

The figure illustrates the growth in the list. The original story can be found here.

We are living in a more connected and smaller world than just a decade ago. The Web 2.0 technologies and advent of sharing tools such as Reddit and Wikipedia have made it easier for communities to organize, share information, and achieve collective action. Next week, I will continue the discussion to include the ongoing debate on net neutrality, social networking, and the filter bubble. Stay tuned.

Hello World!

Yes, this is my first foray into official blogger word. Partly thanks to DPI-659 at HKS making it a requirement. This blog will serve as the placeholder for my macro thoughts on everything ranging from Science, Technology, and Policy and everything in between.

My professional bio and resume can be found here on my LinkedIn page.

My personal bio is below:
I am currently a graduate student at MIT (SDM) and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government (MPA). I am interested in exploring the science of collective action and how technological tools can enable broader civic engagement for the collective social good of the society.

In technical terms, I experiment with crowdsourcing tools and techniques to gauge their efficacy and determine how they can be used for more data driven policy design and strengthening democratic apparatus. To do this, I do most of my technical research at the MIT Media Lab and explore policy implications at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Ali