The senior author of this book, Brad Smith is President of Microsoft, and an accomplished lawyer. The second author, Carol Browne, is a senior director at the same company. In their new book Tools and Weapons, they approach a fundamental question: How to cope with the evolution of modern IT-based technology in a good way, so that legal and ethical considerations are also being met. In the book’s foreword, Bill Gates, Microsoft’s founder and major shareholder, points out that Smith has been instrumental at Microsoft when dealing with this intersection of technology and society, ever since he joined the company in 1992.
The book is perhaps too full of detail, and there seems to be an over-abundance of names and dates. At times, all of this might perhaps seem somewhat overwhelming. However, the core messages in this book still come across as very clear. At the center of this is the challenge of how to collect and use large sets of data, while at the same time protect people’s privacy. And, as Bill Gates says in his foreword, it is paramount with an open discussion regarding this, involving governments, competitors and customers alike.
As a starting point the authors point out that today’s cloud technology is capital intensive, consisting of data, storage and computing power. And, safe storage does indeed represent a dilemma, as evidenced by Snowden’s illegal leaking of a massive set of security data in 1995. This, in turn, led to heightened guidelines when it comes to data storage, developed by a group of firms from the tech industry and the Obama administration.
A delicate trade-off is needed here: How to protect an individual’s right to privacy while at the same time being able to investigate criminal activity. And, the courts have come down on the side of protecting an individual’s rights here. It is simply not legal for police to install GPS trackers, for instance, without a search warrant, or to open someone’s mobile phone without a warrant. This is all illegal, even when dealing with a criminal.
So, privacy is a fundamental right. Microsoft has data storage facilities in several countries. But governments are restricted by the so-called CLOUD (Clarifying Lawful Overall Use of Data) guidelines when it comes to accessing these data. The foundation is now set, but much more work is needed before these guidelines can be made entirely clear.
Cyber security is, of course, essential! One might think about this as a “virus” that can be spread from one computer to another., through being part of an interaction – say, via email. The “infected” computers are thereby becoming out of action. Interestingly the authors claim that the original program for this might have been developed by NSA (The National Security Agency), but was subsequently stolen, for then to ultimately come into the hands of nations such as North Korea. Regrettably, there seems to be little we can do to protect oneself against this cyber security threat, except to turn off our computers!
Benjamin Franklin’s famous words when it came to the way the US was intended to be governed was “a republic, if you can keep it”. Regrettably, modern IT technology seems to represent a particular threat to this statement, which was articulated as far back as in 1787! Foreign countries seem to increasingly be hacking into others’ democratic processes! Russia’s stealing of many of the National Democratic Committee’s emails, published by Wikileaks, is perhaps one grave example. Posting of inaccurate information by foreign countries as part of election processes can indeed impact the democratic process/election results!
So, spreading misinformation is indeed a critical problem. Perhaps the diffusion of violent attacks might represent a particular problem, in that latent terrorists might now get triggered into violence, even though the news regarding a particular act of violence might have physically taken place far away. An example may be the recent violence in New Zealand, which seemingly triggered a series of violent attacks far away, including in Sri Lanka.
Facebook has come under particular criticism when it comes to these types of “news” postings. While this company’s stance is that it does not want to get involved in censorship – we do seem to have a real dilemma here!
Digital diplomacy is therefore an area on the rise. High tech companies may indeed have a higher impact on nations than sovereign nations! Several countries have staffed up this “diplomatic” function, including Denmark, UK, France, New Zealand and Australia. A fundamental question is how might high tech companies be able to restrict “news” about terrorist attacks. Technology is changing our society, indeed! And, here is the dilemma: How can privacy now be protected? What may initially have been “safe harbor” for protecting consumer privacy may now have become a “privacy shield”.
Broadband is, of course, key to all of this. And the development of broadband is central, as evidence by the recent discussion regarding the spread of Huawei’s 5G technology. Examples of how broadband may change things include tele-medicine, digital learning and precision farming.
In the end, a core issue shall be the high-tech firm’s ability to attract top talent. After all, new products are needed, and these can only be developed with top talents on board. The authors make the point that immigration policies are determinant. They state that the US used to be in the lead, but that current immigration policies may have become too restrictive. And the authors further argue that “pockets” of lower income may further increase the problem with such a talent gap.
This brings us to Artificial Intelligence (AI). An issue here is how AI might impact our perception of ethics. AI uses data, so that computers can “learn”, and thus ultimately make decisions. Human perceptions/cognitions do, of course, drive all of this. But, are there new ethical limits. What about AI-driven weaponry attacks?
AI is also central when it comes to how we deal with the issue of facial recognition. For instance, can a facial recognition capability “improve” a country’s immigration services? Microsoft has contributed here by developing the so-called ICE software – an Immigration and Customs Entrance program. Facial recognition can be particularly powerful in crime protection, by checking a suspected individual’s facial profile against data banks for crime suspects. But, again, what are the ethical limits? How can an individual’s privacy be protected? Reportedly, China is now using facial recognition approaches to monitor/control civil dissent. Is this to go a step too far?
AI is indeed intended to have an impact on society’s workforce, particularly perhaps when it comes to impacting how more routine jobs might be executed. But, as the authors point out, there is perhaps not so much new here. Fire engines were initially pulled by the firefighters themselves, but then (in 1866) horses took over, for ultimately in turn to be replaced by combustion motors (in 1922). Technology is always driving evolution, and AI is nothing more than a new technology.
Much of today’s attention is focused on the US-China relationship when it comes to technology. And this is indeed different from what we may see as usual, above all in the sense that China seems to have been able to exclude most US-based technology firms to be present in their home market (except for Apple, with it’s iPhone!). China thus seems to have been successful in “protecting” its home market. And, this might indeed be a reason why China seems to be advancing so fast, say, when it comes to 5G technology or IT-based commercial trading. For others, such as the US, the only way to remain in the race is to work harder!
Open source is essential. Data must be managed in an open way, not in “silos”, and not bureaucratic. But, privacy must, of course, be protected – witness Cambridge Analytica!
In conclusion, the authors point out that since our public indeed have heightened expectations for advances when it comes to technological innovations, the dilemma of protecting privacy is likely to remain a difficult balance to find. Thus, listen to people seems to be particularly critical! This might help us to come up with a more fundamental approach – ethical and regulatory, as well as entrepreneurial! Politicians and the government sector must understand that there is a fine balance here! “Legislative bureaucracy” does not seem to be the way. Transnational cooperation may indeed be key!
Comments