Before PRISM was ever dreamed of, under orders from the Bush White House the NSA was already aiming to “collect it all, sniff it all, know it all, process it all, exploit it all.” During the same period, Google—whose publicly declared corporate mission is to collect and “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”—was accepting NSA money to the tune of $2 million to provide the agency with search tools for its rapidly accreting hoard of stolen knowledge.
-- Julian Assange, Google Is Not What It Seems
Who is going to process the unthinkable amount of data that's being collected by the NSA and its allies? For now, it seems that the volume of stored data is so enormous that it borders on the absurd.
We know that if someone in the NSA puts a person on notice, his or her record will be retrieved and future actions will be closely monitored (CITIZENFOUR). But who is going to decide who is on notice?
And persons are only significant "threats" if they are related to other persons, to groups, to ideas.
Google, who enjoyed a close proximity with power for the last decade, has now decided to differenciate Good and Bad ideas. Or, in the terms of the New Scientist, truthful content and garbage.
The internet is stuffed with garbage. Anti-vaccination websites make the front page of Google, and fact-free "news" stories spread like wildfire. Google has devised a fix – rank websites according to their truthfulness.
Of course, it is not because vaccine manufacturers are exonerated from liability by the US vaccine court that they are necessarily doing those things that anti-vaccine fanatics say. Italian courts don't judge vaccines the same way as US courts do, but well, that's why we need a more truthful Google, isn't it?Google's search engine currently uses the number of incoming links to a web page as a proxy for quality, determining where it appears in search results. So pages that many other sites link to are ranked higher. This system has brought us the search engine as we know it today, but the downside is that websites full of misinformation can rise up the rankings, if enough people link to them.
Google will determine what's true using the Knowledge-Based Trust, which in turn will rely on sites "such as Snopes, PolitiFact and FactCheck.org, [...] websites [who] exist and profit directly from debunking anything and everything [and] have been previously exposed as highly partisan."
Wikipedia will all also be part of the adventure.
What is needed by the intelligence community is an understanding of the constellation of threats to power, and those threats might not be the very useful terrorists of 9/11. What is more problematic is those who can lead masses of people to doubt that 19 novice pilots, alone and undisturbed, could fly planes on the World Trade Center on 9/11, or influential people like Robert F. Kennedy who liken USA's vaccine program to mass child abuse.
These idea, and so many other 'garbage' ideas, are the soil on which organized resistance grows. This aggregate of ideas constitutes a powerful, coherent, attractive frame of reference for large, ever expanding, sections of society.
And this is why Google is such an asset to the NSA (and conversely). Google is in charge of arming the NSA with Truth, which, conjoined with power, will create an all-knowing, all-seeing computer-being. Adding private communications to public webpages, Google will identify what's more crucial to 'debunk'. Adding public webpages to private communications, the NSA will be able to connect the personal to the collective.
And this, obviously, will only be possible through artificial intelligence.
Hassabis and his team [of Google's artificial intelligence program (Deepmind)] are creating opportunities to apply AI to Google services. AI firm is about teaching computers to think like humans, and improved AI could help forge breakthroughs in loads of Google's services [such as truth delivery?]. It could enhance YouTube recommendations for users for example [...].
But it's not just Google product updates that DeepMind's cofounders are thinking about. Worryingly, cofounder Shane Legg thinks the team's advances could be what finishes off the human race. He told the LessWrong blog in an interview: 'Eventually, I think human extinction will probably occur, and technology will likely play a part in this.' He adds that he thinks Artifical Intellgience is the 'No.1 risk for this century'. It's ominous stuff. [ You can read more on that here..]
May
help us.
Power subjugates whatever it doesn't need, it will always avoid to show other realities, even when it 'preaches' the opposite. A 'machine' that produces repression, and maybe even to the level of unconscious social desire, must however be fragile.... what is fragile, simultaneously, is the subjugated person by a 'machine'... What is the actual machine?
ReplyDeleteWhatever system we have to live in, freedom resides in ourselves and probably this is where all work should start, understanding how free we actually are inside ourselves, then other things might change for this freedom will never reside in the outside of things... but this freedom will reflect on the outside...
A small note of possible optimism in a world reigned by numbers...
I'd like to refer to a frog: when a frog is put into cold water and that water is slowly heated, the frog is unable to mark the moment when to respond.
ReplyDeleteYou have to mark a moment to be able to respond.
Being in front of something abstract, we somehow have great trouble dealing with that abstract premise for we're deeply coded and we report following these codings.
I don't see the split of the individual or the collective, if I'm in the world and the world is in me, then my responsibility is far greater, selectivity is one of the main distortions in the mind.
Let me put it this way: what about all those persons who are not using the internet, or rarely, how are they afflicted in their coding in regard to the google story or many other similar stories? We shouldn't forget that as soon as we put a dance into words, its not a dance any longer and simultaneously we should remember that evolution is based on keeping things the way they are: repeating the same dance. Strangely it looks like we have to deal with many many juxtapositions, (I think far too complex too discuss here).
I'd like to refer to a frog: when a frog is put into cold water and that water is slowly heated, the frog is unable to mark the moment when to respond.
ReplyDeleteYou have to mark a moment to be able to respond.
Being in front of something abstract, we somehow have great trouble dealing with that abstract premise for we're deeply coded and we report following these codings.
I don't see the split of the individual or the collective, if I'm in the world and the world is in me, then my responsibility is far greater, selectivity is one of the main distortions in the mind.
Let me put it this way: what about all those persons who are not using the internet, or rarely, how are they afflicted in their coding in regard to the google story or many other similar stories? We shouldn't forget that as soon as we put a dance into words, its not a dance any longer and simultaneously we should remember that evolution is based on keeping things the way they are: repeating the same dance. Strangely it looks like we have to deal with many many juxtapositions, (I think far too complex too discuss here).
I'd like to refer to a frog: when a frog is put into cold water and that water is slowly heated, the frog is unable to mark the moment when to respond.
ReplyDeleteYou have to mark a moment to be able to respond.
Being in front of something abstract, we somehow have great trouble dealing with that abstract premise for we're deeply coded and we report following these codings.
I don't see the split of the individual or the collective, if I'm in the world and the world is in me, then my responsibility is far greater, selectivity is one of the main distortions in the mind.
Let me put it this way: what about all those persons who are not using the internet, or rarely, how are they afflicted in their coding in regard to the google story or many other similar stories? We shouldn't forget that as soon as we put a dance into words, its not a dance any longer and simultaneously we should remember that evolution is based on keeping things the way they are: repeating the same dance. Strangely it looks like we have to deal with many many juxtapositions, (I think far too complex too discuss here).
My experience in another sphere, the Church, is that the flock tend to be a year behind the cognoscenti in awakening to things. Perhaps Google will suffer such a fate? Or not.
ReplyDelete