National Security Risks Associated with the Strava App

The Strava App story seems to have mesmerised readers worldwide. Understandably so. People as sensors is a concept that has gathered momentum in the fields of location-based services, social media and crowdsourcing applications. In 2003, I recognised the potential of GPS/GIS and ran a study titled Spatial Database National Australian (S-DNA) that was funded by the University of Wollongong. Here are some of the first outcomes of the work, that later grew to be funded by the Australian Research Council as a Discovery Project:

Source: https://gadgets.ndtv.com/apps/news/australian-military-says-strava-tracking-app-doesnt-breach-security-1806287

The Capability on SBS Greek Radio

Your face is becoming the latest weapon in the world of digital surveillance, and the humble driver's licence looms as a game-changer in tracking individuals through both the real and virtual world.

In Mandarin:

据ABC报道,一旦驾照被引入到生物识别数据库中,政府和一些私人部门将可以获取人们的的照片、年龄和地址等详细信息。

专家警告说,政府和一些有组织的犯罪团伙都有可能出于需要而获取个性化的元数据,人们正面临着失去对自己生物识别特征控制权的风险。

业内观点:

科技和法律方面的专家卡蒂娜·迈克尔(Katina Michael)教授说,在全国可访问的数据库中,大约50%的人已经存储了视觉化的生物特征,而驾照的引入会将这个比例一下提升到80%。

她表示,收集生物识别数据的最大风险之一是生物识别技术方式的漏洞。

迈克尔教授说,“当警察在系统内通过照片来查询个人信息时,不是一对一的搜索匹配,你把一个人的脸放在哪里,可能会得到好几十个人选的搜索结果”。

她说,虽然一段时间后这些被搜索的个人名字可能会被清除,但他们的数据可能会保留在与刑事调查相关的数据库中,而真正的惯犯或恐怖分子却往往不办护照和驾照,来逃避这个系统的管理。

斯蒂芬·威尔逊(Stephen Wilson)经营着一家咨询公司,负责研究和跟踪企业与政府领域的生物识别技术趋势。

他说,目前即便是非常安全的生物识别系统也需要相当长的时间才能准确处理图像。

而当消费者热衷于便利性,例如能够通过面部或指纹的快速扫描来打开手机或访问银行账户,就会忽视安全性,而这就会诱发问题。

威尔逊说,“ 我们在电子数据库里曝光得越多,我们被以生物识别特征匹配的可能性就越大。另外,对试图犯罪的人来说,想要伪造一个驾照,可以从系统里找到一长串与他们长相相似的照片来选择”。

生物识别技术研究所(Industry Trend Tracker)的年度行业调查显示,面部识别将是未来几年最有可能增加的生物识别发展趋势。

受访者们认为,个人隐私和数据保护问题是这个市场上最大的制约因素。

Biometric data from driver's licences added to government database

your face used to track you by government.jpg

Your face is becoming the latest weapon in the world of digital surveillance, and the humble driver's licence looms as a game-changer in tracking individuals through both the real and virtual world.

Experts warn your biometric data may already be vulnerable to misuse by criminals and terrorists, as the proliferation of mobile cameras combined with social media and ubiquitous CCTV feeds mean we're caught on screen more than ever before.

Key points

  • Biometric data builds an online profile using your photo, age and address
  • This can then be matched against photos gathered from the internet or CCTV
  • The data can be used by government agencies, along with companies and criminals

Driver's licences will be added to the Commonwealth Government's already vast biometric databases after it struck an agreement with the states and territories, handing authorities access to an unprecedented level of information about citizens.

A system known as "the interoperability Hub" is already in place in Australia, allowing agencies to take an image from CCTV and other media and run it against a national database of passport pictures of Australian citizens — a process known as "The Capability".

But soon driver's licences will be added to the system, allowing both government and private entities to access your photo, age and address.

It is a $21 million system being sold as a way to tackle terrorism and make commercial services more secure.

But experts warn people now risk losing control of their biometric identity entirely as commercial interests, governments and organised crime gangs all move to capture more personal metadata for their own gain.

Driver's licences change the biometric game

Technology and legal expert Professor Katina Michael said about 50 per cent of the population already had some kind of visual biometric stored in a nationally-accessible database, but the inclusion of drivers licenses would see the proportion of Australians scooped up in the net swell to about 80 per cent.

She said one of the biggest risks of the collection of biometric data was not deliberate misuse by the AFP, ASIO or another government agency, but rather vulnerabilities in the way biometrics work.

Who can access your biometric data?

Document Verification Service (DVS) - government and private sector

  • Companies and government can run an identity document through a database to see if it matches information held on file, and that the document has not been revoked
  • Individual must consent before DVS used

Face Verification Service (FVS) - government and private sector

  • Enables a facial image of an individual to be compared against government records of that same individual, such as passports and drivers licences
  • Individual must consent or a legislative basis must be established to collect the information, and use must comply with the Privacy Act

Face Identification Service (FIS) - only law enforcement agencies can use

  • A facial image can be compared against multiple facial images held on a government database, including Australian citizens' passport photos and now driver's licences.
  • Multiple records of people who have a close match to the image are usually returned
  • An agency must have a legislative basis or authority to collect and use the information
  • Access is restricted to law enforcement agencies or those with national security related functions

"It's not like a one-on-one match, where you put (in) an individual's face and say: 'they're a suspect'," Professor Michael said.

"But rather what you get returned is a number of possibilities … you might get back 15, or 20, or 30, or 50 matches.

So you might have 50 innocent people being suspects, rather than the person that you're trying to catch

Professor Michael said this meant that while over time a person's name might be cleared, their data could remain in a database linked to a criminal investigation.

"And then I'm thinking, what happens to their level of innocence as time goes on, because they accidentally look like a minority group?" she said.

She said real criminals and terrorists would opt out of the system, choosing not to have passports and driver's licenses in a bid to escape the net.

"Of course, if you've done nothing wrong, the old adage says you're fine. But increasingly, we don't know if we're fine," she said.

The rise of 'uberveillance'

Professor Michael said modern surveillance methods employed by law enforcement were not just limited to CCTV — they now incorporated vast amounts of metadata and social media, leading to a concept known as "uberveillance" in which people were constantly monitored.

"What we have now are digital footprints that we all leave behind," she said.

"Phone call records, internet searches, credit cards and even the data on your electronic train or bus ticket can be used to track your movements and activity.

"It brings together all these various touchpoints, telecommunications records, travel data via tokens, facial recognition on federal databases, your tax file number … that's accessible depending on the level of crime and social media.

"You've got this very rich almost cradle-to-grave kind of data set that's following you."

We asked if you were concerned about driver's licenses being added to a biometric database.

 

Organised criminals want your identity

Stephen Wilson runs Lockstep Consulting, a Sydney-based firm which researches and tracks trends in biometrics in the corporate and government spheres, and advises clients on best-practice.

He said at the moment very secure biometric systems took quite a long time to process images accurately.

Problems arose when consumer convenience, such as being able to unlock a phone or access a bank account with a quick face or fingerprint scan, trumped security.

"No police force, no public service, no business is ever perfect, there is always going to be corrupt people," Mr Wilson said.

"The more exposure we have to electronic databases, the more exposure we have to biometric matching, it's only a matter of time before these bad actors succumb to temptation or they succumb to corruption and they wind up using these systems inappropriately."

Your biometric twin is out there

VIDEO: Professor says nothing to fear from federal driver's license database (ABC News)

Mr Wilson said biometrics were creeping into consumer services like bank accounts and online betting facilities, with customers asked to send a picture of their licence and a "selfie" that will be run through an identity matching service.

"The real risk is that bad actors will take people's photos, ask for a match, and get back a series of matches of people that are kind of like your biometric twin," he said.

"We've all got doppelgangers, we've all got people in public that look just like us.

"If you're trying to perpetrate a crime, if you're organised crime, and you're trying for example to produce a fake driver's licence, it's absolute gold for you to be able to come up with a list of photos that look like 'Steve Wilson'."

Technology companies like Apple and Samsung have championed the use of biometrics such as fingerprints, and this has taken a step further with facial recognition becoming more common thanks to the release of the iPhone X.

PHOTO: Apple's iPhone X has championed facial recognition technology. (Twitter: AppleEventos)

However Mr Wilson said a key difference was that information stayed on the phone, while banking and other commercial interests trying to use your biometrics to confirm your identity could be storing it on a server anywhere.

"Do you really want your photo, which is a pretty precious resource, sent off to a company perhaps on the other side of the world just so you can get a quick bank account or quick betting service set up?" he asked.

What will happen next?

An annual industry survey conducted by the Biometrics Institute, known as the Industry Trend Tracker, has nominated facial recognition as the biometric trend most likely to increase over the next few years.

Respondents believed privacy and data protection concerns were the biggest constraint on the market, followed by poor knowledge of decision makers, misinformation about biometrics and opposition from privacy advocates.

The Australian law reform commission says biometric systems increasingly are being used or contemplated by organisations, including in methadone programs, taxi booking services, ATMs and online banking, and access to buildings

Dr Michael said governments needed to be very cautious about how they applied this rich new source of data in the future.

She said governments were building these agreements between themselves and corporations in a bid to stamp out fraud, but that goal was not always achieved and the potential for mistakes was vast.

"What we have is this matching against datasets, trying to find the needle in the haystack," she said.

"Often what happens is we don't find the needle."

A statement from the Department of Home Affairs said the Australian Government was exploring making the Face Verification Service available to the private sector, but nothing had started at this point.

It said arrangements for private sector access would be informed by an independent privacy impact assessment and those using it would need to demonstrate their lawful basis to do so under the privacy act and where they had gained consent to use a person's image.

 

Source: Rebecca Trigger, January 15, 2018, "Experts sound alarm as biometric data from driver's licences added to government database", ABC News, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-15/alarm-raised-as-drivers-licences-added-to-government-database/9015484

Reprinted in The New Daily here: https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2018/01/15/biometric-data-drivers-licences-government-database/

Furthermore, an interview with Professor Brian Lovell from the University of Queensland on the ABC further demystifies facial biometrics and the government's use of The Capability: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-15/professor-says-nothing-to-fear-from-federal/9330626

 

Kekhawatiran Semakin Terbukanya Data Pribadi di Era Digital

Kekhawatiran Semakin Terbukanya Data Pribadi di Era Digital

Senin, 15 Januari 2018 11:05 WIB

Wajah kita menjadi alat terbaru dalam dunia pengawasan digital. Dan di Australia kartu izin mengemudi mulai digunakan untuk melacak orang-orang, baik di dunia nyata maupun dalam dunia maya.

Data Biometrik

  • Sistem biometrik adalah mengenali seseorang berdasarkan ciri-ciri fisik, karakter, dan perilakunya
  • Data biometrik menggunakan data pribadi online lewat foto, usia, dan alamat tinggal
  • Data pribadi ini kemudian dicocokan dengan gambar yang terekam CCTV atau foto di internet
  • Data bisa digunakan oleh agen pemerintah, termasuk perusahaan, bahkan kelompok kejahatan

Para ahli memperingatkan data biometrik milik kita mungkin sudah rentan disalahgunakan oleh komplotan penjahat dan teroris, karena maraknya gabungan penggunaan telepon dan jejaring sosial serta adanya kamera CCTV dimana-mana, sehingga kita lebih sering tertangkap kamera.

Kartu izin mengemudi akan ditambahkan ke database biometrik di Australia, setelah adanya kesepakatan dengan negara-negara bagian dan wilayah khusus, sehingga pihak berwenang dapat mengakses informasi soal warga mereka dengan cara yang belum pernah ada sebelumnya.

Sebuah sistem yang dikenal dengan sebutan 'The Interoperability Hub' sudah ada di Australia, yang memungkinkan pihak-pihak berwenang untuk mengambil foto dari CCTV atau media lainnya yang kemudian dicocokkan dengan database foto-foto dari paspor. Proses ini dikenal dengan sebutan 'The Capability.'

Tetapi, setelah kartu izin mengemudi masuk ke sistem database baru, maka pemerintah dan sejumlah pihak swasta dapat mengakses foto, usia, dan alamat Anda.

Sistem ini sudah menghabiskan $21 juta, senilai Rp 210 miliar, sebagai cara untuk mengatasi terorisme dan membuat layanan komersial lebih aman.

Namun para ahli memperingatkan kini warga beresiko kehilangan biometrik mereka sama sekali, karena pihak komersial, pemerintah dan kelompok kejahatan terorganisir berupaya untuk mendapatkan lebih banyak data pribadi demi keuntungan mereka sendiri.

Kartu izin mengemudi jadi sumber data baru

Kartu izin mengemudi di Australia sudah ditambahkan sebagai sumber data biometrik

Pakar teknologi dan hukum, Profesor Katina Michael mengatakan sekitar 50 persen populasi Australia telah memiliki semacam biometrik visual tersimpan dalam database yang dapat diakses secara nasional. Namun dengan digunakannya kartu izin pengemudi akan menyebabkan lebih banyak data pribadi warga yang tersimpan dan membuat jumlahnya naik 80 persen.

Profesor Michael mengatakan salah satu risiko terbesar dari pengumpulan data biometrik adalah bukan penyalahgunaan yang tidak disengaja oleh kepolisian federal Australia (AFP), agen intelijen Australia (ASIO), atau agen pemerintah lainnya, melainkan kerentanan cara kerja biometrik yang rentan.

"Ini bukan seperti Anda memasukan wajah seseorang kemudian mengatakan, 'mereka adalah tersangka'," kata Profesor Michael.

"Tapi yang kita dapatkan adalah sejumlah kemungkinan... mungkin ada 15, 20, 30, atau bahkan 50 kemiripan."

Jadi, yang akan didapatkan bukan satu orang yang akan ditangkap, melainkan 50 orang yang tak bersalah menjadi tersangka.

Profesor Michael menjelaskan ini berarti bahwa meski nama seseorang bisa dipulihkan seiring waktu jika terbukti tidak bersalah, tapi masih ada dalam database yang terkait penyelidikan kriminal.

Orang diawasi secara terus menerus

Teknologi baru bisa memantau dan mengenali wajah orang di kerumunan.

Profesor Michael mengatakan metode pengawasan modern yang digunakan penegak hukum tidak hanya terbatas pada CCTV. Mereka juga sekarang bisa memasukkan sejumlah besar metadata dan jejaring sosial, yang mengarah ke konsep dengan sebutan "uberveillance" di mana orang-orang dipantau secara terus menerus.

"Sekarang kita memiliki 'jejak digital' yang ditinggalkan semua orang," katanya.

"Catatan panggilan telepon, apa yang dicari di internet, kartu kredit, bahkan data pada kartu elektronik kereta atau bus dapat digunakan untuk melacak pergerakan dan aktivitas Anda."

Apa selanjutnya?

Survei industri tahunan yang dilakukan oleh Biometrics Institute, yang dikenal sebagai 'Industry Trend Tracker', telah menyatakan teknologi pengenalan wajah kemungkinan akan menjadi tren biometrik yang meningkat dalam beberapa tahun ke depan.

Para responden survei merasa masalah privasi dan perlindungan data sebagai kendala terbesar, diikuti dengan pengetahuan yang buruk para pengambil keputusan, kesalahan informasi soal biometrik, serta penolakan dari pendukung privasi.

Komisi reformasi hukum Australia mengatakan sistem biometrik semakin banyak digunakan atau dipertimbangkan oleh banyak organisasi, termasuk program rehabilitisi narkoba, layanan pemesanan taksi, ATM dan perbankan online, serta akses masuk ke gedung.

Profesor Michael mengatakan pemerintah harus sangat berhati-hati dalam menerapkan sumber data baru yang melimpah ini di masa depan.

Menurutnya pemerintah sedang membangun kesepakatan antara pihaknya dengan sejumlah perusahaan untuk berupaya menghindari kecurangan, namun seringkali tidak tercapai dan potensi menyalahgunakan sangatlah luas.

"Apa yang kita lakukan dalam mencocokan dengan kumpulan data adalah seperti menemukan jarum di tumpukan jerami," katanya.

Dalam pernyataan Departemen Dalam Negeri disebutkan Pemerintah Australia sedang menjajaki pembuatan layanan verifikasi lewat pengenalan wajah untuk sektor swasta, namun upaya ini belum dimulai.

Disadur dari laporan aslinya dalam bahasa Inggris yang bisa dibaca disini.

Lihat Artikelnya di Australia Plus

Mandatory Data Breach Notification (2017 Amendment to Privacy Act)

Today I had the pleasure to speak to Meredith Griffiths, reporter of the ABC, on the newly enacted Mandatory Data Breach Notification (MDBN) that take effect on Feburary 28, 2018.

Some of the main points I made in the interview with the help of my colleagues at the Australian Privacy Foundation (primarily David Vaile) were:

MDBN doesn't go far enough because:

  1. small business, <$3m annual turnover are exempt from MDBN
  2. self-assessment of "serious harm" is ambiguous (on what test to companies come forward? and only if PC agrees it is serious? what if slightly serious on one view, and very serious on another- do companies take the easy way out and not disclose?)
  3. companies are given 30 days to make a data breach notification to the privacy commissioner (too long for customers to be kept in the dark and thereafter how long might it take the Privacy Commissioner to determine 'seriousness' and/or publicly response with an unenforceable determination)
  4. what about data breaches offshore (how do Aussies respond to loss of their PI abroad)?
  5. what about 'open data' re-identification thru AI/machine learning?
  6. OAIC is overloaded, slow, determinations are also unenforceable and very rare.

So where does this really leave us? We have a law that neither prevents breaches of personal information nor compensate individuals for privacy breaches. What we need to do is consider the outcomes of the ALRC from 2008 that stipulated we need a tort on the serious invasion of privacy so that individuals CAN sue other individuals (like hackers), or companies (like Google) or government agencies for breaches in their privacy (whether accidental or deliberate or through some form of negligence).

The lack of auditability of the new law means that current practices that rely on de-identification to safeguard people's personal information, say in the case of OPENGOV data initiatives, may not be enough down the track as the threat of increases from machine learning algorithms that can look at patterns of information and highlight individuals like finding a needle in a haystack. The issues of going down this path are grave- including the potential for re-identification and bringing several disaparate treasure troves together like social media data, and government data, and personal records together to be analysed.

Links to MDBN include:

https://www.oaic.gov.au/media-and-speeches/statements/mandatory-data-breach-notification

https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy-law/privacy-act/notifiable-data-breaches-scheme

https://www.oaic.gov.au/media-and-speeches/news/retailers-check-out-mandatory-data-breach-reporting-obligations-and-prepare-for-2018

Having a statutory tort of serious invasion of privacy (like in the UK and US) or a common law tort (like in New Zealand), allows individuals to sue other entities depending on the severity of the privacy breach. Why is Australia lagging so far behind other advanced digital nations? When will this legislation be amended?

Already, we are seeing large ICT companies set up "shop-fronts" in Australia with NO enforceable penalties to international misdemeanours when it comes to amassing treasure troves of data, and data breaches offshore. How do we hold these companies accountable when they are taking in a lot of business from Australian consumers and yet seem to be let out in the "wild" to do as they please, storing data on the Cloud either in the USA or Ireland. Bruce Schneier called this "data as a toxic asset". As the toxicity rises, we can expect major pollution spills.

For now, at least we can say that the MDBN is a step in the right direction despite that it falls short through exemptions and loopholes. It can have some reputational impact on "data addicts" that don't do the right thing via their subscriber base, but little more. Sadly, large corporations can handle this reputational damage in their "risk appetites". The fines are also "measly" when it comes to government or regulatory action, and so corporate and government entities in particular are left to their own devices here in Australia. While well-meaning, it seems that it is nothing more than a theatrical show- data hosts are still not responsible for bettering their security practices or urgently responding and fixing a breach.

Data is a bit like mental illness. You can't see it. It is not tangible. You cannot put a price on mental health, and you cannot put a price on your personal data. While we can manage damage to property very well, because we can see a scratch on a car, or the loss of inventory, we cannot see data as we see a broken arm.

We already have very weak Privacy Legislation- Australia needs to get serious like Europe (through the General Data Protection Regulation, considered the gold standard) has on the value of personal identifiable information (PII). Both the liberal and labour governments need to listen to the commissioned reports by the Australian Law Reform Commission, and act on the implementation of statutory tort legislation with respect to intrusions of privacy. There is no reason why this has not happened yet.

K5's Experiential Robotics Goes Wrong

The war between robots and humans is heating up

robot-drowning.png
Dr Katina Michael is a professor in the School of Computing and Information Technology at the University of Wollongong. She considers the K5 to be a sinister development and has been following its progress since 2013. She’s notes how they look somewhat like the dreaded Daleks from Doctor Who – without the weaponised arm.

What are you meant to do? Take out your umbrella and start hitting it?
“If you see one coming toward you,’’ says Professor Michael, “what are you meant to do? Take out your umbrella and start hitting it?’’

At trade shows, she’s seen a K5 trip on a buckle in the carpeting and fall over. “The question is when they take a different form in the future…. When they can walk like a human. Then it becomes a different proposition. It doesn’t look so harmless. They’re more mobile. They can be tripped … but get up again.’’

She notes that K5 robots were first trialled by Microsoft and Uber. The Uber connection is significant because the ride-share outfit has disrupted the regulated taxi industry by baldly flouting the law. Surveillance robots are being launched upon us in much the same lawless way.

“It’s autonomous, gathers information and is capable of behavioural analysis. It’s a grave invasion of privacy. They are danger to society because they will develop awareness over time. For the first time we have an autonomous system that can follow humans.’’

Citation: John Elder, December 23, 2017, "The war between robots and humans is heating up", The New Daily, https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/tech/2017/12/22/robots-vs-humans-war/.

Further reading:

Journalist seeklibng input for story

 

 

John Elder <j.birdy.elder@gmail.com>

Thu 21/12/2017 11:19 AM

Thank you Katina Hope to catch up again some day John Sent from my iPhone

REPLYREPLY ALLFORWARD

Mark as unread

 

Katina Michael

Thu 21/12/2017 10:01 AM

To:

John Elder <j.birdy.elder@gmail.com>;

 

Four articles as promised:

http://uberveillance.com/blog/2014/11/13/enter-the-darlek-not-hard-to-see-where-were-headed

ttps://works.bepress.com/kmichael/526/

https://theconversation.com/meet-boston-dynamics-ls3-the-latest-robotic-war-machine-9754

https://theconversation.com/war-robots-and-the-2014-world-cup-defenders-off-the-field-23770

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQK9WfJOqPk

Can we live for ever? Is death about to pass away?

Can You Tell Me Why - surprising answers to difficult questions

TOPIC: Can we live for ever? Is death about to pass away? We're exploring both the ways that this may become possible, as well as the ethical pros and cons of pursuing this goal.

Today I met with a journalist who also happens to be a friend. His name is William Verity. Any encounter with William is one that you never forget. Although we had somewhat lost touch for the greater part of 7+ years, Michael and I often think of William, and I have even spoken about him to my kids.

What is so profound about William? You can only ever be direct with him. A lot of journalists just want a "Grab-n-Go" discussion- that wonderful two-liner to add to a narrative. But not William. William always tries to get to the bottom of things.

William found my office a few minutes after 1pm. I've moved about twice since I last saw him... It was so good to see him. I wish well of all people, but some people in particular, stay with you in your heart in lively remembrance. 

As William walked into my office, he saw a wad of paper on a circular meeting table. He asked me if I was busy writing something, and I told him I had been busy preparing for our interview. Before me were highlighted pages with copious handwritten notes made on most pages.

I welcome all opportunities to reflect and to continue to learn in follow-up reading, discourse, new questions. The truth is after more than 500 media interviews, it is journalists who keep me on my toes, and it is journalists who ask those questions at "point blank" that force me to pursue avenues for answers.

For me, radio and television broadcast (even print media) is as important as the research I am engaged in, afterall my work is on the social implications of technology. And so I give it equal care, and equal time to my research papers. A 5 minute interview can sometimes take hours to prepare for. A 20 minute podcast might take 6 hours. And then there is the attention to precise detail, statistics, sentiment, and most importantly making language comprehensible to the masses.

Sometimes I turn up to interviews and end up speaking about a topic that had little to do with my original 'statement of work'.  I try to adapt accordingly. It took me several years but by 2007 I learnt to "let go". Yes I come fully prepared, and yes, I no longer have to read out verbatim-- but I still am pedantic about facts and figures!

As an academic, the bottom line is you have to be prepared. I examine things from as many different angles as possible. I know what I believe, but sometimes what I believe and what I have found is not enough. Most times people are not asking me what I think. In fact, the job of an academic is to be objective and to tell it according to the results of a survey.

I thought I would write down some of the sources I came across in answering the question "can we live forever? Is death about to pass away?" This wasn't your typical "x%" of people believe this and "y%" of people believe that. This topic requires higher order thinking, it requires the mashing of facts and one's personal beliefs, to ponder on the realm of possibilities.

I likely had gathered enough material to spur on a series of lectures. Below, in a non-sequential manner, I have recorded some of my beliefs, some of my reference material, and some of my academic findings. 

This is "draft". If you want to cite it, please ask me first.

Most importantly, if you are reading this blogpost and vehemently disagree with me or my supporting evidence, I am more than okay with that to. Up front I do not apologise for my Christian beliefs, I've never hidden them from students or the public, but at the same time I've never consciously discriminated against others because they believe in something else or nothing else. Faith is a personal journey.

The Transhumanist Declaration

Humanity stands to be profoundly affected by science and technology in the future. We envision the possibility of broadening human potential by overcoming aging, cognitive shortcomings, involuntary suffering, and our confinement to planet Earth.
We believe that humanity's potential is still mostly unrealized. There are possible scenarios that lead to wonderful and exceedingly worthwhile enhanced human conditions.
We recognize that humanity faces serious risks, especially from the misuse of new technologies. There are possible realistic scenarios that lead to the loss of most, or even all, of what we hold valuable. Some of these scenarios are drastic, others are subtle. Although all progress is change, not all change is progress.
Research effort needs to be invested into understanding these prospects. We need to carefully deliberate how best to reduce risks and expedite beneficial applications. We also need forums where people can constructively discuss what should be done, and a social order where responsible decisions can be implemented.
Reduction of existential risks, and development of means for the preservation of life and health, the alleviation of grave suffering, and the improvement of human foresight and wisdom should be pursued as urgent priorities, and heavily funded.
Policy making ought to be guided by responsible and inclusive moral vision, taking seriously both opportunities and risks, respecting autonomy and individual rights, and showing solidarity with and concern for the interests and dignity of all people around the globe. We must also consider our moral responsibilities towards generations that will exist in the future.
We advocate the well-being of all sentience, including humans, non-human animals, and any future artificial intellects, modified life forms, or other intelligences to which technological and scientific advance may give rise.
We favour allowing individuals wide personal choice over how they enable their lives. This includes use of techniques that may be developed to assist memory, concentration, and mental energy; life extension therapies; reproductive choice technologies; cryonics procedures; and many other possible human modification and enhancement technologies.
The Transhumanist Declaration was originally crafted in 1998 by an international group of authors: Doug Baily, Anders Sandberg, Gustavo Alves, Max More, Holger Wagner, Natasha Vita-More, Eugene Leitl, Bernie Staring, David Pearce, Bill Fantegrossi, den Otter, Ralf Fletcher, Kathryn Aegis, Tom Morrow, Alexander Chislenko, Lee Daniel Crocker, Darren Reynolds, Keith Elis, Thom Quinn, Mikhail Sverdlov, Arjen Kamphuis, Shane Spaulding, and Nick Bostrom. This Transhumanist Declaration has been modified over the years by several authors and organizations. It was adopted by the Humanity+ Board in March, 2009.
 

On the surface the Transhumanist Declaration looks entirely honourable. Who doesn't want to advance science and technology and medicine for a better humanity? IEEE, the Institute I have been a part since I completed my PhD has a tagline of Advancing Technology for Humanity. I find no disagreement here with the declaration for the greater part. But for me personally, and as a researcher and practitioner, the cracks begin to appear here:

We advocate the well-being of all sentience, including humans, non-human animals, and any future artificial intellects, modified life forms, or other intelligences to which technological and scientific advance may give rise.

I would argue there is a reason why humans are humans. Whether you believe in evolution, that man was created from dust by God, or in the Big Bang- in the end humans are unique, they have inherited/granted/given a rational mind. I don't see chimpanzees or trees "talking" but for me these creations surely point to an exquisite Creator. The earth and all therein is so beautiful and symmetric and so interdependent and biodiverse.

Let everything that breathes praise the Lord!
Praise the Lord! (Psalm 150:6)

There is knowledge that humans can accumulate, but beyond knowledge humans can have wisdom. I am not an advocate that humans are on the same level playing field as animals, nor as plants or the sea, or robots or AI software. I don't want to see human rights disappear. I do believe in a biodiverse world, in the preservation of our Earth, in sustainability, and the requirement for an urgent response to today's ecological crisis. There can be no 'transhumanism' if there will be no earth to inhabit. Regardless, the Sun has a finite life estimated at between 5 and 8 billion years.

No, I don't think the answer is in transhumanism. That would be working against nature, it would be working against global human cooperation, it would be rejecting the very reason we are inhabitants on this wonderful planet we call Earth. In my mind, transhumanism has a nihilistic bend to it. What we cannot fix through long-term resolution, we can just replace with a hunk of metal and silicon. It is part of the consumption mantra- buy and dispose, and then buy again and dispose again. The upgrade generation. The ideology that says 'we've stuffed up the planet so let's just start again by rebuilding a world that doesn't require the natural resources of the world'.

For now at least, the sarx (i.e. the body) decays and dies. Like all things, it has a limit. Like all things the sarx is vulnerable to risk, accident, illness. We are flesh and blood, and if you believe people of a monotheistic faith, and even transhumanists, the human also has a soul.

Some of my transhumanist close friends will likely say I am "misinterpreting" the guts of transhumanist beliefs, or in fact the social movement (that some call a religion) in totality. Not so, I see some good elements in the beliefs of transhumanists that are not in conflict with my own beliefs. And yet, this does not make me a transhumanist. There are so many 'branches' of transhumanism already that it seems anything goes.

But this is where the topic starts to get a little interesting. Much of it, whether you stand on one side or the other, or in degrees of freedom, has to do with "beliefs" or "value judgments" which we form about things. These value judgments determine whether or not you can embrace transhumanism el complete or not. Value judgments stem from viewpoints usually formed about where we have come from and how we should conduct ourselves. Yes, it is about morality. Nowadays these morals, for reasons of consensus, are encapsulated in ethical guidelines to allow diverse populations of peoples from different cultures to come together. The 10 commandments once held true for vast numbers of the population that embraced the Old Testament but increasingly these commandments are being challenged as having been superseded.

The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17)

20 And God spoke all these words, saying,

2 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.

4 “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

7 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.

8 “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work; 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; 11 for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it.

12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you.

13 “You shall not kill.

14 “You shall not commit adultery.

15 “You shall not steal.

16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s.”

Unsurprising to me, is that about 1/3 of transhumanists surveyed by James Hughes (the director of IEET) found a decade ago that transhumanists surveyed stated they had some affiliation to a religious organisation- Catholic, Protestant, Morman, Islam or other. According to Dr Hughes transhumanism followers belong to one of two main camps- those who focus on trans-humanism or those who focus on transhuman-ism.

Our sacred books have long been used to influence our judgments on whether applications of technology have been ethical or unethical, good or bad.

Just today we heard from Mashable about a new religion focused on AI and there was also some years ago the crowdfunded launch of the Church of Transhumanism (which I have to be honest knowing Amal Graafstra was likely a joke- but one never knows these days).

It all reminds me of a pertinent scene in THX-1138. The protagonist has been conditioned to confess his sins and doubts to a 'machine'. The machine has a large face of Jesus Christ on its projection. It responds to the protagonist, and then the camera lens shows the screen plugged into a powerpoint outlet. There is a strange amphibian-like creature within the tape deck but who knows what this is exactly! I'd love to research this further one day soon!

Maybe it is the god-style head depicted in C.S. Lewis's That Hideous Strength.

That Hideous Strength, C.S. Lewis

That Hideous Strength, C.S. Lewis

In transhumanism, somehow we shift our hopes to the machine, away from the God. Or perhaps more precisely, we become gods through the help of the machine, without the need for God. This is reminiscent of the plot in That Hideous Strength.

All of this seems greatly to revolve around one of the three main arguments against the transhumanist ideal- hubris. In Genesis we find the story of the Tower of Babel. The people begin to try to reach the Heavens, the divine, by building the tallest tower they could. There is truth in these stories. Man believes he can get to heaven on his own accord without the support of the divine. You cannot blame the people for trying, but the attempt was futile.

The Tower of Babel
11 Now the whole earth had one language and few words. 2 And as men migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. 3 And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. 4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.” 5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the sons of men had built. 6 And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.” 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. 9 Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused[a] the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.   (Genesis 11:1-9)

Before I go on, my position is often confused. I am accused by people who do not know me as being a Luddite (I evidently use more tech than most, especially for productivity purposes). I am accused of not liking progress (no I am not against prosthetics- just the opposite, I believe they are biomedical marvels), I am not against transplants (but do believe that this is a personal choice), do I wish to live longer (who doesn't? but not at the expense of brain atrophy and significant losses to my quality of life).

Which leads me to the question I was asked by William Verity- can we live forever?

Can we live forever?

My personal beliefs are that humans can live forever. "The last enemy to be destroyed is death" 1 Cor 15:26. I cite Scripture unashamedly. Our sacred books have guided us for thousands of years. Why would I look for another way? All three monotheistic faiths for the greater part believe in life after death. 

Jewish View of Death

Traditional Judaism firmly believes that death is not the end of human existence. However, because Judaism is primarily focused on life here and now rather than on the afterlife, Judaism does not have much dogma about the afterlife, and leaves a great deal of room for personal opinion. 
Belief in the eventual resurrection of the dead is a fundamental belief of traditional Judaism. It was a belief that distinguished the Pharisees (intellectual ancestors of Rabbinical Judaism) from the Sadducees. The Sadducees rejected the concept, because it is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah. The Pharisees found the concept implied in certain verses. Source: 

Muslim View of Death

Death in Islam is the termination of worldly life and the beginning of afterlife. Death is seen as the separation of soul from body, and its transfer from this world to the afterlife. Thus, it is the continuation of life in another form... Islamic tradition discusses elaborately, almost in graphic detail, as to what exactly happens before, during, and after the death. The angel of death (Arabic: Malak al-Maut). The sinners' souls are extracted in a most painful way while the righteous are treated easily. After the burial, two angels – Munkar and Nakir – come to question the dead in order to test their faith. The righteous believers answer correctly and live in peace and comfort while the sinners and disbelievers fail and punishments ensue. The time period or stage between death and the end of the world[3] is called the life of barzakh. Suicide, Euthanasia, and unjust murder as means of death are all prohibited in Islam, and are considered major sins. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_death

Christian View of Death

Here, I would once more like to repeat and emphasize that God did not create the world for this separation, dying, ruin and corruption. And for this reason the Christian Gospel proclaims that “the last enemy to be destroyed is death.” The Resurrection is the recreation of the world in its original beauty and totality. It is the complete spiritualization of matter and the complete incarnation of the spirit in God’s creation. The world has been given to man as his life, and for this reason, according to our Christian Orthodox teaching, God will not annihilate it but will transfigure it into “a new heaven and a new earth,” into man’s spiritual body, into the temple of God’s presence and God’s glory in creation. “The last enemy to be destroyed is death…” And that destruction, that extermination of death began when the Son of God Himself in His immortal love for us voluntarily descended into death and its darkness, filling its despair and horror with His light and love. And this is why we sing on Pascha not only “Christ is risen from the dead,” but also “trampling down death by death…” Source: http://www.schmemann.org/byhim/thechristianconceptofdeath.html

 

An abandonment of tried and tested principles of 2000 years old, for a techno-myth? Technology fails. We can't even get powerpoint to work at BIG conferences, and we are willing to hedge our bets with AI and robo-prosthesis? C'mon!

Humans have been imbued with free will. The freedom to make decisions using a rational brain. They can cause harm, and they can cause joy. Before you raise 'let's end the suffering' argument, I'd challenge you think about the fact that we live in an imperfect and fallen world. No I don't believe in suffering for the sake of it, and I don't believe that suffering gets one to heaven. But in a world where nothing could ever go wrong "theoretically", and in a world that meant we could live "forever" through some transhumanist means, I'd imagine a lot more crime because consequences just would not mean much. 

There are many good people in the world who do not believe in a God. One might say, "how are these persons good?" My answer has to do with being made in the image and likeness of God. Whether we accept there is a God or not, we are created in an image with certain characteristics. While we might think we are completely autonomous beings, there is something in us that helps us to believe that murder is wrong, that rape is wrong, that starving oneself to death is wrong, and much more. This is not to say that some people act in ways they should not, but as a collective, deep down, most people in society abide by certain fundamental principles. And yes, these for the greater part are depicted in the Ten Commandments as already noted.

If I am wrong about the Holy Resurrection then "we are of all men most to be pitied" (1 Cor 15:18). But my faith dictates otherwise, and it is a 'gamble' I'd rather take than forego. You can differ with me on my views, and that's okay, but I'd challenge you to think about that little voice in your head that occasionally does call out to Abba-Father in times of need or in times of peace or in times of thanks or in times of praise. 

No matter how we look at it, our Creator, or evolution itself, whatever you believe, did not make us a "race of robots" or as "repetitive stereotypes" as Metropolitan Kallistos Ware says. And because we are unique what's important is that we retain our "image". The fact that we can walk on two feet and talk to each other in different languages, these are things that can be considered human faculties. Allow them to atrophy or replacing them with other things when we have no requirement to do so, is to reject our faculties and in some way to deny ourselves.

Rather than being merely preoccupied with living forever on earth (like a broken record that loops endlessly), isn't it time we begin to reconsider the cultivation of our inner selves like the ancient philosophers and theologians once did? What condition is my heart in? How can I love those around me? How can I help others? At the same time I would advocate a position that says our body should be treated with care if we wish to live a healthier and longer life.

Should I take medicines when I am sick? The answer is of course. Part of God's gifts to scientists and doctors is an intellect to help them strive toward the discovery of penicillin that has changed the face of medicine and aided humans to live longer. Electricity has not only helped us keep warmer and very cold climates but provides lighting to our homes and power to our devices.

For me, death has already been trampled on by Jesus Christ.

54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
55 “O death, where is thy victory?
O death, where is thy sting?” (1 Cor 15:54-55)

Yes, I do believe "What you sow does not come to life unless it dies." 1 Cor 15:36. 

"The last enemy to be destroyed is death." 1 Cor 15:26. And death was destroyed by the crucifixion of Christ and His resurrection. Which is why at Easter we chant the following Troparion:

Christ is risen from the dead,
Trampling down death by death,
And upon those in the tombs
Bestowing life!

I do believe for everything there is a season... "a time to be born, and a time to die" (Ecclesiastes 3:2).

As noted in the Nicene Creed:

I look for the resurrection of the dead, 
and the life of the age to come.

And as recorded by St John the Seer of Patmos (Revelation 21:3-4) I await the new Heaven and the new Earth (Revelation 21:1):

3 and I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, and they shall be his people,[a] and God himself will be with them;[b] 4 he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away.”

Are We Walking into a Sci-Fi Reality

I can thank my brother, seven years my senior for exposing me to a lot of science fiction from a very young age. Much of my love for emerging technologies came from watching 2001: A Space Odyssey and so much more. One day I want to catalog what all of this meant to me as I developed an awareness of my family, my own self, the notion of suffering, hope, limits, eternality and God's presence.

From a young age, I thought of many interesting things that have now been formed into arguments like "superintelligence". But for whatever reason, I am not so "taken" by our "new takes" on things of old. I think it is great that we are talking about such things as "superintelligence" but for me they are old arguments just packaged up in new ways. A lot of people have difficultly remembering that World War Two happened less than 70 years ago. The atrocities are fresh still in some survivors. But the stories of survival are now fading, as that generation slowly disappears.

For anyone with any inkling of philosophy or theology we are just rehashing arguments that have been put forward during a time there was limited technology. Ideas like 'brain in a vat' or even 'super cognitive intelligence' are not new. The Ubermensch is yet another old concept. What is bewildering is that we believe today that we have the technology know-how to do it all, and the means to do it through supercomputer powers, and well, yadda yadda. I caution, such goals will lead to inhumane animal and human experimentation. It is NOT in the best interest to pursue such goals, even if we think we can hack the brain, in time, through projects like the Brain Project and the Brain Initiative.

I often think back to the James Bond movie "Moonraker".

Jaws captures Bond and Goodhead, to which Drax reveals his plan to destroy human life by launching 50 globes that would dispense the nerve gas into Earth's atmosphere. Drax had transported several dozen genetically perfect young men and women of varying races to the space station in the shuttles. They would live there until Earth was safe again for human life; their descendants would be the seed for a "new master race". Bond persuades Jaws to switch his allegiance by getting Drax to admit that anyone not measuring up to his physical standards, including Dolly, would be exterminated.

What got me in Moonraker was the need to create "perfect young men and women", that we need to "destroy human life" so we can overcome that which is misery or suffering. In terms of the movie it is the creation of a "new master race".  To me that is not only irrational as an ideal but cannot be without mass destruction to human life. And yet we already have proposals toward legalised infanticide. Again, if it does not work, just start again. But here we are discussing human life, not a tech part from Dell.

There are many biomedical specialists who are crying out today: "let the body do what it knows best- biology; and let the tech be the external interface to the biology". I am paraphrasing simply here but many are advocating 'don't mess with the body'. Among them the Director of the Biomedical Institute at Imperial College London, Professor Christofer Toumazou.

I too advocate this position. I would add we should not be controlling the sex of our baby, we should not be plugging in pacemakers to "cure" shyness or to make our children "more confident". We have a world that is dictated by diversity for a reason. What is normal? What is perfect? What should not be? The introduction of ultrasound machines have had a significant impact in China. In 2015, Chinese men outnumbered Chinese women by over 33 million. This gender bias has had significant issues.

But would I use brain pacemakers to help people with Parkinson's Disease? A resounding "yes" if that candidate patient can be helped by such treatment options, etc.

Terri Bookman and I had the opportunity to interview Ray Kurzweil in 2014 about transhumanism. He has a position that says that biological limits of humans will be transcended by technology. That humans will always be. That the Singularity will occur. But Kurzweil does not believe in the complete replacement of the human body. He wrote:

The Transhumanist Movement articulates a vision of transcending - going beyond - our current limitations as biological humans. One way to do that is to reprogram our biology, and that process, called biotechnology, is well underway and will reach its mature phase in one to two decades. We will then go beyond even an optimized and reprogrammed biology with nanotechnology. One quintessential application will be blood cell sized robots that act as an immune system, one that will not have the limitations of our current biological immune system (which, for example, does not recognize cancer as a foe because it thinks it is you). The Transhumanist movement also envisions augmenting ourselves both physically and mentally by integrating with our technology. These are all concepts of the Singularity movement as well. The Singularity concept is a bit broader in that it focuses on AI, not just as an augmentation of humans.
My views are certainly consistent with the Trans-humanist movement. My only hesitation is that I don't like the term Transhumanism because it implies that we will transcend our humanity. The way I articulate this is that we will remain human but transcend our biological limitations. To transcend limitations is precisely what being human is all about. So we are not seeking to transcend humanity, only the current limitations of humanity, and that is a process already underway. However, we are stuck with this term. We are also stuck with other terms that I don't like, such as artificial intelligence (which implies that the intelligence is not real) or virtual reality (same problem).
Transhumanism is a realistic view of what will happen to our species. It has implications for issues that religion has attempted to deal with, but it is not a religion in that it does not imply a particular dogma about issues as the purpose and goals of life.

The Trouble with Transhumanism

I don't have time to articulate my views at present on arguments against transhumanism. Others have spent a much longer time considering the main issues with transhumanist beliefs. Among these I would point to two articles. You can conduct peer reviewed searches also using Scopus, but for now some generalist perspectives which are readable and congruent with the vast majority of believes of those individuals that have 'trouble with transhumanism'.

Wesley J. Smith of the Center for Bioethics and Culture wrote this piece in 2011: http://www.cbc-network.org/2011/08/the-trouble-with-transhumanism-2/. The paper was in response to an article on transhumanism written by Kyle Munkittrick in Discover magazine. Of interest to me on reading Smith's article was an emphasis on:

  • a Utopian social movement
  • seizing control of human evolution
  • creating a post-human species
  • defeating human aging
  • research into transhumanism preceding funding in health care aid in Africa
  • eugenic and anti-human exceptionalist values
  • the notion of Body Identity Integrity Disorder
  • improving intelligence
  • uploading individual human consciousness into computer
  • removing reproduction from intimacy and female child bearing
  • future children via cloning or IVF
  • allowing genetic modification

Perhaps most disturbing, Smith writes, was the following passage by Munkittrick:

Actions such as abortion, assisted suicide, voluntary amputation, gender reassignment, surrogate pregnancy, body modification, legal unions among adults of any number, and consenting sexual practices would be protected under law. One’s genetic make-up, neurological composition, prosthetic augmentation, and other cybernetic modifications will be limited only by technology and one’s own discretion. Transhumanism cannot happen without a legal structure that allows individuals to control their own bodies. When bodily freedom is as protected and sanctified as free speech, transhumanism will be free to develop.

and

“Animals (including humans),” he writes—deploying yet another human-diminishing sentiment—”will be granted rights based on varying degrees of personhood . . . When African grey parrots, gorillas, and dolphins have the same rights as a human toddler, a transhuman friendly rights system will be in place.”

No doubt issues of human dignity and the obligation for individual behavioral restraint come into play.

Elsewhere Massimo Pigliucci writes on the main issues contra transhumanism, in a blogpost "Why We Don't Need Transhumanism". I list them here in numbered items and encourage you to read the short article in full. Important to note, that Massimo is a rationalist thinker who does not have much time for "Christian-sounding arguments".

  1. Transhumanism is irrelevant.
  2. Transhumanism is simply another version of futurism.
  3. Serious issues of hubris at play.
  4. Serious issues of access, fairness, and protection from abuse.
  5. There is the issue of priorities.
  6. Potentially disastrous ecological consequences for humanity.
  7. Do your really want some people (e.g. politicians or criminals) to live forever?

Pigliucci sees: 

a fundamental difference between improving the human lot through medicine, agriculture, and other technologies on the one hand, and permanently and radically altering the human genetic makeup on the other hand.

He summarises the three major objections to transhumanism as: "it robs life of meaning; it's dehumanizing; it's hubris..."

He concludes his article by saying:

"Fortunately, I don’t really think transhumanism is a threat to anyone, just like no futurist has ever been. These movements are populated by naive optimists with a fairly high degree of narcissism, but they are otherwise mostly harmless."

Not So Fast

While I don't have much time to elaborate here on some great reading material to get you thinking-- I would like to identify Doug Hill's recent book "Not So Fast". Here is my book review.

There is also this book, Religion, Science and Technology, which is an interview with Kallistos Ware, formerly of Oxford University. You can find this text freely available here.

download.jpg

What is happening to Society?

With news that we have now offered citizenship to Sophia the robot in Saudi Arabia (something that most of us saw coming in the industry at large), it is obvious that we are challenging what it means to have human agency and for that matter human rights. In a country where women have no rights to drive a vehicle as yet (allegedly that is coming in 2018), and where women have to appear with a male chaperone, we have given citizenship rights to a robot? This smacks volumes about empathy, care, love. We are a society growing cold, as cold as our machines, that are neither warm blooded, or cold blooded. As much as we'd like to believe it, robots are not living, and certainly they are not human, even though they might look like that on the outside. Robots don't thirst. They also can't pray. And as Kallistos Ware says: "you may love your computer, but your computer does not love you."

Do we wish to live in a virtual world? Do we wish to be loved in a pretend way? Mimicry and fakery it will be, if we clone someone's whole life and all the words they speak, and imbue devices with "worldly spirits". Yes, I can download my mind, clone myself, and leave my whole estate to myself in some strange process of rebirth but as a posthuman organism, I will likely get bored with that too. 

Norbert Wiener on the call to ethical applications of new technology

Wiener spoke much about the changing times. His wake up call came with the dropping of two atomic bombs. Wiener's sensitivities were sparked by seeing so many innocent people killed. While he disowned the possibility of working on any further projects with the military complex, he used his skills to investigate feedback loops in cybernetic systems.

I encourage you to read two of the articles I've co-authored below and then read the references in the Bibliography sections of the papers. Books written between the 1930 and 1960s by Wiener are so important.

Speaking Out Against Socially Destructive Technologies http://technologyandsociety.org/speaking-out-against-socially-destructive-technologies/

Wiener's Cybernetics Legacyhttp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7302634/

Some of the questions my coauthors and I have asked previously:

  1. Who is shaping the direction and purposes of technological innovation. today?
  2. What motivates their engagement within these processes and fields?
  3. In what ways are they shaping society?
  4. How do other stakeholders become more influential in making decisions about the technology process?
  5. How are government and industry communicating with the public about the developments taking place?

See Remaining Human – A Film by J. Mitchell Johnson and Robert M. Elfstrom. The film is about the father of cybernetics, Prof Norbert Wiener.

Resistance is Not Futile

To conclude please read this article.

In this article MG Michael and I traverse the standard catchphrase that "resistance is futile". We argue it is "not" futile and we try to make a case for this. We note that The Borg's singular goal in sci-fi is the "consumption of technology". We point to dialogue in Robots (2005) that has to do with upgrades.

Now, let’s get down to the business of sucking every loose penny... out of Mr. and Mrs. Average-Knucklehead. What’s our big-ticket item? Upgrades, people. Upgrades. That’s how we make the dough. Now, if we’re telling robots that no matter what they’re made of, they’re “fine”... how can we expect them to feel crummy enough about themselves... to buy our upgrades and make themselves look better? Therefore, I’ve come up with a new slogan. “Why be you when you can be new?” I gotta tell you, I think it’s brilliant...

We describe our concerns for the tech utopia we are allegedly engaged in building. It has to do with:

- economics

- media and the few dominant voices supposedly representing the majority

- drowning out 'minority voices'

The paradox is that the very few speaking out for upgrades (and perhaps extending the metaphor of the paper further to transhumanism) allegedly represent the many. We should not be surprised. The power of the Internet is significant. The power to reach the masses through propaganda is more powerful than ever before. And $ have always ruled. 

As Hannah Arendt wrote in The Origins of Totalitarianism about the "bright lights" that can disengage us from deeper reflection. It is what Arthur Schopenhauer over a century ago, also calls non-stop noise.

In 2000, Bill Joy wrote in Wired

“We are being propelled into this new century with no plan, no control, no brakes. Have we already gone too far down the path to alter course? I don’t believe so, but we aren’t trying yet, and the last chance to assert control – the fail-safe point – is rapidly approaching”.

There is so much more to say... Alas-- I'll stop here. One thing I am much aware of is that we must work together toward a more sustainable future.

AI Should be Harnessed

I won't go on about the fallacious use of the term "AI" to mean everything from "data mining" to "machine learning" to "predictive analytics" and "big data".

Everywhere I go I hear about how AI is changing the world.

I get it.

But my ideal is seeing AI used for positive human application, not working against humans.

I'll try and not get upset here over the way AI will be integrated into visual analytics to force people "to keep honest". 

I spoke to another journalist this afternoon for over 1 hour, based out of Melbourne.

My PhD student, Alexander Hayes and I have also been talking about how body worn cameras are being utilised by police forces in the USA and elsewhere.

It seems to me that beyond enslavement, that transhumanism will just the opposite to its intent, entrap and enslave and kill off individual freedoms. What then? Who really wishes to live their life "downloading their mind" onto some computer encased in a storage facility, that is encased on a rack? No thanks, not me.

encased.jpg

See also my PhD thesis from 2003.