Doodlebug at Its A House

Just thought I share an interview about my experience of art of after Doodlebug’s third event, which you can read here. Thanks to its a house for the feature as well as Shiba Mazaza and Atang Tshikare for organising. 

Reconnecting the Disconnected: No Longer Suitcase Nukes

Please note this is a re-post from an article I wrote on 10/07/2011 on http://www.brandseye.com but the website has since changed format and my posts are no longer accessible there.

The copy below is an all too familiar headline. Several examples have been seen in Northern Africa this year, where the authorities fearing revolution from discontented masses, cut off their means to communicate and organise.

In today’s world, even in the most developing of places, this means a shutdown of connectivity limiting text-based messaging and instant messaging services like Blackberry Messenger and WhatsApp as well as social media networks.

In the last few decades, when a citizenry’s freedom has been questioned, the global community usually issued a particular response. This generally implied a collective UN or other assembly enacting relatively tame measures, often involving non-confrontational policies that rarely achieved much at all.

As a result, this was often followed by the intervention of a single country or an allied group of nations who enter and occupy that territory to restore peace and democratic government. This move would spark vast criticism questioning everything from rights to enter to motives behind entering.

–

However, no longer a lofty outsider with foreign values forcibly entering a country in political turmoil – now, there exists a means to empower local populations to organise socio-political change themselves. Hand up, not hand out.

–

What is possible?

–

A recent application of relatively commonplace technologies is capable of undermining so-called ‘information-based tyranny’ comes in the form of two rather simple solutions which anyone with a mobile device with basic Internet connectivity can access.

–

1) A relatively small wireless device that could fit in suitcase – that enable remote Internet access for a ≥2 mile radius on the ground. However, the drawback with these is getting them within national borders and keeping them active.

–

2) Overhauled EC-130J cargo aircraft, – so-called “Commando Solo” and/or drones that transmit AM/FM and 3G signals respectively give radio and Internet access to designated areas.

–

 

–

Spinoff: Removes Control of Internet Access by Governments and Corporates

–

By removing power from incumbent Internet Service Providers (ISPs) there are two benefits.  Firstly, less control of information by governments which see fit to limit their citizenry’s access to the Internet, or where Internet access has been crippled by infrastructural damage, such as after the Haitian earthquake.

–

Secondly, less monopolisation of information by corporates who continue to stretch the price ceilings of the most grassroots of people.  The price of data varies inconsistently between countries in the Middle East and Africa, which would assist those without the financial means in the first place.

–

Catch 1: Empowers those who provide it

–

Currently the US is the main developer of this technology.  Conversely, these devices can also deny access and jam signals. This functionality is defended by the idea that “[Signal jamming] may have its place in social [revolution] as well,” according to Prof. J. Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School in the US.

–

It is useful in situations where pro-regime communications may not be helpful to that citizenry’s cause. For example at the beginning of this year, the Egyptian government hacked Vodafone’s network to disseminate pro-regime text messages.

–

Moreover, the positive associations for Brand America in the minds of grassroots civilians in the developing areas of the world are thousand fold. America would be seen very positively by those who have been reached and have benefitted by this technology.

–

Catch 2: Non-Intervention vs. Active Involvement?

–

The age-old interventionist debate comes into play. Ideally this should apply to the offending authorities. However, there remains the potential for this to be used where an entity incorrectly perceives undemocratic behaviour to be unwanted by the population.

–

Conversely, the mere threat of this technology’s functionality may act as its own deterrent against authorities who would prospectively shut off to their Internet access.  However, a weapon doesn’t have to inflict direct and/or physical harm to be a weapon. To which, Arquilla says this may then be considered an act of war.

–

Ultimately, considering that information is perhaps the most empowering commodity in today’s world, the Obama Administration correctly points out that Internet access should be “an inviolable human right.”

–

On one hand this technology offers great promise for nations stranded without a means of communication, affording individuals the means to communicate will help them settle socio-political differences amongst themselves.

–

On the other hand, is the great irony.  The ISP that empowers those civilians not only gains a monopoly on their access to information but also indefinite control over what information is transmitted and who may and may not receive it.

–

Even more so than oil, information, may yet be the most valuable and fought-over currency of our era.

Good Governance: the Infrastructure is, almost, in place

Please note this is a re-post from an article I wrote on 09/06/2011 on http://www.brandseye.com but the website has since changed format and my posts are no longer accessible there.

It’s become incredibly easy for us to say that the “internet will enable [insert favourite social need here]…” Indeed, the internet does have the potential to create a fair democratic system – but what we’re not getting at is how the desired changes are actually going to happen. Digital has the power not only to understand what changes are needed but also to bring about their implementation.

What’s needed? Bright, go-getter and can-do people who not only believe in the change they want to happen but are prepared to go the full Monty and make it work. We have the necessary human resources available and via initiatives like crowd-sourcing and initiative incubation (note not just idea-incubation) we can realise these goals.

So, what’s the real issue?

Imagine you’re talking to a shrink, where you rant ceaselessly about a problem for session upon session and either he just listens and enquires about how you feel or potentially offers you a quick-fix antidote to ease your symptoms.

The result:  a never-ending square-dance around the real issue. Symptoms are continually addressed and social graces are continually observed yet are we really setting realistic goals and developing constructive and deliverable action plans?

If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put foundations under them.  – Henry David Thoreau –

How do we expect to solve global socio-economic problems like we keep saying we will, when we’re relying solely on the dialogue that the internet facilitates? Agreed, the internet is the best ideas’ incubator yet available to us. Its multinational, boundary-less scope is brilliant for stimulating ideas which really are worth sharing and without it, the world would be deaf to a large population of intelligent and worthwhile contributors. However, without a defined plan/vehicle for their implementation, any idea no matter how great, remains baseless.

Less Talk More Action

I fundamentally believe that the internet is a vehicle capable of facilitating advancements in societal progress. Though I remain convinced that unless more ideas evolve into actionable strategies – the internet will largely facilitate an impenetrable bubble of stale dialogue.

Let me give you an example. High level as this may be.

1) Listen, register and convey ideas/sentiment to the necessary referents

Online reputation management (ORM) services will enable not just consumers to air their opinions of the brands they use but also what citizens have to say about elements of their country’s governance.

Consumers the world over, and not just those from developed, urban areas are becoming more and more comfortable in using social media platforms particularly those accessed via mobile for conveying political sentiment. Engagements with/following of@BarackObama and @PresidencyZA on Twitter as well as the viral nature of pro-socially democratic conversation trending within North Africa and the Middle East are cited as key examples.

With auto-verification and natural language processing search functionality via online reputation management services, large volumes of public opinion issued across multiple platforms of digital communication, the public participation process can become fully automated with governments able to extract and act on relevant insights not only on a quantitative scale but on an on-going basis as well.

For example, in this way, citizens can directly participate in processes and decision making at all levels of government, improving the communication and transparency of the overall decisions which affect their day to day lives, airing their views which otherwise would not be heard.

2) Impose accountability – discourage inaction/compel action

One particular advantage of ORM is the ability to determine source credibility. This implies the scope of an author’s audience – how many people would have the opportunity-to-see his/her message at a time.  If you can reach 4 000 people, you are considered a ‘respected source’.  Similarly, if you can reach 1 000 000 people, you are considered to be an ‘authoritative source’

You may disagree with that. Even if they have seven million followers – how could a singer be authoritative? They’re not authoritative because they’re an authority on a subject, they’re authoritative because they’re accountable to a community seven or even ten million strong.

There is a certain amount of control that needs to be exercised not only when you can influence that many people but because that is a large population which controls the supply of your influence. That connection is an organic, human-defined relationship, which if abused, will cease to exist or at least substantially reduce in following.

The same rings true for state-centric governance. With a direct line to the collective voice of the opinions of millions, leaders have the potential to not only visualise those castles in the sky (the carrot) but facing the risk of their electorate literally unfollowing them (the stick) the compelling drive to actually build the necessary foundations.

What’s your great idea? How will you overcome the barriers to its enactment?

And how will it make a lasting difference?