This blog is no longer active since 27th October 2016, the new address is https://medium.com/@dtaside

#6 IoT: Empowering or Enslaving?

At 11:10 UTC on 21st October 2016, half of the Internet went down due to a large Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) on a major Domain Name Systems (DNS) host, Dyn. According to Flashpoint, the culprits utilised the same method used in another DDoS attack earlier this year on KrebsOnSecurity, making use of the increasing integrated network between devices, naming the Internet of Things (IoT). I'm no IT expert and I have no intention to explain the terms which I myself had to read up on, but you would not need to really understand them for the content of this post. The definition of IoT though, is important. It basically means objects and devices connected to the Internet can collect data from and exchange data with one another. The issue I want to discuss today is human's dependence on the Internet and the risks we are taking everyday by over-relying on the invisible network, which is materialised in the form of IoT.

Imagining a world without Internet is not easy when almost every aspect of our life is enabled and empowered by it. Internet itself is part of the technological advancement mankind has been continuously striving for in order to achieve higher standards of living, but while it is complementing and enhancing all the other technologies and improvements, it is also controlling them. Physical maps have long become obsolete in the appearance of digital maps and the Global Positioning System (GPS). The same story is true for paper letters and emails, CD/DVD and streaming services, SMS and messaging apps, the list goes on. The Internet has brought a new level of efficiency and convenience that all developers and inventors need to keep in mind while coming up with their next innovation. More businesses are holding virtual conferences, more hospitals are equipping IoT devices for better management, more police and intelligence forces require updated databases for their duties. The Internet is essential in all procedures from personal to local to national and international levels. Knowing this the disappearance of the Internet would cause astronomical damages, just like being hit by a meteor.

IoT devices are often referred to as 'smart' objects because they tell us things we don't know at a much faster rate than if we are to find out ourselves. Languages can't even evolve fast enough to cope with this influx of 'smart' everything, as 'smartphone' and 'smartwatch' are recognised as words but 'smartbrand' isn't, yet. In the near future chairs, spoons, washing machines and anything that can be connected will be connected to the giant grid of IoT and suddenly gain intelligence and start making commands. Censors in your IoT toothbrush will report any dental problem then send the information to your computer to book an check-up appointment when you are still washing your mouth. If being watched by CCTV is not anxious enough, your face-mask will soon be able to send analysis of your cough and in minutes you will be on your way to isolation. Convenience and privacy have always had a rocky relationship, and the rampant growth of IoT quickly elevates the former at the expense of the latter.

The downside of having everything attached to our bodies and in our possession connected to the Internet only presents itself, when other parties with technological capability and some ulterior motives carry out socially and legally undesirable activities causing inconveniences and disturbances. Cyber crimes are carried out by people who understand the fragility of our society and make use of the fact that communities and their members no longer function properly without being interconnected. The motive can vary from personal benefits to vigilante acts or just pranks to showcase ones' hacking prowess. People do whatever they want anyway. We should not even waste time worrying if imminent attacks are coming. They definitely are, despite IT companies and experts' constant effort in upgrading security protocols and measures. Are we all doomed then, if there is a possibility that one day the infrastructures and systems supporting our daily routines are paralysed and we are at the complete mercy of some geeks wearing hoodies? Not certainly, if we start to factor that possibility in every action we take and adopt a mindset of coexisting with the Internet, not leaving every aspect of our life to it.

Some might argue it is impossible for mankind to backtrack to previous states of development prior to the inventions of key technologies like the Internet, electricity, steam engines, and survive. Some others would play down habitual and contextual factors and simply base on the fact that our predecessors did survive without most of the cool modern ideas, so even if the Internet disappear tomorrow we would not follow dinosaurs' footsteps too quickly. Taking a side would require endless discussion and convincing which ultimately would most likely not result in any agreement, precisely why I tend not to do so, not anymore at least. The relevant question is not whether we can survive without the Internet, but how we do so.

As a heavy user of the Internet and IoT devices, I would not wish for more and more detrimental cyber attacks to occur, this blog will just vanish you see. However, I believe we all need to prepare the necessary mentality in case such a situation happens. We need to manage our Internet usage and sought out alternatives for the functions we use it for, effectively reducing our reliance on having stable and secure Internet connections for our devices and systems all the time. Such a mindset would also reduce the frequency and magnitude of attacks, as the harm-doers would have less to gain. Most things people do are to create an impact or trigger a reaction, and a less than dramatic response to the collapse of Google or other seemingly indispensable Internet providers would deplete the motivation to cause such a scenario in the first place. Uncle Ben taught us that great powers must be managed with great responsibility, and IoT must be managed through all of our effort, for no single individual or group can handle it alone.  

#5 Harambe and The Viral Generation

Before the invention of the Internet in 1950s, the word 'viral' would only cause paranoia and sweaty palms, not excitement and an urgent need to search for some bizarre music videos or articles about a gorilla being taken down. It has been well established that viral contents like the PPAP song or Harambe's death have several common characteristics: evoking extreme emotions, easy to comprehend, and relatable to the mass. Sharing viral contents is not so much about spreading breaking news and information, it instead enables and empowers the sharers to express an opinion or feeling that effectively paints themselves in the intended light. Calling it a self-gratifying act is not accurate, because most sharers do not actually care what others think of them, but that attitude defines their identities and makes them "unique" and "interesting". It can be a conscious or unconscious effort, but undoubtedly sharing viral materials is an activity most if not all that have access to Internet and social media profiles engage in on a daily basis, and we shall attempt to find out why.

In today's context, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, it certainly does not make a sound. It does not even fall, nor is it really a tree, on top of that the forest does not even exist in the first place. At any point of time, from any individual's point of view, something only exists or starts to exist if they know about it. However, after Italian astrologer Giordano Bruno was burned for spreading information contradicting to the Roman Catholic Church's belief, being told is no longer enough and people start to demand proofs to believe. Theories backed by experiments, photo and video evidences, i.e science, become more widely adopted and developed. Now, while viral contents are not necessarily scientific knowledge, they do have to be credible and objective to attract more shares and likes. There are viral materials being circulated with the purpose of humiliating certain groups and ideologies, but those are blatantly biased and sometimes ridiculous one can quickly realise their sarcastic feature. People only share contents that they want to be seen sharing anyway.

'Welcome to the Internet' can often be used to resolve, or make light of conflicts online, where everyone and anyone is free to say whatever they want. Most people, however, do not take into account others' opinions while formulating their own and end up sounding ignorant and ill-informed. The responses to Harambe's killing prompted me to start this blog on providing objective perspective on social issues, and I will discuss that in explaining the viral generation's mindset. 

                                                   (this is not Harambe but another lowland western gorilla, for illustration purpose)

To recap, the famous 17-year-old gorilla at the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden was shot and killed by a zoo worker, after a 3-year-old boy got inside Harambe's enclosed captive area and was grabbed and dragged around by the 200 kg primate. Immediately the controversy began and the Internet was divided into two halves, one defending the zoo's choice of action and the other criticising the shooting as imprudent. Of course no single answer is perfect, but with a bit of logic and common sense you should be able to see that the boy's safety was of highest priority and the zoo's decision was appropriate. Yet, that very action was and is still being ridiculed by memes and people who nonchalantly distribute those memes online. 

This movement may have started with genuine grief (but highly unlikely) over Harambe's death, but it has reached the point when every mention of the word Harambe serves to entertain, draw attention and prove one's capability of making satirical remarks. Cincinnati Zoo has been pleading the public to stop the proliferation of such harmful memes, but a quick glimpse at the comments and you can safely tell this ignorant and damaging act will continue for long. Had the incident not been reported, none of this proud "Harambe supporters" would have displayed so much concern towards animals. Since they questioned the shooting which ultimately prevented any potential harm done to a human baby, a fellow member of their species, you could already tell if the concern was real or not. The viral environment is the natural habitat for hypocrites, after all it is not too difficult to shed virtual tears for an animal you would never meet.

Members of the viral generation are created by the systematic problem with today's standards of 'just for fun'. You might have already heard the saying that people are getting more sensitive nowadays and they can get offended by anything, but that has got to do with how comments are made and opinions are expressed with little or no regards to others' feeling or ideologies. Words are free, but it doesn't mean they must and should be cheap. Do think before you share your opinion on any matter, be ready to back it up with logical arguments supported by evidences, and consider others' perspectives with respect. The online community is not yet beyond hope, and we can stop the viral culture infecting our statements with insensitive and uneducated remarks before it becomes a real disease.

   

#4 The Truth about False Accusations

In 2013, Sichuan, China, 3 young boys rushed to the rescue of an elder woman, Mrs. Jiang, who fell down and was asking for help. No one, besides Mrs. Jiang herself, expected the old woman to start yelling about how the trio pushed her down in the first place. She was then sent to the hospital while demanding 200,000 yuan (31,200 USD) compensation from the boys' families for her self-diagnosed broken bones. Unfortunately for her, local policemen and doctors performed their responsibilities flawlessly, confirming that she fell down on her own and had no injuries, though many might hope she really broke her ankles and could not go outside scamming again.

The fact that there exists people who actually make up ploys to use their real or artificial miseries to extort something from others is fascinating. In 2009, a male student from University of Edinburgh was falsely accused of rape by his ex-girlfriend who initiated sex with him on his birthday, then cried that he raped her the next morning, most probably for revenge, or for the heck of it. He was under house arrest and had to attend hearings and pre-trials for two and a half years, only for the case to be dismissed almost instantly during the real trial in February 2012. During that period his friends stopped talking to him, he changed to a new school where his new friends soon found out about the case and stopped talking to him. Once he was declared innocent he called up University of Edinburgh, which practically threw him out for who they thought the "victim" made him to be, and all they said was 'fine'. Not a line about how sorry they were for the ways they handled his case and tarnished his reputation and future, because they were not.

In a false accusation case, the '"victims" are the real offenders and the alleged "culprits" are the real victims, but society just can't be bothered by the truth. Even when a person's status is cleared, it does not matter anymore since the damage is already done. The only news we usually see are the ones reporting incidents that happened or are believed to have happened, but it stops there.  No follow-ups on the investigations, on the evidences and confessions later made and on the actual ruling of the case, because those are boring and would not sell as much. So what if the alleged rapist turned out to be innocent, who cares? It's more important that you can tell your friends 'hey do you know about that rape case, the guy is a sicko, I've lost faith in people' and become applauded for showing sympathy towards the human race. If you know the "victim", better still, simply showering the person with concerns and humiliating remarks for the "culprit" to fulfil your social responsibilities. After sufficient time, even the "victims" would no longer care, leaving only the falsely accused frantically battling to prove their innocence.

False accusation is itself a crime of fraud, but in most cases it's one party's words against the other's, so coming up with a guideline to deal with this phenomenon can be tricky. With a functional brain and enough wicked intelligence, you can frame anyone of anything and people would not blink twice before condemning the person to the deepest levels of hell. Humans enjoy knowing about others' wrongdoings. We might celebrate fire-fighters and those who do good deeds to society as heroes without capes, but we shiver with excitement upon hearing stories about villains, the dysfunctional part of the world that makes us feel better about ourselves. We often describe criminals 'the lowest of the low' not just because their actions cause undesirable consequences, but they effectively serve as standing platforms to elevate the rest of society as greater, more morally correct human beings. Since we actively seek evils to glorify our self-worth, the falsely accused always face unfavourable treatment which is irreversible, while the false accusers freely surf the sympathy waves.  

Lying alone is not wrong, but lying with the intention to make someone miserable should be made punishable. However, stories are only known as they are told, and the media industry thrives on publishing whatever that boosts their profits, and fabricated lies top the best-seller list. People love to make judgements with little or no support, and a simple statement or headline can completely erase a person's future. If you ever contemplate falsely accusing someone, just bear in mind the ending of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. The shepherd boy was eaten by the wolves when the villagers no longer believed his lies. Karma is a bitch if you are one, hopefully.