Skip to main content

Reset - Ronald Deibert ***

The subtitle underscores a topic of 'reclaiming the internet for civil society'. There is no doubt that the internet has given us huge benefits - never more obvious than during the COVID pandemic - but Ronald Deibert argues that it also presents huge dangers, both from the state being able to gather data on citizens and from corporations indulging in 'surveillance capitalism' - making money out of keeping track of us and our data. Both of these are certainly significant issues that need to be explored.

The majority of the book gives a depressingly dark picture of an internet where we are constantly observed, while the last pages come up with a form of response - the reset of the title. Unlike the stark specifics of the description of the problem, the suggested solution is far more tenuous, coming down primarily to being more 'republican' (with a small r, not the policies of the US political party of the same name).

I'll be honest, I found Reset hard going, not because of the dire state of the internet but more because Deibert's writing style is dense and loaded with soft science/political jargon. The book also can sound like an advertising brochure for his Citizen Lab organisation, which sometimes gets several mentions on a single page. The description of the over-reaching state side of the problem is very one-sided, focussed entirely on civil liberties without any significant consideration of the real need for state intelligence-gathering, or, for that matter, the huge everyday benefits we get from using the internet. At one point only, Deibert admits that states do need to perform intelligence gathering - but at no point does he actual weave that need into the narrative, which is all about the dark side. Similarly, when he gets on to solutions, there's a mention, for example, of the value of end-to-end encryption to keep our conversations private - but nothing about how to deal with terrorists and criminal gangs using this same technology.

Deibert rightly points out that the 'You've nothing to fear if you've nothing to hide' argument is wrong, although he doesn't mention that one of the biggest reasons for this at the moment is that if you work for an organisation like a university, you need to hide any deviation from left wing true-believer status if you are to succeed. But outside the action of repressive states (something that happens with or without the internet) he then fails to give good examples of individuals suffering, despite having nothing to hide - the examples tend to be about organisations. Deibert is also effective on the need to restrain the behaviour of corporates, making their sharing and use of our information more transparent (and in pointing out the GDPR just imposes on us far more irritating clicks with very limited real protection). Once again, however, the solutions aren't really there. I don't blame him - it's very difficult to frame solutions that don't become state censorship, but we are where we are.

A particular irritation for a non-US reader is the framing of the solution as republicanism, with examples mostly drawn from the US and its constitution - to those of us outside of North America this can sound like so much US imperialism and exceptionalism. I don't live in a republic, and I certainly wouldn't like to live in one run the way that the US is.

Overall, then, an important topic, but an unbalanced book that doesn't address potential solutions in any useful way.

Paperback:

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Roger Highfield - Stephen Hawking: genius at work interview

Roger Highfield OBE is the Science Director of the Science Museum Group. Roger has visiting professorships at the Department of Chemistry, UCL, and at the Dunn School, University of Oxford, is a Fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences, and a member of the Medical Research Council and Longitude Committee. He has written or co-authored ten popular science books, including two bestsellers. His latest title is Stephen Hawking: genius at work . Why science? There are three answers to this question, depending on context: Apollo; Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, along with the world’s worst nuclear accident at Chernobyl; and, finally, Nullius in verba . Growing up I enjoyed the sciencey side of TV programmes like Thunderbirds and The Avengers but became completely besotted when, in short trousers, I gazed up at the moon knowing that two astronauts had paid it a visit. As the Apollo programme unfolded, I became utterly obsessed. Today, more than half a century later, the moon landings are
Post a Comment
Read more

Space Oddities - Harry Cliff *****

In this delightfully readable book, Harry Cliff takes us into the anomalies that are starting to make areas of physics seems to be nearing a paradigm shift, just as occurred in the past with relativity and quantum theory. We start with, we are introduced to some past anomalies linked to changes in viewpoint, such as the precession of Mercury (explained by general relativity, though originally blamed on an undiscovered planet near the Sun), and then move on to a few examples of apparent discoveries being wrong: the BICEP2 evidence for inflation (where the result was caused by dust, not the polarisation being studied),  the disappearance of an interesting blip in LHC results, and an apparent mistake in the manipulation of numbers that resulted in alleged discovery of dark matter particles. These are used to explain how statistics plays a part, and the significance of sigmas . We go on to explore a range of anomalies in particle physics and cosmology that may indicate either a breakdown i
Post a Comment
Read more

Splinters of Infinity - Mark Wolverton ****

Many of us who read popular science regularly will be aware of the 'great debate' between American astronomers Harlow Shapley and Heber Curtis in 1920 over whether the universe was a single galaxy or many. Less familiar is the clash in the 1930s between American Nobel Prize winners Robert Millikan and Arthur Compton over the nature of cosmic rays. This not a book about the nature of cosmic rays as we now understand them, but rather explores this confrontation between heavyweight scientists. Millikan was the first in the fray, and often wrongly named in the press as discoverer of cosmic rays. He believed that this high energy radiation from above was made up of photons that ionised atoms in the atmosphere. One of the reasons he was determined that they should be photons was that this fitted with his thesis that the universe was in a constant state of creation: these photons, he thought, were produced in the birth of new atoms. This view seems to have been primarily driven by re
Post a Comment
Read more