Seminarios Maguen 2016 1. FBI vs APPLE

1 APPLE VS FBI

Apple vs. the FBI: A Closer Look – Late Night with Seth Meyers

En nuestro blog del @chmddigital @anaxoch nos preguntó

Hola!!! Me gustaría conocer su opinión frente al debate provocado por la respuesta de Tim Cook sobre la petición de descriptar le teléfono del terrorista de San Bernardino. ¿Qué relación tiene esto con la ciudadania digital? ¿Cuál es su postura? Espero leer sus respuestas, me parece un tema que debemos discutir como agentes de cultura digital. De antemano, gracias por su participación.

Asi empezó una indagación que hoy tendrá su sesión presencial

Resumiendo Todo. Gracias @Ericamac_

Apple vs. FBI: todo lo que necesitas saber sobre el iPhone 5C de la discordia

Una primera sentencia a favor de Apple en otro caso

I PREGUNTAS EX-ANTE

«Todo instrumento es teoria incorporada» (Bachelard)

«Todo instrumento (en este caso un iPhone) es también política incorporada»

Antes de entrar en tema reconozcamos la complejidad de la cuestion bajo análisis desde una perspectiva mucho mas amplia cual es la idea de los

DIPOLOS

Uno de los fenómenos que mejor demuestran que las empresas deben desaprender muchas cosas es la aparición en el escenario de polos opuestos a las formas tradicionales de concebir las cosas. La idea es que si hasta ahora concebíamos algunas cosas de una determinada forma, ahora aparecen como posibles justo los polos opuestos. Así, aparecen muchas bipolaridades, o dipolos, y la gestión de la empresa se convierte cada vez más en una gestión de esas polaridades.

Alfons Cornella & Antonio Flores La alquimia de la innovación

y sobretodo el DIPOLO clave

The Made vs The Born según Kevin Kelly

Latouriamente en este caso Apple vs FBI lo que estamos discutiendo es un ejemplo muy complejo de reensamblaje de lo social

Bruno Latour Reensamblar lo social: una introduccion de la teoria del actor red. Manantial, 2008 ISBN 9789875001145

Para Bruno Latour la palabra social ha sido una y otra vez cargada con diversos presupuestos, y por lo tanto ya resulta un nombre impreciso, incluso inadecuado. Cuando un fenómeno se nombra de ese modo, se lo usa para indicar un estado de cosas estabilizado, un conjunto de vínculos que en su momento puede usarse para explicar otro fenómeno.

Latour considera también que el término es utilizado como si describiera un tipo de material; algo es de madera o como el acero. Es decir, se lo usa de un modo que parte de supuestos respecto de la naturaleza de lo que ya está ensamblado.

Lo social se ha convertido en un término que designa a la vez un proceso de ensamblado y un tipo particular de material. Latour señala por qué lo social no debe pensarse de ese modo y rechaza los intentos de dar una explicación social de otros estados de cosas.

Retorna al significado original del término para redefinir la noción y permitir, nuevamente, el rastreo de relaciones. Así será posible retomar el objetivo tradicional de las ciencias sociales, usando herramientas más refinadas.

A partir de una extensa obra dedicada a estudiar los ensamblados de la naturaleza, Latour nos invita a escudriñar minuciosamente el contenido preciso de aquello que está ensamblado bajo el paraguas de la Sociedad.

No debemos olvidar en esta reproblematizacion nociones clave de diseño, antidisciplinariedad y relevancia de la investigación situada

The Ecstasy of Curiosity
Shots of Awe de Jason Silva

“To entertain such ontologies is to re-contextualize one’s self as a marvelous conduit in a timeless whole, through which molecules and meaning flow, from nebulae to neurons and back again.” – Tim Doody

«Abrazar esas ontologías es re-contextualizar uno mismo como un hilo maravilloso en una totalidad atemporal, a través del cual las moléculas y el sentdo fluyen, de las nebulosas a las neuronas ida y vuelta» – Tim Doody

Joichi Ito Design and Science

the new Salon des Refusés.
“antidisciplinary.”

when people from different disciplines work together.

But antidisciplinary is something very different; it’s about working in spaces that simply do not fit into any existing academic discipline–a specific field of study with its own particular words, frameworks, and methods.

antidisciplinary research is akin to mathematician Stanislaw Ulam’s famous observation that the study of nonlinear physics is like the study of “non-elephant animals.” Antidisciplinary is all about the non-elephant animals

Stanislaw Ulam, the celebrated Polish mathematician and godfather of the field now known as nonlinear science, famously remarked that using the term ‘non-linear science’ was like “calling the bulk of zoology the study of non-elephants”. He meant that linear processes are the exception rather than the rule; that most phenomena are inherently nonlinear; and that the effects of nonlinearity are apparent everywhere in nature, from the synchronized flashing of fireflies through clear-air turbulence to tornadoes and tsunamis.

I believe that by bringing together design and science we can produce a rigorous but flexible approach that will allow us to explore, understand and contribute to science in an antidisciplinary way.

In many ways, the cybernetics movement[2] was a model for what we are trying to do–allowing a convergence of new technologies to create a new movement that cuts across the disciplines

As Stewart Brand recently reflected, cybernetics became more and more dense and academic, and as it matured it was “bored to death.”

Perhaps we can design something that is both rigorous enough, engaging enough, and antidisciplinary enough not only to survive, but to thrive.

The kind of scholars we are looking for at the Media Lab are people who don’t fit in any existing discipline either because they are between–or simply beyond–traditional disciplines.

I often say that if you can do what you want to do in any other lab or department, you should go do it there.

Heinz von Foerster, Gregory Bateson, Margaret Mead, Gordon Pask, and Stewart Brand who were more concerned with second-order cybernetics

Other movements include The Bauhaus, Black Mountain College, Metabolism,

a first-order cybernetic system would be a thermostat and a second-order system would be the earth’s ecosystem.

And if “cybernetics is the theory, design is the action.” (Ranulph Glanville)—for we are responsible for what we design.

Design has also evolved from the design of objects both physical and immaterial, to the design of systems, to the design of complex adaptive-systems. This evolution is shifting the role of designers; they are no longer the central planner, but rather participants within the systems they exist in. This is a fundamental shift–one that requires a new set of values.

Neri Oxman and Meejin Yoon teach a popular class called “Design Across Scales,”

This would be much more of a design whose outcome we cannot fully control–more like giving birth to a child and influencing its development than designing a robot or a car.

Unlike the past where there was a clearer separation between those things that represented the artificial and those that represented the organic, the cultural and the natural, it appears that nature and the artificial are merging.

Science and engineering today, however, is focused on things like synthetic biology or artificial intelligence, where the problems are massively complex.

Synthetic biology is obviously completely embedded in nature and is about our ability to “edit nature.” However, even artificial intelligence, which is in the digital versus natural realm, is developing its relationship to the study of the brain beyond merely a metaphorical one. We find that we must increasingly depend on nature to guide us through the complexity and the unknowability (with our current tools) that is our modern scientific world.

Stewart Brand likens academic papers to tombstones reading: “we thought this subject to death and this is where we buried it.”

The Media Lab has thrived 30 years without losing its relevance or its passion when most research labs that focus on a discipline have difficulty retaining relevance for so long. Why? I think it’s because our focus is on a way of thinking and doing rather than on a field of study or a particular language

THE PRINCIPLES

Resilience is the new Strength
Pull is the new Push
Risk is the new Safety
System is the new Object
Compass is the new Map
Practice is the new Theory
Disobedience is the new Compliance
Emergence is the new Authority
Learning is the new Education

Pero Dunne & Raby lo tenían mas que claro cuando enunciaban que su proyecto era el pasaje del Lado A al B del disco de la vida

A/B

Afirmativo/Critico
Problem solving/Problem finding
Provee respuestas/Busca preguntas
Diseña para la producción/Diseña para el debate
Diseña como solución/Diseña como medio
Está al servicio de la industria/Está al servicio de la sociedad
Funciones ficciones/Ficciones funcionales
Para como el mundo es/ Para como el mundo podría ser
Cambia el mundo para servirnos/Nos cambia para servir al mundo
Ciencia-ficción/Ficción social
Futuros/Mundos paralelos
Lo «real» real/Lo «irreal» real
Narrativas de producción/Narrativas de consumo
Aplicaciones/Implicaciones
Diversión/Humor
Innovación/Provocación
Diseño de conceptos/Diseño Conceptual
Consumidor/Ciudadano
Nos hace comprar/Nos hace pensar
Ergonomia/Retórica
Usabilidad/Etica
Proceso /Autoría

II LA MADRE DE TODAS LAS POLEMICAS

2. 1 Los datos

On Dec. 2, 2015, Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, killed 14 people and injured 22 others, including a police officer, in San Bernardino California at a holiday party for the County Public Health Department. Their attack was one of deadliest terrorist attacks since 9/11. The couple willfully destroyed all their hard drives and phones prior to the attack, except for Farook’s work phone, which he left in a relative’s car.

The crime is horrific, performed by a religiously motivated terrorist, the perpetrators were members of a minority group, and the phone itself was owned not by the criminal, but by his employer. The facts, law, and emotional appeal will probably never line up quite so well for a government case again.

Apple has already helped the FBI extensively with this investigation. Apple made its engineers available to law enforcement and provided information it has on its iCloud servers. Only the physical data on the phone itself, with approximately six weeks’ of information not backed up on iCloud, is what is at issue here. This work phone, with a few weeks of missing data not backed up on iCloud, is not likely to be the most important digital device associated with the crime, but it does make an excellent battleground for the FBI to push for assistance involving hacking phones generally.

If this court order is enough to force Apple to hack its own product, what stops this from happening in Russia, China, or Turkey? What of even less popular governments like Iran, Syria or North Korea? It will be difficult for Apple to pick and choose which countries have sufficient freedom and sovereignty for it to obey valid court orders with millions of customers and billions of dollars at stake in certain countries

What makes meaningful disagreement with the court order so difficult is that the pro-surveillance side has such a powerful argument legally and factually.

governmental and judicial validation is not always enough in the final moral analysis

Diciéndolo en una sola palabra

You must surrender a little privacy if you want more security. The scales don’t balance quite so neatly, though; there’s nothing secure about giving the FBI their way. Still, it’s been an effective way for the government to win over the public, on its way to trying to win over the courts.

What’s important to understand about the San Bernadino iPhone case is that its very existence is a public relations maneuver.

A recent Pew Research poll found that 51 percent of Americans think Apple “Should unlock the iPhone to assist the ongoing FBI investigation,” while 38 percent say Apple should not.

In FBI versus Apple, government strengthened tech’s hand on privacy
http://theconversation.com/in-fbi-versus-apple-government-strengthened-techs-hand-on-privacy-55353

2. 1 Las posturas EL FBI exige

Using an obscure law, written in 1789 — the All Writs Act — the US government has ordered Apple to place a back door into its iOS software so the FBI can decrypt information on an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino shooters.

The FBI, in a laughable and bizarre twist of logic, said the back door would be used only once and only in the San Bernardino case.

2.2 APPLE se desmarca

The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.

The government is asking Apple to hack our own users and undermine decades of security advancements that protect our customers — including tens of millions of American citizens — from sophisticated hackers and cybercriminals. The same engineers who built strong encryption into the iPhone to protect our users would, ironically, be ordered to weaken those protections and make our users less safe.

The FBI may use different words to describe this tool, but make no mistake: Building a version of iOS that bypasses security in this way would undeniably create a backdoor. And while the government may argue that its use would be limited to this case, there is no way to guarantee such control.

Apple A Message to Our Customers

2.3 Los de afuera no son de palo y echan agua para su molino

Bill Gates backs FBI in battle with Apple over San Bernardino killer’s phone

2.4 ¿Tertium datur?

La abduccion

John Mcafee: I’ll decrypt the San Bernardino phone free of charge so Apple doesn’t need to place a back door on its product

El pionero

2.5 Balances parciales

Apple vs. FBI is a sign of a dangerous divide

What is truly dangerous is the divide between our security needs and the economic interests of industry.

The current struggle between the FBI and Apple is a clear example of how this distrust is becoming a vicious cycle. By turning to court orders to compel Apple’s cooperation, the FBI is perpetuating Silicon Valley perceptions of the government as a heavy-handed bully. But by refusing to comply, Apple is making it more likely that Congress will resort to the very sort of blunt force regulation that the technology industry fears the most.

Apple vs. the FBI: Why the stakes have never been higher

Really understanding Apple’s legal brief in the FBI case Congress should get involved (Muy complejo, detallado y legal, pero lleno de matices)

The Apple-FBI Fight Isn’t About Privacy vs. Security. Don’t Be Misled

3 PREGUNTAS EX-POST

3.1 Todo tiene que ver con la información.

Aristas para repensar/rediseñar la información

Carolina Botero Cabrera El FBI quiere puertas traseras

Apple se niega a cumplir una orden judicial para ayudar al FBI a acceder al iPhone de uno de los atacantes de San Bernardino (EE.UU.), donde murieron 14 personas.

3.2 Lo que se viene

Wireless: the next generation A new wave of mobile technology is on its way, and will bring drastic change

3.2 La posición de Alierta (los carriers)

Alierta y Slim piden que Facebook y Google paguen por usar sus redes

3.3 La posición de Google (los «parasitos»)

Google Project Fi plan vs AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and Sprint

3.4 ¿Y que nos va a nosotros como ciudadanos de a pie?

Volviendo a

3.5 El diseño participativo

Tenemos que repensar todas las cuestiones de diseño generadas por dipolos como éstos y para ello debemos pasar del diseño de cosas (stuff) al diseño de sistemas complejos adaptativos siguiendo los lineamientos de

Y mas especificamente el articulo introductorio de la bellisima e inteligentisima Neri Oxman

Age of Entanglement by Neri Oxman

donde se examina en gran detalle el ciclo de la innovacion

Lo que nos lleva a revisar nuevamente el dipolo nacido vs creado, desde un nivel mas complejo que el examinadopor el propio Kevin Kelly hace ya casi un cuarto de siglo

Design at the Intersection of Technology and Biology | Neri Oxman | TED Talks

3.6 La ciudadania digital ilustrada y critica

3.7 Inventando mundos posibles (alternos). Diseño especulativo

Algunas referencias hechas desde CMDDigital

¿Cuánto le costaría a Apple ayudar al FBI?
________________________

La próxima charla será sobre los dilemas éticos que plantean las tecnología autónomas (en este caso los driveless cars de Google)

¿Tendremos que programar computadora asesinas?

The ethical dilemma of self-driving cars – Patrick Lin