0:01

Have you ever longed to escape reality

0:03

or fantasized about stepping into someone else's

0:06

shoes, even for just a little while?

0:09

Hi, I'm Laura Mullen. And

0:11

I'm Chris Tully. We host

0:13

CBC's Play Me, the immersive

0:15

podcast that transforms theatre into

0:17

addictive audio fiction. Join

0:20

us for a new season

0:22

and disappear into a world

0:24

rich with drama, where every

0:26

show delivers hypnotizing stories and

0:28

unveils intriguing characters with secrets.

0:31

Play me wherever you get your podcasts.

0:36

This is a CBC Podcast. Welcome

0:40

to Ideas. I'm Nala Iyad.

0:45

In 2020, Ron Deibert

0:48

came to the nearly empty CBC

0:50

building in downtown Toronto to record

0:52

the Massey Lectures in studio. The

0:55

COVID-19 pandemic made our

0:57

usual multi-city tour impossible. Ron

1:01

is the founder and director of Citizen

1:03

Lab. It explores global

1:06

security, information and communications

1:08

technologies and human rights.

1:11

So he's had a front row

1:13

seat to online realities that were

1:15

spiraling out of control. We've

1:18

read about high-tech mercenary companies selling

1:20

powerful cyber warfare services to dictators

1:23

who used them to hack into

1:25

their adversaries' devices and social networks,

1:28

often with lethal consequences. First

1:32

it was Jamal Khashoggi's inner circle. Then,

1:35

allegedly, Jeff Bezos' device.

1:38

Maybe I've been hacked too, you wonder to

1:40

yourself, suddenly suspicious of that

1:43

unsolicited text or email with an

1:45

attachment. We're

1:48

all living in a digital ecosystem

1:51

that often feels impossible to escape.

1:54

The world you're connecting to with that device

1:57

increasingly feels Like

1:59

a major source, a personal risk, but

2:01

it's also become your lifeline now more

2:04

than ever. Run D

2:06

Birds Massey lectures were called

2:08

Reset Reclaiming the Internet for

2:10

Civil Society. In the

2:12

language of computers and networking, the term

2:15

recess is used widely to refer to

2:17

a measure that have a system and

2:19

returns with to an initial state. In

2:23

his lecture run. Suggests.

2:25

Let's set reset Said look like. To

2:28

get us started, I propose

2:31

a single, simple but hopefully

2:33

potent principal restraint. This

2:36

episode as part of a

2:38

special series we've put together

2:40

to Marxists sixtieth Anniversary of

2:42

Massey College one of our

2:44

partners and then I see

2:46

lectures. It features the sixth

2:48

and final installment from Around

2:50

the Birds Lectures called Retreat

2:52

Reform Restraint Along the way

2:54

you'll also here other thinkers.

2:56

Anything on his way to. This

3:01

is Luxor six retreat,

3:04

Reform restraint, Part.

3:07

One a fragile ecosystem.

3:11

There. Is an undeniable gusto in the

3:13

air. A recognition that something

3:16

of our own making is contributing

3:18

to a serious kind of social

3:20

and political sickness. Are.

3:22

Very tools and techniques threatened to wipe

3:25

us out. Says sieve of i do

3:27

not in in anti social media. We.

3:30

Display unlimited talents but no

3:32

mastery. We. Process infinite

3:34

data but display know

3:36

wisdom. Is. Remarkable

3:39

to think it was only a few

3:41

short decades ago that the Internet was

3:43

heralded as a wonderful new tool. That.

3:46

Would enlighten and liberate us.

3:48

Dissolve. The boundaries of time and

3:50

space. And. Ties together more

3:52

closely into a single global

3:55

village. But. In

3:57

the span of a single generation, it

3:59

has trends. More defied into

4:01

something far more complex and

4:03

disturbing. It's. A Sex

4:05

suddenly very ominous. With.

4:07

Started out as something so

4:09

simple as desktop pcs network

4:11

together via a common protocol.

4:14

Has. Morphed into an always

4:16

on omnipresent date a vacuum

4:19

cleaning operation. Undertaken by

4:21

gigantic corporate platforms with

4:23

unparalleled abilities to peer

4:25

inside our minds and

4:27

habits. And. Suddenly shape our

4:29

choices. Their. Operations implicate

4:32

a plan applied network of

4:34

gigantic energy sucking data farms.

4:38

The. Ecosystem has spawned a bewildering

4:40

variety of invasive species that

4:42

thrive by feeding on that

4:45

continuously expanding pools of data

4:47

that spew forth each millisecond

4:49

of every day. App

4:52

developers, data brokers, location

4:54

trackers, data fusion companies,

4:56

artificial intelligence start ups

4:58

and private intelligence firms.

5:01

Accountability. Is weak and

5:04

insecurity is endemic throughout

5:06

the entire system, creating

5:08

seemingly endless opportunities for

5:10

malevolent exploitation by spies,

5:12

kleptocrats, dark Pr firms,

5:14

and other bad actors.

5:17

It's. As if we have sleep walked

5:20

into a new machine base civilization

5:22

of our own making. And.

5:24

We're just now waking up

5:26

to its unforeseen consequences. an

5:29

existential risks. It's.

5:31

Clear that there is a

5:33

growing consensus that many things

5:35

are wrong with our social

5:37

media habits. Symptoms of this

5:39

Malays are seemingly everywhere, fairly

5:41

easy to identify, an increasingly

5:43

enumerated by scientific studies. But.

5:46

What to do about them is less obvious. There.

5:49

Is nowhere near a consensus when it

5:51

comes to a cure. This

5:54

lack of clarity around solutions

5:56

is certainly understandable. The.

5:58

Challenges thrown up by so. The media

6:00

surveillance, capitalism, and near total

6:02

state surveillance have arisen so

6:04

swiftly that we have barely

6:07

had time to understand how

6:09

they work, let alone six

6:11

them. But.

6:13

Of course it's not all just

6:15

on you. We, and fatalistic acquiescence

6:17

in the face of social medias

6:19

harms. Proposals. For

6:21

mitigation or alternatives to social

6:23

media, as currently constituted, are

6:26

frequently raised and plentiful. Summer.

6:29

Quite interesting and worth considering. Others

6:32

may be flawed in various ways or

6:34

self serving. Many. That

6:36

are worthwhile or incomplete. Many.

6:39

Of them feel like fragments of a missing a

6:41

whole of which they might be a part. Take

6:45

the family of recommendations to mitigate

6:47

social media harm that I call

6:50

retreat. These. Are

6:52

the solutions that advocate for some

6:54

variation of going off the grid

6:56

either by throwing out our devices

6:58

and applications completely and going back

7:01

to a time before social media.

7:03

Or. And slightly more reasonable form

7:06

simply taking a break from them

7:08

once in awhile. Proposals.

7:10

Such as these can be found him

7:13

please to unplug. Disconnect.

7:15

Or. Perform periodic cleanses,

7:18

Digital Detoxification as it's

7:21

widely described. The.

7:24

Concept of a digital retreat as appealing

7:26

on many levels. There. Is a

7:28

simplicity to at the makes it alluring.

7:31

It is true that one thing we need

7:33

to recover his our connection to the natural

7:35

world. Slowing. Down as a good

7:37

idea to. But. There's a

7:39

major problem so obvious that it may

7:42

be easy to overlook. Sure,

7:44

It's fine if a few

7:47

isolated communities completely detached, unplug

7:49

and retreat. And. There's

7:51

no doubt we could all use

7:53

a little digital detox once in

7:55

awhile. Meditation. Is great

7:58

to and best ton without a nap. But.

8:01

Candid Scale. Would. Have

8:03

every quite literally unplugged.

8:06

How. Would we then manager ourselves

8:08

for social relationships are problems

8:10

and our politics. Detachment.

8:14

And retreat also ignored or at

8:16

least slight. The. Many positive

8:18

uses of digital technologies

8:20

social media included. In

8:23

spite of disinformation and

8:25

overreaching surveillance. Social. Media

8:28

have proven highly useful for

8:30

many problems. Even.

8:32

Prior to the Kobe nineteen

8:34

pandemic, digital technologies have been

8:36

used extensively to monitor the

8:39

environment. To. Share information

8:41

in ways that the original

8:43

designers intended. Think of: Wikipedia.

8:46

To. Mobilize social movements and hold

8:48

bad actors to account. Furthermore,

8:51

It is frankly impossible to live

8:53

in complete detachment from social media

8:56

today. Even. The

8:58

self isolation and social distancing in

9:00

response to the covert emergency. Did.

9:02

Not dissolve digital connections among

9:05

people. In fact, it deepened

9:07

our reliance on them. Even.

9:09

If you were to try and completely

9:11

escape from social media, Unplug.

9:13

Your router. Throw. Away all

9:16

of your devices and never look

9:18

at social media again. You'd still

9:20

be subject to surveillance. Facebook.

9:23

And other social media have shadow

9:26

profiles of people. Who. Do

9:28

Not Even use their services. Cctv.

9:31

Cameras are everywhere. Go.

9:33

Ahead, live the dream and moved

9:35

to rural Montana. you'd still be

9:38

watched by drones, planes, and satellites.

9:41

No. Matter where you go, you will be

9:43

counted. Digital.

9:45

Technologies of so deeply embedded themselves

9:47

into everything that we do. It

9:50

is unrealistic to expect we can

9:52

turn the clock back entirely. Nor.

9:55

Should We. We. need an

9:57

open and secure means of communicating

9:59

globally in order to manage

10:01

our planet and our collective affairs. It

10:04

is just that the current design for it, based

10:07

around personal data surveillance, is

10:10

counterproductive to those aims. Outright

10:13

rejection of social media is

10:15

thus both undesirable and futile.

10:18

As Buckminster Fuller once said, we

10:21

do indeed live in spaceship Earth,

10:23

but we are stuck with a poorly

10:26

designed operating manual. Hi,

10:33

Tamsen Shaw here. I

10:36

like Ron's metaphor of

10:38

a poorly designed operating manual,

10:40

because if you

10:43

think about the hybrid economy of Silicon

10:45

Valley and what it was set out

10:47

to accomplish, a huge

10:49

amount of the funding came

10:51

from national security agencies, from

10:54

their venture capital wings, in

10:56

order to accomplish national security

10:58

goals. But of course, the

11:00

companies wanted to commercialize those

11:02

products in order to

11:04

make a profit. So those are

11:07

the two basic

11:09

functions of that machine,

11:11

capitalism and national security. And

11:14

I think now there's no technological

11:16

reason that we can't create social

11:18

media platforms that don't just serve

11:20

those two ends. But the

11:22

problem is where does the incentive come from?

11:25

It's not going to be from

11:27

the people who own those tech platforms

11:29

and make billions of dollars from them.

11:32

It's not going to be from politicians who

11:34

now rely on them to get elected. And

11:37

it's not going to come from people whose only

11:39

real form of social

11:41

and community organization is

11:43

actually on those platforms.

11:46

And I think this is symptomatic of

11:48

something that's true of humans in

11:50

general, which is that technological

11:52

problems are the easy part.

11:55

It's the very big problems

11:58

like climate change. or

12:00

global inequality that are transnational

12:03

and that require political solutions

12:05

that we have problems with.

12:08

Marxists used to imagine

12:10

that there were these contradictions

12:13

of capitalism and that

12:15

eventually they would be over-determined and

12:17

that would lead to us creating

12:20

something better. I

12:22

think the worry now is that maybe they

12:24

don't lead to something better,

12:27

over-throwing capitalism. Maybe they

12:29

just lead to our self-destruction and

12:31

I think that's the problem that we have to confront now.

12:34

That's what we'll need to address in

12:37

the future. It's Misha

12:39

Glenny here. I've felt

12:41

for a long time that what we face now

12:43

are what I call the four horses

12:45

of the modern apocalypse. One

12:48

of them we're going through at the

12:50

moment, pandemic and the other three are

12:52

climate change, which is the ultimate threat,

12:55

weapons of mass destruction, which

12:57

over the past 20 years have been

13:00

proliferating quite significantly

13:03

and the regulatory systems are deteriorating

13:05

for that. But the

13:07

fourth one is our

13:10

over-dependency on network

13:12

computer technologies. I think

13:15

this is a really, really serious danger

13:17

that we face. And so

13:19

for me, if we

13:21

do not address these issues and

13:24

come up with a new

13:26

system of managing network

13:29

technologies, then there

13:31

is little doubt in my mind that

13:33

they will destroy us. Part

13:36

Two. Reform. Reset. Then

13:44

there are the proposals that advocate

13:47

for some variation of reform, that

13:49

is adjustments to one or another

13:52

element of social media's business practices.

13:55

Reform proposals range along a spectrum

13:58

from minor to major adjusted. adjustments,

14:00

and lesser to greater degrees

14:02

of formal government intervention. The

14:06

intent is not to dismantle social

14:08

media, but to fine-tune them instead.

14:11

For example, corporate social

14:13

responsibility, ethical design, and

14:15

other such initiatives typically

14:18

involve the least intrusive measures

14:20

and entail only minor fixes

14:22

to superficial elements of social

14:25

media. These

14:27

initiatives typically advocate for norms

14:29

rather than laws, persuasion

14:31

rather than coercion. The

14:34

goal is to have business

14:37

executives acknowledge certain principles and

14:39

govern their business practices accordingly,

14:41

but without any kind of specific

14:44

enforcement mechanism to hold them to

14:46

their promises. Regardless

14:48

of any particular CEO's

14:51

sincerity, however, there

14:53

is a hard limit to reforms

14:55

associated with this type of corporate

14:57

self-governance. However much

14:59

the promises made by the companies

15:01

to better protect privacy or police

15:03

their networks may be genuine, the

15:06

effects will be questionable as long

15:08

as the core business imperative to collect

15:11

it all, all the

15:13

time, remains unchanged. As

15:16

long as social media are propelled

15:18

forward under the regime of surveillance

15:21

capitalism, pledges to do

15:23

better to protect privacy will

15:25

remain little more than window

15:27

dressing, a coat of paint

15:29

to make their platforms more appealing

15:31

and ultimately draw more consumers into

15:34

their fold. Among

15:36

the partial or fragmented solutions

15:38

are the technological fixes. We

15:41

just need a new app to help us

15:43

correct the errors and false information circulating on

15:46

all the other apps. Many

15:48

believe that governments need to enact

15:50

strong data protection regimes with independent

15:53

regulators who have the power and

15:55

authority to punish social media platforms

15:57

that violate the rules of the

15:59

world. those regimes. It

16:02

is common to hear calls

16:04

for more scrutiny of the

16:06

machine-based algorithms companies use to

16:08

sort their users, what's known

16:10

as algorithmic accountability. Proposals

16:13

have been made to legislate

16:15

greater transparency in the social

16:18

media advertising space, particularly around

16:20

political advertising. Some

16:22

believe we should treat social media as

16:25

publishers or regulate them in

16:27

the same way we regulate large

16:29

utilities like electricity and water. Others

16:32

believe they should be broken up

16:34

using antitrust tools instead. One

16:38

potentially helpful way to think of these

16:40

various proposals is as if

16:42

they are ingredients of a long-lost

16:44

recipe. We know the

16:46

basics from memory pass down through

16:48

the generations, but without the

16:51

original formula we hesitate and

16:53

second-guess ourselves. Do I

16:55

finish the pasta in the sauce or pour the

16:57

sauce over the cooked pasta? Do

16:59

I roast the garlic or mince it? The

17:02

term reset is most often associated

17:05

with computers and refers to the

17:07

process of shutting down processes or

17:09

systems that are hanging. It

17:12

can also refer to starting over

17:14

completely from fresh with factory settings.

17:18

A reset provides an opportunity to take

17:20

stock of the big picture. It

17:23

gives us breathing room to evaluate what's

17:25

working and what isn't and

17:28

make adjustments moving forward accordingly. Most

17:31

importantly, it provides us with space and

17:33

time to start over from first principles

17:36

and a solid foundation in

17:38

dispense with those practices that have

17:40

become a hindrance to larger aims.

17:43

There are several compelling reasons to have a

17:46

solid framework to guide us after a

17:48

reset. Having an

17:50

underlying bedrock of principles to

17:52

which we can continuously refer

17:55

helps steer our strategies and

17:57

inform our decisions, especially as

17:59

knowledge is problems arise.

18:02

For at least a decade now, technological

18:04

innovation has been undertaken

18:07

mostly in the absence of any

18:09

such foundation, other than

18:11

a simple imperative to collect

18:13

more data. A

18:16

well articulated set of principles, particularly

18:18

one that links technologies to

18:21

wider political ideals, can

18:23

help remind us that political

18:25

principles should take priority over

18:28

technology, and technology should

18:30

be designed and developed to

18:32

further our political aims, rather

18:34

than work against or be insulated from

18:36

them. It can

18:39

also help us understand the

18:41

relationship between reform proposals that

18:43

otherwise may seem disparate or

18:45

unrelated. It can help us

18:47

evaluate and prioritize, see

18:50

the larger whole of which the

18:52

various fragments are apart. Second,

18:55

having a principled foundation can anchor

18:57

our approach in a rich historical

18:59

tradition, and help us

19:02

feel connected to well-tested and

19:04

long-established wisdom and practical experiments

19:06

on analogous challenges that societies

19:08

have faced in the past.

19:10

Our social media

19:13

universe feels uniquely novel in

19:15

so many ways that it

19:17

may blind us to the

19:19

fact that societies have experienced

19:21

technological upheavals and large-scale societal

19:24

challenges before. Human

19:26

societies have had to adjust and

19:29

adapt throughout their history in the

19:31

face of new material circumstances, much

19:33

like we are experiencing today. We

19:36

can learn from what's come before and

19:39

from the collected wisdom of those who

19:41

have experienced and reflected on it. Third,

19:45

such a foundation helps combat

19:47

fatigue, pessimism, and defeatism among

19:50

critics of social media and

19:52

surveillance capitalism by showing

19:54

there are viable and robust

19:56

alternatives. If we demonstrate

19:59

the common root of numerous

20:01

disparate efforts to detach, reform,

20:03

and regulate social media, we

20:06

show that everyone's efforts are

20:08

weaving something larger than their

20:10

own separate struggles. This

20:13

suggests that the whole is larger

20:15

than the sum of its parts,

20:17

and that there are alliances to

20:19

be forged among like-minded advocates, policymakers,

20:21

and researchers, particularly among

20:24

civil society in different

20:26

jurisdictions worldwide. It

20:29

can help chart a path towards an

20:31

alternative agenda on which groups can work

20:33

together more confidently. This

20:41

is Astra, and there's a lot about this

20:43

idea that I agree with. There

20:45

are a lot of powerful forces I would like to

20:47

be restrained, but I suppose

20:50

there's something about it that

20:52

frames our power as inherently negative,

20:55

that all we can do the best we can hope for

20:58

is to have these powerful

21:00

actors, be they corporations or governments,

21:02

do less harm. So

21:04

it's a kind of negative

21:06

framework, right? Be less invasive,

21:09

be less destructive, be less

21:12

powerful. And I suppose

21:14

I also would want to couple that with

21:16

a framework that thinks about what power

21:18

we have and what other things we

21:21

could do, including with technology.

21:24

So I guess in my

21:26

affirmative vision, I want to think about

21:29

how to redesign our technology and maybe

21:31

into three buckets. So one is

21:35

what technology do we want to democratize? What

21:38

technology do we want to make public

21:40

or socialize? And then what do we

21:42

want to abolish? So when

21:45

I'm thinking about democratizing, well,

21:47

what businesses could be

21:49

run as co-ops, right? Instead of Uber

21:52

as this huge multinational corporation,

21:54

what if there were local

21:56

municipal co-ops of brideshare drivers,

21:59

you know who serve their communities. You

22:01

know, then what platforms do we want

22:03

to socialize or make public? So maybe

22:06

Facebook should be a public utility. This is

22:08

something that Ron Deibert, you know, mentions

22:10

in passing in the book. Yeah,

22:13

and then what things should be abolished? I mean,

22:15

for me, there are certain types of invasive data

22:17

collection that just shouldn't exist. They're

22:20

organizing campaigns around the United States.

22:22

And in some cities, they've been

22:24

successful to just ban facial recognition

22:26

as a tool that the police can use. I think

22:28

that's the right thing. Instead of trying to regulate, there

22:31

are some things that just need to

22:33

be left alone, some data that does not need

22:35

to be collected. So there's an analogy

22:37

there to the environmental justice movement. Some fossil

22:39

fuels need to stay in the ground. Some

22:42

private data just needs to stay off

22:45

the cloud. We should

22:47

go beyond restraint to just the

22:49

framework of abolition of saying, well,

22:51

actually, that's just because it's technically

22:53

possible doesn't mean it's morally

22:55

desirable. On

23:02

ideas, you're listening to an

23:04

encore presentation of retreat, reform,

23:06

restraint, the final installment of

23:08

Ron Deibert's 2020 Massey

23:11

Lectures. You can

23:13

find ideas wherever you get your

23:15

podcasts. And on CBC Radio 1

23:17

in Canada, across North America, on

23:20

US Public Radio and on Sirius

23:22

XM, in Australia,

23:24

on ABC Radio National

23:26

and around the world

23:29

at cbc.ca/ideas. I'm

23:31

Nala Iyad. The

23:33

past is shrouded in mystery. To

23:36

understand it, you have to get

23:38

up calls. Something

23:40

happened to our collective psyche after

23:43

the atom bomb. An

23:47

NPR throughline, we reopen stories from

23:49

the past to find clues to

23:51

the present. Find through

23:53

line wherever you get your podcasts. Part

24:00

of the series marking the sixtieth

24:02

anniversary of Nancy College. One

24:04

of our partners and them and see lectures.

24:09

It features the sixth and

24:11

final Matter of Run The

24:13

Birth Series Reset Reclaiming The

24:15

Internet, First Civil Society. In

24:19

this lecture, he explores the kinds

24:21

of restraints we need to place

24:23

on government and corporations and on

24:25

our own endless appetite for data.

24:32

Part. Three, Restraint. To.

24:35

Get us started! I propose a

24:38

single, simple, but hopefully potent principle.

24:41

Restraint. Restraint.

24:43

Is primarily defined as quote a

24:45

measure or condition the keep someone

24:47

or something under control her within

24:50

limits. Secondarily,

24:52

It also means quote self

24:54

control as in an emotional

24:57

dispassionate are moderate behavior. Both.

25:00

Senses of the term point

25:02

to general qualities that will

25:04

be essential to preserving rights

25:06

and freedoms in our supercharge

25:08

hyper network world of data.

25:11

We. Need to restrain what governments

25:13

and corporations do with all of

25:16

the extraordinarily powerful tools of surveillance

25:18

that are now in their hands.

25:21

We. To restrain with they do with all

25:23

of the data about us and our behaviors.

25:26

Restraints. Will be essential to

25:28

ensure the security of the broader

25:30

information and communication space in which

25:32

we live. Particularly.

25:35

Restraints on bad actors exploiting

25:37

costs for despotic, corrupt, or

25:39

criminal ends. Of government's

25:42

exploiting up for their narrow

25:44

national security aims. Will.

25:47

Need personal restraints to. Restraints.

25:50

On are endless appetite for data.

25:52

Restraints. On our emotions and anger

25:54

as we engage on line in the

25:56

absence of the physical cues that normally

25:59

help Can. them. We

26:01

will need restraints on each other, mutual

26:04

restraints that apply to individuals,

26:07

organizations, and even sovereign states.

26:10

If there is one single mantra,

26:13

one simple concept, that should become

26:15

our slogan and guide us as

26:17

we chart our path forward, I

26:20

believe it should be restraint. While

26:24

most everyone is familiar with the

26:26

concept of restraint, what may be

26:28

less familiar to many is that

26:30

this seemingly simple term is derived

26:32

from and is essential to a

26:35

long tradition of theorizing about political

26:37

liberty and security going back centuries.

26:41

It is most intimately connected to

26:43

that broad family of political thought

26:45

that for most of us is

26:47

so entrenched in our habits and

26:49

dispositions, it is more

26:51

like an instinct than a self-conscious

26:53

philosophy. I'm talking of

26:56

course about liberalism. Broadly

26:59

defined, liberalism is a tradition

27:01

that supports individual rights, civil

27:04

liberties, and political reform that

27:06

pushes societies in the direction

27:08

of individual freedom, democracy, and

27:11

social equality. Political

27:13

theorists will be quick to point out

27:15

that liberalism is not a single theory,

27:18

but a large family of ideas

27:21

and prescriptions for how to manage

27:23

societies that goes back hundreds of

27:25

years. Most of

27:27

us can rhyme off the key

27:29

features of liberalism so ingrained are

27:32

they into our collective approach to

27:34

politics, free and fair

27:36

elections, constitutions, limited

27:39

government, the rule of law, separation

27:42

of powers, pluralism, social

27:44

justice, and protection for human

27:46

rights. There

27:49

are many tangled threads that weave

27:51

their way through liberalism. There

27:53

are also competing schools of thought

27:56

within its large and diverse tent.

27:59

Those who consider the Themselves adherents range

28:01

from Libertarians and free market

28:03

fundamentalists on one end of

28:05

the spectrum. To. Democratic Socialists

28:07

on the other. In.

28:09

Spite of competing schools, however,

28:12

Liberalism. Of all stripes

28:14

shares a fundamental principle. At

28:17

it's core is the belief that

28:19

in order to preserve and maximize

28:21

freedom, While. Countering insecurity and

28:24

fear. We. Must build

28:26

legally binding restraints on those

28:28

we interest to discharge authority.

28:31

Restraints. On the exercise of

28:34

political power. To prevent

28:36

abuse. Within. The

28:38

Liberal Tent The specific school

28:40

of thought that is most

28:42

associated with this principle of

28:44

restraint is known as Republicanism.

28:47

In fact, the idea of applying

28:49

restraint as a design principle for

28:51

political systems is one of the

28:53

most venerable in political theorizing, with

28:56

roots reaching all the way back

28:58

to Ancient Greece. Although

29:01

Republicanism has something to say about

29:03

many principals and it's hard it

29:06

is about preventing the centralization and

29:08

thus abuse of power. For.

29:11

Republicans unchecked concentrations of power

29:13

threatened liberty and security because

29:15

they are apt to be

29:18

abused. And. So Checks and

29:20

Balances A widely known phrase that

29:22

comes from Republican thought. Must.

29:25

Be institutionalized to distribute power

29:27

pluralistic lee and keep it

29:29

that way. The.

29:32

Republican opposition to concentration of

29:34

power rests on assumptions of

29:37

human frailty. Humans

29:39

tend to be both self interested

29:41

in prone to lapses in judgment.

29:44

When. Opportunities present themselves. They are

29:46

tempted by power which can in

29:48

turn bring about corruption and other

29:51

abuses. As. Montesquieu famously

29:53

observed. Every man invested

29:56

with power is up to abuse

29:58

It. Republic. American

30:00

theorists were acutely aware of the

30:02

accumulation of unchecked and oppressive power

30:04

in the hands of government as

30:07

a threat to individual liberty and

30:09

security, and so they

30:11

devised an elaborate system of power-restraint

30:13

devices to thwart it. These

30:16

devices are a form of

30:18

friction introduced into political processes

30:20

to make the exercise of

30:23

authority less efficient. Strange

30:26

as it may sound, at a

30:28

time of near-total surveillance potential in

30:30

the hands of government agencies, we

30:32

need to challenge ourselves to think

30:35

of ways to artificially reduce the

30:37

efficiency of our government's security agencies.

30:41

The Republican attention to material factors

30:43

tells us why. Oceans,

30:46

mountains, and other rugged terrain,

30:48

as well as inhospitable climates

30:51

and even endemic diseases, created

30:54

obstacles for invading armies,

30:56

slowing them down, impeding

30:59

conquest, and protecting long-term

31:01

control of populations, a

31:03

kind of accidental friction by

31:06

circumstance. All

31:08

things being equal, the further away

31:10

people are from the center of

31:12

control, or the more

31:14

natural barriers shelter them, the less

31:16

efficient the exercise of that control

31:18

tends to be. Once

31:21

in times prior to social media and the

31:23

internet, activists could flee their

31:26

home countries out of fear of

31:28

persecution and feel safe, thousands of

31:30

miles away from the reach of

31:32

the power elites they left behind.

31:35

However, with social media and other

31:37

digital technologies, these natural

31:40

barriers have been almost

31:42

entirely dissolved. We

31:44

now live in something approximating

31:47

a friction-free environment in which

31:49

outside forces, being they companies

31:52

or governments, can pry

31:54

into our most intimate details, even

31:56

when we're behind closed doors. new

32:00

technologies, all of us

32:02

can be tracked to a degree

32:05

and in a fashion that is

32:07

both unprecedented in human history and

32:09

nearly comprehensive in its potential totality.

32:12

When our fridges, baby monitors,

32:15

video conferencing facilities, smart TVs,

32:17

and even brains are all

32:19

networked to the outside world,

32:22

natural restraints that we once took for

32:24

granted no longer serve the

32:26

same function. We

32:30

now face an entirely new challenge

32:32

from the material context, thanks

32:34

to the changing nature of technology. Implanted

32:38

technologies have the potential to

32:40

pinpoint details even down to

32:42

a biological level with a

32:44

precision that borders on precognition.

32:47

This great leap forward in

32:49

remote control raises the prospect

32:52

of severe abuse of power

32:54

and near totalitarian control. The

32:57

application of restraint measures to the

32:59

design and functioning of both private

33:02

and public sectors will thus be

33:04

critical to preserving liberty and security.

33:12

This is Daniel Doudney. One

33:14

way to think about why restraint in

33:16

this way is so important

33:19

is to just recognize the

33:21

extent to which civilization is

33:24

a series of restraints that

33:26

have over time emerged to

33:29

solve various problems that have

33:31

arisen from human

33:34

exploitations of technology. We

33:37

can think of it this

33:39

way that over the longer

33:41

term, there's a cornucopia of

33:43

increasingly potent double-edged technological swords.

33:47

For example, advances which are

33:49

coming at ever-increasing rates.

33:52

When one looks at the longer horizon

33:55

of human history, there's been

33:57

this last century or so which has just

33:59

been explosive. with

34:01

regard to technological capabilities.

34:04

And in all cases, we're

34:06

basically getting human enablement, a

34:09

science-based technology is enabling humans

34:11

to do more things. Many

34:15

of the things that it enables are

34:17

things we want, but many

34:19

of the things that it enables are things

34:21

we don't want. And

34:23

our capacity to continue

34:25

to advance, to

34:28

continue to make technology serve us

34:31

rather than technology is a

34:33

source of disasters

34:35

and oppressions, depends

34:38

upon how we regulate

34:40

and restrain the technologies.

34:44

In every aspect of our life, we've

34:46

got restraints on technology, and we take

34:48

them for granted. They're like baked in.

34:51

Think about the automobile. The first

34:53

automobiles did not have mufflers. And

34:56

so urban areas were quickly

34:59

overwhelmed by enormous amounts

35:01

of noise. And so

35:03

citizen groups got together and demanded

35:06

regulation. And of course,

35:08

the nascent automobile industry said,

35:11

oh, this is an impingement on our freedom.

35:13

But over time, the

35:15

automobile manufacturers started putting

35:19

mufflers on automobiles

35:21

in the factory. And

35:23

the problem just went away. And

35:25

no one thinks about it anymore.

35:27

We don't have to organize ourselves

35:29

to control urban automobile noise. So

35:33

when we say technological progress,

35:35

what we mean is not

35:37

just that technology can

35:39

do stuff we want, it

35:42

also means that we have the

35:44

ability to make sure the

35:46

technology doesn't do stuff we don't want.

35:50

Part 4, mechanisms for

35:52

change. The

35:58

first place to start is by reading. reviewing the

36:00

type and effectiveness of existing

36:03

restraint mechanisms around governments. While

36:06

companies can abuse power too and

36:08

collect a lot of sensitive, fine-grained,

36:10

and highly revealing data about us,

36:13

which they can in turn share

36:15

with governments, only a

36:17

government can take away a person's liberty

36:19

by force. The

36:21

security arms of the state, the

36:24

police, armed forces, and

36:26

other security agencies have a

36:28

monopoly on violence, one of

36:30

the definitions of sovereign statehood.

36:33

They have lethal means at their

36:35

disposal, can arrest people and lock

36:37

them up, and in some

36:40

jurisdictions can even end their lives

36:42

through capital punishment. In

36:44

response to emergencies, governments can

36:47

also take all sorts of

36:49

exceptional measures that infringe on

36:52

liberties, including declaring martial law,

36:54

or simply suspending constitutionally protected

36:57

rights that we take for granted as

36:59

we discovered with the COVID pandemic. The

37:02

first task of our reset should

37:05

be to evaluate the effectiveness of

37:07

the restraint mechanisms we have inherited.

37:10

Do we need to supplement them

37:13

with new resources, capabilities, and

37:15

authorities? One

37:17

simple rule of thumb that may help

37:19

guide us is as follows. Restraint

37:22

should increase proportionately to the

37:25

intrusiveness of the practices in

37:28

question. The

37:30

more invasive a technology is, the

37:32

more likely it lends itself to abusive

37:35

power, and so the stronger and

37:37

more elaborate the restraint should be. Consider

37:41

location tracking via cellular and

37:43

telecommunications data. Most

37:46

everyone carries around a network device

37:48

with them all the time that

37:50

pings cell towers and local telco

37:53

networks on a continuous basis, and

37:55

is standard outfitted with GPS and

37:57

Bluetooth beacons. Most

38:00

all of us have dozens of apps

38:02

that routinely grab location history and data

38:04

too, and use them primarily

38:07

for advertising purposes. Prior

38:10

to COVID-19, these data could be

38:12

accessed by law enforcement, military and

38:15

intelligence agencies, but under

38:17

widely different conditions. In

38:20

some countries, certain of those agencies might

38:22

require a warrant or a production order,

38:25

while in others they might simply walk

38:27

into the headquarters of telecommunications companies and

38:29

demand them. In

38:32

a world where we reflexively look

38:34

to big tech for solutions, it's

38:37

not surprising that Google and Apple

38:39

have teamed up to develop a

38:41

protocol for anonymized contact tracing through

38:44

smartphone apps. Like

38:46

others who have already weighed in on the

38:48

issue, I believe that, however

38:50

much these prove to be useful

38:52

in public health emergencies, the

38:55

safeguards around them must be

38:57

exceptionally strong too. Some

39:00

basic restraint mechanisms should include

39:02

strict limits on data retention,

39:05

clear limitations on use, and

39:07

restrictions on access to ensure

39:09

that the data are not

39:11

illegitimately redeployed for other reasons,

39:14

like catching chicken wing thieves

39:16

and jaywalkers or monitoring

39:18

human rights defenders. Similarly,

39:21

strong restraints should be applied

39:23

to the use of commercial

39:25

spyware and hacking tools by

39:27

government security agencies, which

39:30

are among the most intrusive and,

39:32

as we at Citizen Lab have

39:34

demonstrated in our research, highly prone

39:36

to abuse. States

39:39

purchasing spyware are at liberty to

39:41

abuse it with limited or no

39:43

transparency or regulation.

39:46

Companies that manufacture and sell it have

39:49

unbridled freedom to rake in

39:51

revenues by the tens of

39:53

millions, largely without fear

39:55

of criminal liability or concern for

39:57

how their technology impacts human rights.

40:00

rights, the net result,

40:02

harassment, blackmail, and

40:05

even murder of countless innocent

40:07

civilians worldwide. Abuses

40:10

and built-in discrimination around the use of

40:12

some of these technologies today, in

40:15

policing, immigration, and criminal justice

40:17

practices, are already well

40:20

documented. The prospects

40:22

for even greater harms down the

40:24

road are impossibly large and daunting

40:26

to contemplate. Having

40:29

restraints to what governments can do is only

40:32

part of the solution. We

40:34

live in an age in

40:36

which gigantic corporations, and especially

40:38

technology giants, dominate the

40:41

social and political landscape. The

40:44

powers of unbridled surveillance

40:46

capitalism are truly awesome,

40:49

and when combined with state

40:51

authority, are potentially totalitarian. Keeping

40:54

our desires to persuade us to

40:56

consume this or that product is

40:59

disturbing enough, but the

41:01

prospect of corporations and states

41:03

colluding in broader population control

41:05

is downright dystopian.

41:08

Just ask a Tibetan or Uyghur. In

41:12

addition to the risks of abuse

41:14

of power related to fine-grained remote

41:16

control technologies, there is

41:18

another reason to impose restraints on

41:21

surveillance capitalism. The

41:23

engine at the heart of the business model,

41:26

which prejudices sensational, extreme,

41:28

and emotional content, amplifies

41:31

our baser instincts, creates

41:34

irresistible opportunities for

41:36

malfeasance, and helps pollute

41:38

the public sphere. It

41:41

also continuously accelerates our consumption

41:43

of data. More

41:45

is better, faster too. But

41:48

endlessly accelerating consumption of data on

41:50

the part of both consumers and

41:53

firms mining our behavior, taxes

41:55

the planet's finite resources, draws

41:58

volumes of fossil fuel

42:00

power energy and contributes

42:02

to one of humanity's most

42:04

pressing existential risks. It

42:06

certainly doesn't solve it. Introducing

42:09

friction and other restraints on

42:11

surveillance capitalism can help improve

42:14

the quality of our public

42:16

discourse while tempering the insatiable

42:18

hunger for more data, faster

42:20

networks and disposable gadgets. One

42:23

thing is for sure, business as

42:25

usual can no longer be tolerated.

42:28

Problems that have major effects on

42:31

the public's sharing and consumption of

42:33

information should not happen in the

42:35

shadows or behind a proprietary algorithm.

42:38

To be sure, there are balances

42:40

to be struck around free expression,

42:42

content moderation and abuse prevention. There

42:46

are very real risks that

42:48

mandatory or poorly constructed measures

42:51

could be perverted as an

42:53

instrument of authoritarian control abused

42:56

by despots and autocrats to enforce

42:58

their rule. The

43:01

key will be to make sure that

43:03

social media platforms manage content in ways

43:05

that are transparent, limited,

43:08

proportional and in

43:10

compliance with internationally recognized human

43:12

rights. These

43:14

standards may not be possible in all

43:16

jurisdictions right now, but they

43:18

should be an imperative for

43:20

those that consider themselves liberal

43:22

democracies. I

43:25

think this is a great place to

43:28

start examining how we might push back

43:30

on these systems. I

43:33

am also someone who believes

43:35

we need to examine the

43:37

roots of liberalism with critique,

43:41

understand that small are republicanism, at

43:44

least in the US context where I'm from was

43:47

concomitant with settler colonialism and

43:49

slavery and some of these

43:51

racial projects that are still with us today

43:53

and be very

43:55

discerning about which of

43:58

those principles we carry over and

44:00

which of those we reinvent. I

44:03

think there is also an omnipresent

44:06

question here about who

44:09

the we is, who gets

44:11

to determine what a limitation is, what

44:13

transparency is, how to interpret a

44:15

human rights principle. And

44:18

this is something that I think points

44:20

to the requirements for robust

44:23

social movements and

44:25

small d, democracy, that

44:28

can continue to foment and

44:30

push back against the urge

44:32

for again, that small council

44:34

of elders with a view from

44:37

nowhere, making these determinations on behalf

44:39

of everyone else. It's

44:41

John Norton here. I think that Ron is right that we

44:43

need to have a comprehensive approach

44:45

to this. And one of the

44:47

great things about the lectures, I

44:50

think is that they

44:52

constitute one of the first attempts I've

44:54

seen to try and convey the comprehensiveness

44:57

of the problem that we face as

44:59

a whole. But if we go back

45:01

to social media, what they

45:03

have done is they

45:05

have transformed humanity's media ecosystem.

45:09

Now the word media is interesting.

45:11

It's the plural of medium. And

45:14

medium has actually two meanings. One

45:16

is the conventional meaning. That's to say a

45:19

medium is a communication channel. But

45:21

to a biologist, a medium is

45:23

something quite different. It's

45:25

a mixture of substances in

45:28

a Petri dish in which organisms

45:30

grow. And if

45:32

you change the medium as a biologist, then

45:35

different kinds of organisms grow. And

45:39

our information ecosystem, you could think of

45:41

it as a medium in which human

45:43

culture grows. We've changed

45:45

that medium. We've changed the medium

45:47

in our global Petri dish. And

45:50

therefore we shouldn't be surprised that some strange organisms

45:52

are now thriving in it. Organisms

45:54

that in the end might be really toxic,

45:57

for example, for democracy. Iran

46:00

is right. We need to think

46:02

on that kind of global scale. Part

46:09

5. The Road Forward

46:13

Where global governance in general goes,

46:15

so too does governance of the

46:17

internet and social media. Discussions

46:21

to develop norms of appropriate

46:23

state behavior in cyberspace, while

46:26

laudable on one level, seem

46:28

entirely theoretical at the current

46:30

time against the practical reality

46:33

of massive investments by states

46:35

in offensive hacking, super power

46:38

policing, mass surveillance and influence

46:40

operations. We should

46:42

not expect international institutions to

46:45

be anything other than reflections

46:47

of self-interested and power-seeking sovereign

46:49

states, as long as

46:51

restraints on the abuse of power

46:53

are not deeply entrenched in domestic

46:55

spheres. Only once

46:58

restraints, divisions and separations are

47:00

established in individual republics can

47:03

they then be extended internationally,

47:05

first to other like-minded states

47:07

and then gradually to others.

47:11

Liberal democratic systems of government

47:13

can ensure that social media

47:15

platforms and other technology giants

47:18

are subjected to common standards of

47:20

governance so that they cannot play

47:22

jurisdictions against each other. Only

47:26

with such a united front can they

47:28

develop a truly robust response to

47:31

the state-centric model of social

47:33

media and internet governance being

47:35

propagated by authoritarian countries like

47:37

Russia and China. The

47:41

painful truths outlined in these talks

47:43

paint a very bleak picture. They

47:47

also present a troubling forecast for the

47:49

future of the human condition. It

47:53

seems undeniable now that the

47:55

disturbing worldwide descent into

47:58

neo-fascism, tribal tactics, unbridled

48:01

kleptocracy, along with

48:03

the accompanying spread of ignorance and

48:05

prejudice we have witnessed in recent

48:07

years, is at

48:10

least in part because the social media

48:12

environment, presently constituted under

48:14

the regime of surveillance capitalism,

48:17

created conditions that allowed such

48:19

practices to thrive and flourish.

48:23

Personal data surveillance and authoritarian

48:25

state controls present a perfect

48:27

fit. Seemingly

48:30

endless lucrative business opportunities

48:33

that undermine public accountability

48:35

and facilitate despotic rule.

48:38

These negative externalities may be amplified

48:40

by the surge in demand for

48:42

social media during the COVID pandemic,

48:45

the enhanced power of the platforms that went

48:47

along with it, and the

48:49

unprecedented emergency measures that tapped

48:52

into those platforms surveillance potential.

48:55

On top, our insatiable lust

48:57

for data and disposable devices

48:59

is silently taxing resources, sucking

49:01

up vast amounts of energy

49:03

and thus contributing to, rather

49:06

than helping to mitigate, the

49:08

climate crisis. While

49:10

the COVID pandemic has given some

49:12

reprieve to carbon dioxide emissions, thanks

49:15

to a short reduction in

49:17

airline and other fossil fuel

49:19

powered transportation, that reprieve

49:21

will eventually pass. However,

49:24

the sudden embrace of digital

49:26

network technologies will not and

49:29

may in fact deepen. Combined,

49:31

both real and virtual

49:34

consumption could increasingly strain

49:36

natural resources, draw

49:38

from dirty energy sources, drive up

49:40

emissions and contribute to waste. As

49:44

climate scientists warn, continuing down

49:46

that path will lead to

49:48

collective ruin. Our

49:50

precious apps will mean little when

49:52

humans are either wiped out altogether

49:54

or consigned to a Hobbesian state

49:56

of nature, dispersed in small tribes, strays,

49:59

and forests. We're going against each

50:01

other for the scarce resources needed

50:03

for survival. It. Is

50:05

not unrealistic to imagine a time.

50:08

When. The Internet and all

50:10

of it's associated infrastructure. Will.

50:12

Be reduced to rusting artifacts.

50:15

Submersed and rising oceans are

50:17

covered over by tangled weeds.

50:20

If consumption practices continue

50:22

apace, That. Will be

50:24

one way to mitigate social medias

50:27

negative consequences but obviously not worth

50:29

the price. Much.

50:31

Of what I've been talking about in

50:34

this series is sadly not surprising. These.

50:37

Are Truths because they are

50:39

widely recognized by a growing

50:41

community of experts. But.

50:44

The time is now come to move

50:46

beyond diagnosis and start the hard work

50:48

on solutions. We. Must squarely

50:51

and comprehensively address the intertwined

50:53

pathologies of social media and

50:55

surveillance capitalism. Starting.

50:57

With that device you hold in your hand. Fortunately,

51:01

We have a recipe the set of

51:03

principles that can help guide us on

51:05

this task. We. Do you not

51:07

even need to invent something new? Humans.

51:10

Have faced enormous political challenges

51:12

thrown up by new material

51:15

situations before. And there

51:17

is a long tradition of practical

51:19

theorizing that can be adapted to

51:21

our own unique circumstances. It.

51:24

Is time to reset. To. Start

51:26

over from first principles and

51:28

to work towards the construction

51:30

and stewardship. Of a

51:32

communications ecosystem that serves rather

51:35

than diminishes human well being.

51:38

We. Need to realistically of that,

51:40

there are major hurdles to

51:42

overcome and deeply entrenched and

51:44

powerful interests that will work

51:46

and opposition. And not always by

51:48

the rules. A comprehensive

51:51

strategy of long term reform

51:53

is therefore required. Extending.

51:55

From the personal to the political. From.

51:58

The local to the global. We.

52:01

Must begin now with practical

52:03

and manageable small steps simultaneously

52:05

undertaken by many of us

52:07

spread across the planet. The.

52:10

Covert Emergency reminds us of

52:12

our shared fate. We.

52:15

Have a once in a lifetime opportunity.

52:17

To. Reset. We

52:19

can reclaim the internet for

52:21

civil society. The principle

52:24

of restraint should be our God.

52:45

Given special encore selection from

52:47

Run Be Birds Twenty Twenty

52:50

Massey Lectures called Reset Reclaiming

52:52

the Internet for Civil Society.

52:59

Along the way you also heard from

53:01

Astra Taylor. Ten since

53:03

our Meredith Whitaker, Misha, Glenny,

53:05

Daniel Dewdney, and John Not

53:08

in. That

53:11

series has produced for Ideas

53:13

by Philip Culture. This episode

53:15

was produced by Pauline Holdsworth

53:17

with production assistants from Any

53:19

Bender. It's

53:23

part of a series of conversations

53:25

and archive lectures we put together

53:27

to mark the sixtieth anniversary of

53:29

Massey College. One of our partners

53:32

in the Massey electors. Thanks

53:34

to Massey College and former

53:36

principal Natalie, the opposing. Ideas

53:42

as a podcast and a broadcast,

53:44

so she liked the episode you

53:46

just heard. Check out our vast

53:49

archive at Cbc.see A/ideas where you

53:51

can find more than three hundred.

53:53

or past so Technical

54:00

Production, Danielle Duval. Our

54:03

web producer is Lisa Ayoosso. Acting

54:06

Senior Producer, Lisa Godfrey. Greg

54:08

Kelly is the Executive Producer of

54:11

Ideas. And I'm Nala Aied.

55:00

Go to cbc.ca/podcasts.