Posted on Leave a comment

Why multiple identities are closer than you think

Identities are complex to form, hard to define and increasingly easier to steal and fake. Author Tracey Follows explains how will we define ourselves and what happens to our legacy identities as they drift through time and space?
Why multiple identities are closer than you think | What the Future: Identity
Download the full What the Future: Identity issueDownload the full What the Future:
Identity issue

The central question of this issue is how we will shape our identities in virtual spaces. Futurist Tracey Follows tackled this in her new book, “The Future of You.” While there are certainly questions that will still be answered over the coming decade, she offers some hints about what the future will hold. 

Matt Carmichael: How do we create our identities online today? 

Tracey Follows: It's somewhat of an elusive concept but then I don't go along with the people who say that it's just an illusory concept. Because you have to know who someone's identity is because you have to ascribe rights and duties and responsibilities and even emotions to a specific person. And that person has to have some continuity. In the past we would've said it was continuity over time, but now we're saying it's continuity over space. 

Carmichael: What do you mean by that? 

Follows: Are you the same person in real life as you are in these online worlds? Partially it depends on your philosophical take. It depends what culture you've grown up with? For some people and some groups, it's a very tribal thing and your identity's conferred on you by the group that you want to belong to. For Buddhists, the identity is something that is arrived at, towards the end of life because it's the summation of every single interaction you've had with every single person.

Carmichael: How do you see this changing as we have identities now in more virtual spaces? 

Follows: We will have much more fluid identities because we'll be in more fluid spaces. But then I see the counter trend which is the authorities or institutions needing to reclaim back or to manage these fluid identities with centrally organized, biometrically underpinned identity systems.

Carmichael: How do we keep control of our identity and our biometrics like our face, our fingerprints? 

Follows: It’s a vigilance on behalf of every single citizen. We have to stop thinking of ourselves just as consumers or users of these technology products and understand that we are citizens and that we have some digital rights. 

Carmichael: There’s a way in which this could allow people to be their more authentic selves in a safer space than would necessarily be in the real world. Then there's a clear counter to that where it becomes even more toxic in the online world than it is in the real world.

Follows: It will be interesting to watch is how different virtual reality and virtual media is from social media. I’m sure you know the Marshall McLuhan quote, “All forms of violence are quests for identity.” We see a lot of aggression and antagonistic behavior on social media, it's because people are fighting to get their identity represented. When we have sensory capabilities in virtual media, I think then we'll get a proper representation. I think it will be less antagonistic than we find social media right now and more empathetic. 

Carmichael: How many identities will you have in these sorts of worlds? 

Follows: We are used to having one authentic identity physicality because we're embodied in this physical body, but we won't have that. We could have many different identities in the metaverse or whatever you call it. That means that you could end up meeting up with yourselves. And I think that's the most interesting thing that you can bend time and space so that you don't have to be just one person living a very linear life. One could meet up with different versions of one self at different ages lifestyle ages, perhaps you could meet up with your younger self or older self, you know, all of these things could be possible and that will really give us a completely different sense of reality. 

Carmichael: How do you build trust in those communities if you don't really know who you're interacting with and if it's really them? 

Follows: Eric Schmidt has suggested that we'll all have of AI assistants who are very good at detecting what's authentic and what's not. Sort of an AI detective on your shoulder trying to work out the digital forensics. I'm not entirely sure people want to live like that. I don’t see it as this huge, unfettered progress. People will stop doing certain things and decide, oh no, we want much more human contact again. It’ll be cyclical. Then they’ll come back to doing much socializing or work in the virtual environment. 

Posted on Leave a comment

How To Use Metaverse Technology To Design A Better Real World

 

Design thinking, a method that puts people and empathy at the center of new product development, has swept from consultancies like IDEO and Frog to nearly every corporate innovation group. Design thinking starts with ethnographic research and insights, then uses prototypes and resonance testing to iterate towards more successful user-centered products. This process is now the gold standard in modern product development. But rather than selling more products, what if the goal is to solve large-scale social problems? How can we enlist metaverse technologies like AI, computer vision, augmented reality, and spatial computing on these meaningful issues? 

 

Metaverse technologies’ incredible potential should be applied beyond avatar chat rooms and virtual property pyramid schemes– They should be put to work to do so much more.

 

There are many programs to learn design thinking, coding, or 3D modeling and animation in the service of producing first-person shooters, but only one academic program in the world that makes solving a United Nations Sustainable Development Goals a central requirement for every student project. The Copenhagen Institute of Interaction Design takes the United Nations’  collection of 17 interlinked global goals designed to be a "blueprint to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all" as a core tenet of their teachings.

 

In January I was invited by co-founders Simona Maschi and Alie Rose, to teach a week-long SuperSight workshop in Costa Rica, focusing on computer vision and augmented reality to envision a better world. “The SDGs are backed up by the most extensive market research in history: they tell us where the needs are at the planetary level. If there are needs there are markets to be created. The great responsibility for design teachers and students is to accelerate the transition towards sustainable products and services that are regenerative and circular. In this process nature can be a mentor teaching us about eco-systems and circularity.” To prepare students for the challenges ahead, the CIID curriculum includes biomimicry and immersive learning sessions in the jungle of Costa Rica. 

 

So to Costa Rica we went. Over the course of the week, my co-instructor Chris McRobbie and I showed some of our AR projects, introduced foundational concepts, design principles, and riffed on the vast potential for the metaverse. The students made things: they used the latest machine learning algorithms built into SNAP lenses and the SNAP Lens Studio tool, then used Apple’s Reality Composer to make a series of augmented reality prototypes. Let me show you what they made, and WHY:

 

Manali and Jen created an AR tool to replace all the statues of old white men in San Jose with inspirational women. Why? For a kid who passes these landmarks every day ambiently learning about their world, “there are a lot of women who deserve to be recognized more.” The student video is here: 

 

Jose, Pablo, and Priscilla used computer vision to blur product packages in the grocery store that are unsustainable. This diminished reality application stears shoppers toward buying products in packaging that’s better for the environment. 

Lisa and Karla created a gamified stretching experience to motivate some movement between all those zoom meetings.

Mia and Vicky used computer vision for an application that is central to so many families and drives a lot of social interaction–pet ownership. Automatic human face recognition remains a fraught topic, but this team used pet-recognition which is much less controversial. The concept helps strangers learn if a dog is friendly, get some ideas for good conversations with the owner, and safely return them home if they are lost.

The most controversial project was from Sofi and Dee, who created a smart glasses app for women to discreetly tag creepy men. Other women see the augmented marks if they choose–a kind of an inverse scarlet letter. 

In last years’ CIID program, Arvind Sanjeev, envisioned a new way to create shared ad-hoc metaverse experiences with an AR flashlight called LUMEN. It has a computer vision system on the front and a bright laser projector to show information anywhere you shine its beam. LUMEN is great for groups of people to peer into the metaverse together. For example, point the beam on a wall to see where electrical conduits run, or onto a body to see the underlying skeletal structure and learn about a knee or shoulder implant. After graduation, Arvind joined forces with Can Yanardag and Matt Visco to develop Lumen into a real venture/platform. The transparent body X-ray effects are so compelling I’m showing LUMEN to orthopedic surgeons and physical therapists at the Healthcare Summit in Jackson Hole this week. 

 

Run a metaverse envisioning workshop for your company this year. 

There are now so many accessible immersive computer prototyping tools like Apple Reality Composer, Adobe Aero, and Snap Lens studio to help your team start experimenting. Even a one-day workshop with a skilled facilitator can help your team ask important questions and start to sketch some ideas to prototype. I often bring in an illustrator or storyboard artist to capture ideas from a good strategic discussion, then hire a game studio to create a fast 3D interactive “sketch” to envision the most promising concepts that come out of a workshop. Building things is a blast. Teams are engaged, learn about the potential of the new medium, and there’s enormous pride that “we made this!”

Tangible prototypes communicate ideas incredibly effectively around the organization.

The metaverses are coming; start sketching experiences for these new worlds.

Each metaverse will have its own technology, privacy policy, business model, and architecture—isolationist or open. Zuckerberg’s vision will be very different than Google’s, Microsoft’s, Apple’s, Amazon’s, MagicLeap’s, UnReal’s or Nvidia’s. Niantic is pursuing a metaverse that augments the world with digital game layers to encourage people to get outside—the real-world metaverse is the one I’m most excited to design and develop.

The key is to get your team to start driving the metaverse-building engines, as my workshop students did. A link to the best prototyping tools is on SuperSight.world. Sketch some experiences: How might this technology change how you collaborate at a distance, learn in context, configure and sell products, envision the future? Becoming fluent in these tools for rapid prototyping and remote work is imperative to stay agile, competitive, and creative.

Posted on Leave a comment

Augmented Reality (AR): What it is, How it Works, Types & Uses

Posted on Leave a comment

Facebook’s New Nightmare—Is It Time To Delete Your Account?

 
 

Facebook has been under fire recently, with explosive whistleblower allegations and continuing regulatory headaches. But things might have just got worse for Facebook’s 3 billion users—could it be the turning point that finally incentivises people to delete their accounts?

 

If you care about your data, it might be. According to a new report in Vice’s Motherboard, Facebook has no idea what it does with your data, or where it goes. That’s despite the fact that Facebook is one of the most data-hungry platforms in the world.

 

Motherboard published the leaked document written by Facebook privacy engineers in the social network’s Ad and Business Product Team, in full.

 

“We’ve built systems with open borders. The result of these open systems and open culture is well described with an analogy: Imagine you hold a bottle of ink in your hand. This bottle of ink is a mixture of all kinds of user data (3PD, 1PD, SCD, Europe, etc.)

 

“You pour that ink into a lake of water (our open data systems; our open culture) … and it flows … everywhere. How do you put that ink back in the bottle? How do you organize it again, such that it only flows to the allowed places in the lake?”

 

As Motherboard explains: 3PD means third-party data; 1PD means first-party data; SCD means sensitive categories data.

Another highlight in the document reads: “We can’t confidently make controlled policy changes or external commitments such as ‘we will not use X data for Y purpose.’ And yet, this is exactly what regulators expect us to do.”

 
 

The problem with the leaked Facebook document

So what’s the problem with this? Privacy regulation such as the EU Genereal Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—which is thought of as the “gold standard” for people’s data protection rights—stipulates that data must be collected for a specific purpose. In other words, it can’t be collected for one reason, and then reused for something else.

The latest Facebook document shows the social network faces a challenge in complying with this, since it appears to lack control over the data in the first place.

“Not knowing where all the data is creates a fundamental problem within any business but when that data is personal user information, it causes huge privacy headaches and should be dealt with immediately,” says Jake Moore, global cybersecurity advisor at ESET.

A spokeswoman at Facebook owner Meta denies that the social network falls foul of regulation. “Considering this document does not describe our extensive processes and controls to comply with privacy regulations, it's simply inaccurate to conclude that it demonstrates non-compliance.

“New privacy regulations across the globe introduce different requirements and this document reflects the technical solutions we’re building to scale the current measures we have in place to manage data and meet our obligations."

Time to delete Facebook?

Facebook saw a decline in user numbers for the first time this year—which have since recovered slightly—as its data-hungry practices become more clear to all.

At the same time, Facebook has been hit hard by Apple’s App Tracking Transparency features, which allow people to prevent ad tracking on their iPhone. However, these features don’t prevent Facebook from collecting first party data—the data you provide to it on its site.

If you want to delete Facebook, I’ve written an article detailing the steps required to do so. If you are not quite ready yet, it’s worth considering deleting the app on your phone and instead using it on your computer's browser, to at least limit the amount of data Facebook can collect.

Posted on Leave a comment

Metaverse: Augmented reality pioneer warns it could be far worse than social media

If used improperly, the metaverse could be more divisive than social media and an insidious threat to society and even reality itself.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
  • Social media manipulates our reality by filtering what we are allowed (or not allowed) to see. 
  • We live in dangerous times because too many people use social media to disseminate untruths and promote division. 
  • Augmented reality and the metaverse have the potential to amplify these dangers to incomprehensible levels. 
 

At its core, augmented reality (AR) and the metaverse are media technologies that aim to present content in the most natural form possible — by seamlessly integrating simulated sights, sounds, and even feelings into our perception of the real world around us. This means AR, more than any form of media to date, has the potential to alter our sense of reality, distorting how we interpret our direct daily experiences. In an augmented world, simply walking down the street will become a wild amalgamation of the physical and the virtual, merged so convincingly that the boundaries will disappear in our minds. Our surroundings will become filled with persons, places, objects, and activities that don’t actually exist, and yet they will seem deeply authentic to us.

Early augmented reality (AR)

Personally, I find this terrifying. That is because augmented reality will fundamentally change all aspects of society and not necessarily in a good way. I say this as someone who has been a champion of AR for a long time. In fact, my enthusiasm began 30 years ago, before the phrase “augmented reality” had even been coined. Back then, I was the principal investigator on a pioneering effort conducted at Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) with support from Stanford University and NASA. Known as the Virtual Fixtures project, for the very first time, it enabled users to reach out and interact with a mixed reality of both real and virtual objects.

This early system employed a million dollars’ worth of equipment, requiring users to climb into a large motor-driven exoskeleton and peer into a makeshift vision system that hung from the ceiling, all while they performed manual tasks in the real world, such as inserting pegs into holes of different sizes. At the same time, virtual objects were merged into their perception of the real workspace, the goal being to assist users as they perform the complex task. The research was a successshowing that we could boost human performance by over 100 percent when combining the real and the virtual into a single reality.

 

But even more exciting was the reaction of the human subjects after they tried that very first version of AR. Everyone climbed out of the system with big smiles and told me without prompting how remarkable the experience was — not because it boosted their performance but because it was magical to interact with virtual objects that felt like genuine additions to the physical world. I was convinced that this technology would eventually be everywhere, splashing techno-magic onto the world around us, impacting every domain from business and commerce to gaming and entertainment.

Now, 30 years later, I am more convinced than ever that augmented reality will become central to all aspects of life, touching everything from how we work and play to how we communicate with each other. In fact, I am convinced that it will happen this decade — and yes, it will be magical. But at the same time, I am very concerned about the negative consequences, and it is not because I worry about bad actors hacking the technology or otherwise hijacking our good intentions. No, I am concerned about the legitimate uses of AR by the powerful platform providers that will control the infrastructure.

A dystopian walk in the neighborhood

Let’s face it: We find ourselves in a society where countless layers of technology exist between each of us and our daily lives, moderating our access to news and information, mediating our relationships with friends and family, filtering our impressions of products and services, and even influencing our acceptance of basic facts. We now live mediated lives, all of us depending more and more on the corporations that provide and maintain the intervening layers. And when those layers are used to manipulate us, the industry does not view it as misuse but as “marketing.” And this is not just being used to peddle products but to disseminate untruths and promote social division. The fact is, we now live in dangerous times, and AR has the potential to amplify the dangers to levels we have never seen.

Imagine walking down the street in your hometown, casually glancing at people you pass on the sidewalk. It is much like today, except floating over the heads of every person you see are big glowing bubbles of information. Maybe the intention is innocent, allowing people to share their hobbies and interests with everyone around them. Now imagine that third parties can inject their own content, possibly as a paid filter layer that only certain people can see. And they use that layer to tag individuals with bold flashing words like “Alcoholic” or “Immigrant” or “Atheist” or “Racist” or even less charged words like “Democrat” or “Republican.” Those who are tagged may not even know that others can see them that way. The virtual overlays could easily be designed to amplify political division, ostracize certain groups, even drive hatred and mistrust. Will this really make the world a better place? Or will it take the polarized and confrontational culture that has emerged online and spray it across the real world?

Now imagine you work behind a retail counter. AR will change how you size up your customers. That is because personal data will float all around them, showing you their tastes and interests, their spending habits, the type of car they drive, the size of their house, even their gross annual income. It would have been unthinkable decades ago to imagine corporations having access to such information, but these days, we accept it as the price of being consumers in a digital world. With AR, personal information will follow us everywhere, exposing our behaviors and reducing our privacy. Will this make the world a better place? I don’t think so, and yet this is where we are headed. 

The metaverse could make reality disappear

Over the last decade, the abuse of media technologies has made us all vulnerable to distortions and misinformation, from fake news and deepfakes to botnets and troll farms. These dangers are insidious, but at least we can turn off our phones or step away from our screens and have authentic real-world experiences, face-to-face, that aren’t filtered through corporate databases or manipulated by intelligent algorithms. With the rise of AR, this last bastion of reliable reality could completely disappear. And when that happens, it will only exacerbate the social divisions that threaten us.   

After all, the shared experience we call “civilized society” is quickly eroding, largely because we each live in our own data bubble, everyone being fed custom news and information (and even lies) tailored to their own personal beliefs. This reinforces our biases and entrenches our opinions. But today, we can at least enter a public space and have some level of shared experience in a common reality. With AR, that too will be lost. When you walk down a street in an augmented world, you will see a city filled with content that reinforces your personal views, deceiving you into believing that everyone thinks the way you do. When I walk down that same street, I could see vastly different content, promoting inverse views that make me believe opposite things about the very same citizens of the very same town. 

 

Consider the tragedy of homelessness. There will be those who choose not to see this problem for political reasons, their AR headsets generating virtual blinders, hiding soup kitchens and homeless shelters behind virtual walls, much like construction sites are hidden in today’s world. There will be others who choose not to see fertility clinics or gun stores or whatever else the prevailing political forces encourage them to “reality block.” At the same time, consider the impact on the poorest members of society. If a family cannot afford AR hardware, they will live in a world where critical content is completely invisible to them. Talk about disenfranchisement.

You can’t ever leave the metaverse

And no, you won’t just take off your AR glasses or pop out your contacts to avoid these problems. Why not? Because faster than any of us can imagine, we will become thoroughly dependent on the virtual layers of information projected all around us. It will feel no more optional than internet access feels optional today. You won’t unplug your AR system because doing so will make important aspects of your surroundings inaccessible to you, putting you at a disadvantage socially, economically, and intellectually.  The fact is, the technologies we adopt in the name of convenience rarely remain optional — not when they are integrated into our lives as broadly as AR will be.

Don’t get me wrong. AR has the power to enrich our lives in wonderful ways. I am confident that AR will enable surgeons to perform faster and better. Construction workers, engineers, scientists — everybody, young and old, will benefit. I am also confident that AR will revolutionize entertainment and education, unleashing experiences that are not just engaging and informative but thrilling and inspiring.

 

But AR also will make us even more dependent on the insidious layers of technology that mediate our lives and the powerbrokers that control those layers. This will leave us increasingly susceptible to manipulations and distortions by those who can afford to pull the strings. If we are not careful now, AR could easily be used to fracture society, pushing us from our own information bubbles into our own custom realities, further entrenching our views and cementing our divisions, even when we are standing face-to-face with others in what feels like the public sphere. 

Being an optimist, I still believe AR can be a force for good, making the world a magical place and expanding what it means to be human. But to protect against the potential dangers, we need to proceed carefully and thoughtfully, anticipating the problems that could corrupt what should be an uplifting technology. If we have learned anything from the unexpected evils of social media, it is that good intentions are not enough to prevent systems from being deployed with serious structural problems.  And once those structural problems are in place, it is extremely difficult to undo the damage. This means the proponents of AR need to get things right the first time.

Posted on Leave a comment

John Oliver on online data brokers: ‘What they can buy is pretty troubling’

The Last Week Tonight host discussed the ‘sprawling, unregulated ecosystem’ that allows for companies to use personal data to target consumers
‘I don’t know about you but I don’t want a whole crowd of strangers watching what I search for on the internet. Not because it’s gross but because it’s private’ … John Oliver
John Oliver: ‘I don’t know about you, but I don’t want a whole crowd of strangers watching what I search for on the internet. Not because it’s gross, but because it’s private.’ 

John Oliver took aim at the dark art of data brokers, raising the alarm on unregulated practices that many internet users are unaware of.

The Last Week Tonight host discussed the “unsettling moments” that often happen throughout the day online, as we discover that companies are “monitoring our activities a little bit closer than we would like”.

 
 
John Oliver
John Oliver on next-day shipping: ‘Someone somewhere pays the price’
 

He called attention to data brokers, who are part of a multibillion-dollar industry that encompasses “everyone from credit reporting companies to these weird people-finding websites whenever you Google the name of your friend’s sketchy new boyfriend”.

They “collect your personal information and then resell or share it with others” and have once been referred to as the “middlemen of surveillance capitalism”. It’s a sprawling, unregulated ecosystem”, and looking into what they do and how they do it can get “very creepy, very fast”.

“They know significantly more about you than you might think, and do significantly more with it than you might like,” Oliver said.

The main tools are cookies, which enable websites to remember you and have evolved to include third-party cookies, which track where else you are going on the internet. “I don’t know about you but I don’t want a whole crowd of strangers watching what I search for on the internet,” he said. “Not because it’s gross, but because it’s private.”

The process takes breadcrumbs of where we have gone and what we have done online, and packages it to share with marketing firms. Users are then sorted into groups, such as couples with clout, ambitious singles, boomers and boomerangs and kids and cabernet.

The dark side of this includes more narrowly targeted lists, which separate us by certain ailments or sexual preferences. Investigations have found that people are defined by their depression, diabetes, cancer and pregnancy. It’s a “system that seems ripe for abuse” as “what they can buy is pretty troubling”.

While marketing firms have claimed the data is anonymous, the process of “de-anonymising” is fairly easy as Oliver details as people can be discovered by a quick data investigation. “None of us are really anonymous online,” he said.

He called it all “objectively unsettling” and used an example of a priest who was forced to resign after a Catholic newsletter used app data signals from Grindr and matched his phone to his residence, outing him.

It’s a “massive, harmful invasion of privacy” and also incredibly dangerous. He used the example of a domestic violence victim whose address came up on a data broker website. Oliver also shared a horrifying story of a stalker who killed a former classmate after finding her with info he brought for $45.

Requesting removal of information is a “complex process” and there is no federal law requiring that the companies honour an opt-out request.

It also suits the government as both FBI and Ice have bought data to aid criminal investigations and deportations.

“The entire economy of the internet is basically built on this practice,” he said. “All the free stuff that you take for granted online is only free because you are the product.”

He said there needs to be a comprehensive federal privacy law but many politicians build their campaigns on use of personal data.

He used the example of the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988, which was passed when Congress freaked out when they realised their video rental histories could be shared. “It seems when Congress’s own privacy is at risk they somehow find a way to act,” he said.

To show this, Oliver’s team used “perfectly legal bits of fuckery” to target members of Congress. They bought ads and showed them to men over 45 in DC who had searched for divorce, massage, hair loss and mid-life crisis, creating a group called Congress and cabernet.

“This whole exercise was fucking creepy,” he said with ads that pushed divorce help, Ted Cruz erotic fiction and voting twice. He said it might worry members of Congress that he now has the information of who clicked on what. “You might want to channel that worry into making sure that I can’t do anything with it,” he said.

Virtual Identity
0