Human rights in a digital era

A new framework for digital rights ownership in the age of big data:

Today's economy is largely based on information, and that's nothing new in and of itself. Since the dawn of man, it has been known that information is power, and it is the unequal access to information, not money alone, that solidifies or topples existing structures of political and economic power. But unlike in every era gone by, today we have been able to distill and quantify information into its most basic bit form. The digital era has allowed us the technology required to cheaply and efficiently breakdown, store, and reintegrate information like never before. So it is meant quite literally, that today's economy is largely based entirely on information in it's rawest form. 

Unlike technological revolutions of previous eras, these abilities have become available to the majority of the population within a matter of a lifetime, rather than centuries. Printing took hundreds of years to become available to the commoner, and even then bibles were the only book most families could afford. In contrast, today there are 6 billion cellphone users. In a planet of over 7 billion, this is astonishing. 

Due to the shear speed of adaption to these new capabilities, many of them have been poorly integrated with old frameworks and ideas. For example, it makes very little sense that customers should be expected to pay for access to files of online content which can then be duplicated almost infinitely at effectively no extra cost to the buyer. Traditional pillars of supply and demand fall apart in the digital era. The music files themselves are essentially in limitless supply! We cannot let the success story that is the widespread use of digital technologies overshadow the ongoing struggle to comprehensively understand the implications and implement relevant guidelines for the new era. These implications undermine zero-sum thinking and traditional notions of capital. 

There have been a limited number effective attempts at providing a new structure of individual rights when it comes to their digital interactions. Notions of privacy and ownership have all been eschewed in favor of data mining and counter effective digital rights management or DRM controls. 

The push for literacy has long been a symbol of enlightened and democratic civilizations. But as we move beyond books and enter an age of bits, we must introduce a push for informational literacy that allows for a more democratic distribution and acquisition of information. It is no longer enough to know how to read. We have innumerable texts and files of all sorts that we can simply not find, or even access. This denial of access is often rooted in economical theories from an age of tangible goods, and political arguments for security. More and more often, sharing of information has become incriminating, and extremists would like the younger generations to identify sharing as either piracy or terrorism. 

More often than not, the flaw can be blamed on a less malicious mismanagement of resources: when the information is free and available and numerous, it is effectively off limits because of inefficient methods of retrieval and indexing. To put it simply, it can be extremely difficult to find original sources and reliable relevant content online. Searches are often cluttered by mess and muck. To deliver relevant content to members, libraries over the world have come to rely on basic indexing methods based on key terms and the Dewey decimal system. The internet based search engines also run on a system of index terms to retrieve content. However, there is currently a very limited democratic effort in qualifying the index terms themselves. Bots simply identify them, and clicks verify them. But clicks do not convey overt approval, only initial interest, so it is easy to see that the data is misconstrued to represent what is most impulsive, rather than substantive. In today's marketing and advertising era, it makes sense that these should be ranked highest. It is easy to perform better quality control within a town or university library, but what about online? There is a lot of muck to be sifted through, and a untold wealth to be earned by indexing and digitally distributing the information we produce. The only true service to be provided in the possibly near future of automation is the delivery and classification of information.

The need to adapt and verify fluidly: moving beyond digital feudalism 

While the word "picture" might qualify a file as an image, there is nothing to say that the word itself is even true until we actually check for ourselves. It could hypothetically be a music file, after all. Or to make things more complicated, it might be a song called Picture. And as the global vernacular is changing day by day, and cultures intermingle as never before, being able to search with one language only greatly limits the perspective of the interested individual. Those who speak no English have a greatly reduced access to the educational materials and information. 

Unlike libraries with static indexing or search engines ranked by payment for placement, there is an exciting alternative to indexing our exponentially increasing treasure chest of data. Most users of online information have inadvertently been contributing to the global economy through the release of their passive contributions to Meta-Data. Meta Data is the qualifying information about content and activity. We actively log our time, place, and condition hundreds of times a day through taking photos, uploading them, sharing liking and confirming other online behavior. Meta Data is also passively associated with the calls we make, the emails we send, and the ads we watch. 

Most of this Meta Data is seen as a free-for-all in the global economic and political scene. It is consistently being swept up and stored by companies that would like to know your purchasing preferences, and political agencies that would like to know your political preferences. Their unfettered access to this information gives them a greatly disproportionate level of power and control in determining which products we see, which information we receive, and the politicians we hear about. This Meta Data is all considered the "bread and butter" of the big data industry, which is set to be worth 17 billion by 2016. It is the fastest growing sector of the tech industry, and it is easy to see why. The ability to access, process and utilize information has long been the driving force in maintaining the status quo for those in power, and this grab-bag has been up for the taking so far. 

The individuals rights to the metadata being produced have largely been ignored, but it cannot go on forever. The value in meta data is far too great to go unspoken for by the people who create it. The current model of online interaction provides users with information services with greatly stunted methods of operation, and all heavily favor the corporate ability to capitalize from the work being done. The vast majority of online services such as Facebook and Twitter require individuals to enter into non-negotiable contracts that all serve a similar purpose: to strip the user of the metadata being self-generated,  to secure for the company any rights to package and sell user input to advertising agents. 

Are we serfs?

To quote the Facebook user agreement as it relates to advertising,

This means, for example, that you permit a business or other entity to pay us to display your name and/or profile picture with your content or information, without any compensation to you. 

As if this weren't enough, they continue to demand that...

you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP [Intellectual property] content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it. 

This phenomenon of exploitation of labor isn't new. In the medieval age, serfs were guaranteed free and permanent plots, or "accounts" on the land they toiled. The grain they produced was centrally connected and distributed. In return, serfs got a portion suitable only for sustenance, while the owners of the labor were able to barter for great wealth. Their control of the food supply have them great leverage over the peasants they purportedly provided their protections to. The contracts signed and holding families to the land were non negotiable and based on debt. The serfs themselves had almost no say at all in the terms or conditions. The argument was that serfs needed to grow food anyways, so it shouldn't be considered work in the sense that they deserve compensation for it. Also, because the land they used was owned by nobility and graciously provided to them, they should naturally defer any potential financial proceeds to their benefactors and protectors. Contractually, the serfs were bound to the land and had no way of altering the agreement. Of course, we see these social political and economic constructs as faulty today, and have since evolved in many ways. 

But the parallels between this antiquated system, and our own digital reality are striking. Contract law has long been used to maintain control over those with less options. As free services and the terms and conditions therein rapidly become almost necessary to living in the modern world, individuals are often left with no real choice but to agree to contracts they have no democratic say in. And as our worlds political states lose more and more control to globalized corporations, we will find our lives more meaningfully controlled by closed institutions who see the individual as unwitting users, not participant and citizen. The first change that must come in our digital era must be the abolition of universal and nonnegotiable contracts that sign away the right to passively or actively generated intellection property. 

Secondly, the economic royalties generated by metadata should be strictly reserved for those who contributed the metadata in the first place. Providing the existence of new protections for individual contributors, earnings from digital contribution and distribution could theoretically become the norm for those who interact with online information frequently. There is very little logical reason for users to sign away valuable information if it is eventually being sold. The fact of the matter is, services like Facebook, Twitter, and Google are free because they are worth more as companies when they sell the information they harvest rather than the service they provide to their billions of users. This alienation of customer and consumer, service and product, will only become more and more toxic to the democratic function of our society as we accept more and more devices that passively collect our ideas and responses to experiences, products, and news. The new Xbox for instance, collects data on players heart beats, blood flow, and reaction to advertisements and in-game experiences. The purpose of course, is to increase the effectiveness of the media being pushed, and eventually the profit, being collected. Amazon's plans to introduce 30 minute shipping by drone also introduce the idea that we are providing them with up to date specifics on our home and location. The NSA already claims to only be searching for "meta data", but in light of this new proposal to consider the value of metadata, this is the most egregious claim of all. Digital capital is being hoarded at an unprecedented rate by institutions worldwide. 

Furthermore, despite the illusion of choice given to users who are told they can simply cancel their accounts with service providers  they no longer agree with, there is in reality no way to truly uproot from these digital domains. Deleting an account from Facebook does nothing to the masses of data produced by the individual that sits on their servers. It still services the profitability of their business model, long after the user has "left". The company even collects data from individuals not yet officially apart of their ecosystem. There is truly no freedom of mobility for online users or their data. Once it is collected, it is held indefinitely. Citizens cannot simply revoke their citizenship or affiliations with agencies that engage in dragnet surveillance. 

Meaningful public participation in the approval or disapproval of how information is being distributed is long over due. The age of static indexing as seen in libraries is over. It is no longer able to adapt quickly enough to changing vocabularies and additions to the catalogue. It is no longer capable of adapting to a variety of users who have differing perspectives, vocabularies, and understandings. The age of profit mined search results is hopefully coming to an end. It is no longer trustworthy in deliverance of truthful information. The highest bidders from traditional media sources find their way to the top of what were supposed to be democratic tools. The Youtube Awards were handed out to already famous artists at the expense of the grassroots performers who used Youtube as a peer to peer tool. With most media generating sites today, almost all the space is taken by ads, inadvertent posturing, or content providers that are either hidden behind paywalls or hiding politicized benefactors and bias. 

If the indexing of metadata that categorized and delivered the media was legally considered as a private contribution, and left to the very individuals concerned with providing and searching for the information, then the abuse or collection of said information could come under harsher penalty by those who continue to do so. New index terms could be added as often as users determine, and existing ones could be confirmed. If each confirming voice coincided with a quantified increase in the reputation or validity of the term as well as the user who created indexing term in the first place, then search results would be determined by a more balanced sense of what is the best result. No longer could the highest bidder's proposals find their way to the front pages, but rather those that are determined to be most truthful. 

If the rights to reputation and revenue generated by the valuable and truthful instances of metadata could be bought or sold, and each confirmation had the option of being accompanied by voluntary donations, it is easy to see how the Big Data industry could be unlocked to individuals who aren't representing or represented by powerful institutions of centralized data control. 

Under such a system, the very terms we agree to when it comes to social and  informational networking would be constantly reevaluated, and the most precise conditions in the eyes of the audience would generate the most reputation and reparation for the producing agent. 

To go back to the analogy of serfdom, adapting these provisions would be akin to allowing the free movement and relocation of serfs, and giving them the rights to barter trade and offer their own produce.

Where the metaphor differs however, is in the nature of the produce. There are only so many markets and types of grain that can be produced, giving individual farmers very little power in earning fair prices or developing ingenuity. But because most individuals specialize in various nuanced forms of information distribution, be it musical, technological, artistic, educational, linguistic, or political, we are all afforded the opportunity to build niche markets and unique products based on our interpretation of the content we provide or connect others with. Chances are, we already have. Such possibilities allow for a shorter distance between customers and businesses, which allows for greater social and economic benefits for both. 

This type of framework would also provide a useful link between the tangible markets of scarcity, and the intangible and digital markets that lack scarcity. Reputation itself, if quantified, flexible, and transferable, could allow for useful participation in the distribution and qualification of digit wares, but in the presence of two willing parties could be used in place of traditional forms of cash. 

And by freeing digital data from the confines of traditional economics, it is freed to the people. The property rights provided to individuals who created meta content allow for increased and longer lasting opportunities for earning reputation and financial compensation. It turn, this would allow for a more fluid exchange of ideas and benevolent sense of general reciprocity. 

The services we enjoy could still be offered free in and of themselves. The content itself, be it news, movies, or music, could be offered for free, while the creators earn their pay in return for the addition of valuable meta data, or negotiating individually for the rights to metadata provided by their core fans and users who add their own input. This of course is not happening under the current terms, by which the contracts are nonnegotiable, and sign over the majority of individual users' valuable contributions to the company hosting the servers. 

The nature of these proposed provisions would also undoubtedly shift the economical thinking of mankind to a more long term beneficial mindset. Because the products being bought and sold are in fact ongoing streams of compensation, rather than outright units like wheat or barley, their value would be determined based on their longevity of relevancy. Quality will once again have a notable place in modern economics, and quantity may finally take a backseat. 

All in all, this may or may not be the best or most probable solution to the current imbalance in economics and politics world wide. However, it is important to be discussing these ideas, because as the printing press before it, the internet will be used to increase the overall wealth and alter the beliefs of mankind. It is up to is to decide if that privilege should be held by centralized and archaic slow moving institution, or if every man should have a chance at developing the reality we are coming closer to sharing. 

The balance of power could eventually be tipped back into the hands of the Everyman. If we see ourselves, our minds, and the fruits of our labor as the playthings of those currently in control, as they were in the feudal ages, maybe - just maybe - we can take a page from history and build a better future.    

Employing Humans for their Humanity

As one of many college students who have found themselves frustrated with the growing trend of mandatory meal plans for incoming students, I recently began doing some research on the circumstances of my own schools contract with Sodexo. Sodexo is one of many food services contractors, and the 22nd largest employer in the world. Hidden in the final paragraphs of an April 2010 Buzzfeed article by Alyssa Figueroa aplty titled "A Raw Look at Sodexo", one particular quote from a student worker really resonated with me. He had this to say about Sodexo:

“They just haven’t found robots able to do our job yet,” Alex said.  “I’m sure if they could they would.”

The manner in which the work is divided up means that every job is two shades away from complete automation. The people involved are not there for their human traits, but because the work simply hasn't been reorganized for full automation quite yet. 

The fact that only last year Sodexo agreed to abide by a living wage agreement, is one of many factors that illustrates the corporations attitudes towards workers. They tout these jobs as opportunities for workers, but in reality they are merely consequential byproducts of their quest. They are no more to the company than the sum of their mechanical contributions, and their pay reflects this. Wage theft, overwork, and frenzied scheduling are all commonly reported by the students and employees who work so hard to serve us our food. If the pizzas and taco meat could be prepared and presented through automation. 

The problem with employers who see labor in this way is that once the labor is outmoded, they have no pretenses in which to continue offering the opportunity of paid work to the unskilled, unprivileged, or uneducated. Because their income is guaranteed, it is also fixed. That means the only thing they can do as a business to improve profits is cut costs. And thus their modus operandi, even more so than non contractual income corporations such as Wal-Mart or BMW, is to cut costs. BMW can attempt to find more customers, or sell more food, but Sodexo would actually like to serve as little food as possible! They only care to secure the contract, and lower the cost of production.

Because of this, students can expect for the food to never substantially increase in quality or availability. Employers can expect for wages to continually be repressed. Attempts at unionizing have also resulted in firings based on individual workers' political stances. Quite frankly, there should never be a price on someones opinion, but holding a minimum wage job over a workers head for their political stance is certainly not appropriate. 

When students allowed for the school to purchase lunches from Sodexo on our behalf, we guaranteed them an income based largely on almost unconditional college loans. These should be going towards our education, but the company has found its way into these funds. And the moment they can drop all employees, they will. Furthermore, our tuition costs would be cut quite severely if we were not obligated to dine through Sodexo. 

This issue reaches beyond Sodexo though, because these trends are applicable to the entire economy. The more we financially support companies that hire humans for simply interfacing with machines, the more we will have to blame ourselves for the inevitable replacement of all but the most powerful jobs by those holding them. When Ithaca College guarantees four semesters worth of our food budget to Sodexo, the institution forsakes the community businesses that offer better wages, friendlier service, better food, and lower costs.

We should instead reward companies that honor the humanity behind every worker, which leads me to look towards local providers as better options. I am in no way against the impending automation of labor, but if it is ushered in by entities that have already forsaken their employees' human qualities, we will not be able to trust them to suddenly value them once they have no purpose for human's at all.

Because we cannot change how much we pay them, we can cannot effectively communicate what we expect of them. We are not their customers, we are simply their consumers. Employees are not valued contributors, but simple mechanisms. It's time we address this issue split identity faced us all.

Ithaca College Dining Service must seriously rethink the options around providing food options to college students. It is time our bubble behaved as a part of the community down the hill, instead of draining it of its resources and customers.

My previous articles have mainly dealt with contract law as it pertains to the distribution and quality of information, but here on campus, its much more tangible than that. In this case, contract law has filled our bodies with sub par food, our school with unhappy workers, and drained our wallets. If we opened up our doors to local vendors, who would offer more diversified work, better food, and more choice. 

We are not the Enlightened ones.

Today I realized I have been guilty on many occasions of puffery. For a long time now, I believed that my generation was "the one" who could solve todays issues. I thought this was rational, because we seem to be the first generation of human beings born into a digitally interfaced environment. It seemed logical, and lots of people agreed.

We are the first to begin to use adaptive media, and the concept of "sharing" something essentially limitless in number. We have succumbed entirely to the notion of documenting everything and sharing it willy nilly. We have adapted quickly to the merits of crowd-sourcing, and volunteerism too. And yes, we are the first to tune in to twitter when we want news from any situation in the first person, and it's nice to stay connected with old friend through shared media. But we made the mistake of assuming that all this sharing means everyone always wants to see what matters to us, from our point of view, all the time. Sometimes, for an authors words words to have content, they have to speak to what's important to the audience, from your point of view. To discern and sympathize with your intended audience takes foresight, creativity, and conscious effort, and so of course, aimless ego flourishes instead.

We're also the first generation in a long time to be this thoroughly qualified, while facing such low guarantee of work that reflects our skill. There is no promise in the job market, and traditional middle management jobs and accounting positions are some of the most likely to be compromised as management, work and production become increasingly automated. To add to the perfect storm, we've been shackled with debt for our degrees, and are facing no genuine prospects of a career or stability: the fundamental benefits promised to us by "a degree". That means that the bulk of business majors, and many other fields as well, will have to embrace an entrepreneurial spirit, or face a low salary performing undervalued work.

So we are "special" in a sense. We are under special circumstance, as evidenced by the inverse levels of employment, debt, education, and technological advance.

I think in a mix of indulgence and distraction, social media has become a sort of maelstrom of content with no intended audience. It could be due in part to being so desperate to prove that we're as special we were told we were and that everyone should care about us. And it will hurt, as we try to find our place in society where work is scarce, and yet we feel educated and competent. By our parents standards, we are moving slower, despite what our "fast lifestyle" presents. We are getting finding steady jobs, married, buying homes, and having children much later in life. All of these foundational aspects of life "as it has always been" have been removed from us, and financial independence has not quite come for many many young individuals. Debt however, comes too easily, as educations are in high demand and seem like a valid, and necessary investment. They cost us all quite a bit, for this very reason. But now they are high in supply too, so they haven't grabbed the same compensation they once did in the job market, which is already flustering, and cluttered with older workers trying to recover their retirement funds and mortgages after the wool was pulled over their eyes leading up to 2008. What this means is that we are sitting in the crosshairs of a lot of economic tension, with good kids often being sold terrible educations void of and critical thought or value for exorbitant rates, paid for in thousands and thousands of dollars in debt.

I think that as capitalism runs its course, and the entire globe becomes familiar with its face, we might be delivered, or spat out, rather, to the point where we can support and educate ourselves on the human necessities, without the notion of having to prove your worth to "those more qualified". If we treated life a little bit more like the game Monopoly like many capitalists would say they do, I think we'd see drastic improvement.  Once everyone has guaranteed income from the start, and when passing "Go", or 1 year, and once we all take part in overseeing the bankers moves, then we can finally all play.

But as a whole, we are far too indulgent and distracted by social media and the entrapment of the internet for this idea of total unconditional support to work. As a generation, we have to collectively decide on how much is enough, because if we don't, we will be supporting each others reckless consumption at the encouragement of those in positions of authority. I don't know if we ever will reach a consensus ourselves, but maybe our foolish behavior and its meticulously and narcissistically hash-tagged documentation will reveal to our children one day how silly it really all is.

In short, we are enlightened in our mechanical ability to throw web, but not in our ability to aim it.

Maybe our children will reject our aimless and noisy lifestyles like we rejected out own parents' fads. But then again, maybe they'll ironically embrace and reinterpret them, again just like we did. Either way, I just hope that our children will learn to appreciate the value of introspection, so that they can find out who their true intended audience really is, and what they really need.

We tend to think that we are the Sol Actor, the center of the universe, and that the world is the audience. But the truth is, from the first person point of view, we have a play with 7 Billion actors. We all need a role, we all have a role, and when all of us are starts, just like Sol, none of us are Stars. We all have our place and purpose, but rarely is it ever in the center. The target is always moving, and so when we have something to say, it stands to reason that we should at least have a target, or someone in mind that we are saying it to.

We have become too overwhelmed and distracted by the capabilities of our new tools to truly consider ourselves the enlightened generation. It's consumed us in many ways. A freshman down the hall just yelled "Hashtag Ithaca, hashtag Ithaca!" as I type this.  But I do believe our children will be the ones who refine these tools and take these habits and channel them into more refined hobbies and tastes. In this case, I'm sure whatever they come up with will have amazing implications for information distribution and organization. It's up to us to foster the creative, thoughtful, and generation ahead of us, and do what we can to prevent debt from ensnaring them like it has so many of our own peers.

A Possible Solution to the Problem of Our Shrinking Creative Commons

One thing that has been bothering quite a few members academia, is the well documented shrinking of our public domain of intellectual "property". 

What was once considered sharing and cooperative distribution is now considered to be theft. Of course, most individuals accustomed to modern day life and the nature of the Internet aren't too enthused with the current interpretation of Intellecutal Property. There's an interesting introduction to the idea here which isn't too long.

The Creative Commons movement was spurred out of this displeasure, and has gone to great lengths to encourage benevolent sharing. Wikipedia is one facet of CC, and fine example too. Even without financial compensation for contributors, the information is largely correct, and well cited. There are also numerous musicians and film makers who have also released their creative works into the "wild" of the Creative Commons, and gone on to earn critical acclaim as independent artists. 

However, Creative Commons does have its down falls. Some argue that "lack of rewards for content producers will dissuade artists from publishing their work", and of all the great things the Creative Commons does offer, this is once criticism I can completely understand. Perhaps it is the the key aspect that is holding us within the current legal framework regarding IP rights.

As of now, there is no embedded mechanism that allows for artists to be compensated, and there is no intrinsic reputation management system, and this is perhaps the only real reason we haven't universally adopted a system of creative commons. The money simply isn't there, yet. No one makes money off of sharing content for free, and for now, we're expected to believe that only through the explicit sale, or  more appropriately termed as lease, of explicitly owned intellectual property can our ever important producers and (more often than not) the distributors get their cut.

Now, believe it or not, I think the answer to these concerns of compensation can be tackled holistically and from the ground up. 

If a filter system was incorporated into the publishing and releasing of Creative Commons works,  we could greatly increase the efficiency and incentives for the creative talent, producers, and even distributors of content. 

These concerns were the founding thoughts of a company I frameworked with my long time friend, Nate Lottis. We call it A True Point. 

The concept for this filter is relatively simple: We would allow users to publish all of their content into the Creative Commons as they see fit. We would allow them to apply tags of their choice, so as to index their content and establish terms they would like to earn a reputation from. Each tag would be an interactive node. Think of it as a poll booth, as well as a donation box. Users can all gather to vote on the tag, after searching or viewing it. If its true, or relevant, it can be confirmed as such, which will increase the ranking, reputation, and verity of the content, as well as the user who created the tag itself, in an entirely quantifiable manner. 

If an avid fan or supporter decides she would like to donate a certain cash amount to the artist/producer/tag and content creator, then she could choose to pay when confirming the tag. This not only sends ~100% of the donation to the intended recipient, but will reward the donor with reputation alongside the producer for funding the content. This way, the fans who support their favorite contributors the most have the most opportunities to invest and earn reputation and recognition alongside their benefactors. 

We think that these two simple features could alter the way we think about information, sharing, and rights to compensation. If successful, it might just finally nullify the last valid arguments against universally implementing Creative Commons.

"Crowd funding" the actual indexing of public content, while honoring those who put in the most effort is a great way to go. It would allow individuals to share and interact fluidly by imbedding an explicitly marketable aspect to contributions we make every day online. As a nice side effect, it would also eradicate the need for invasive advertising-as-revenue models and could dramatically de-clutter the web.

Every 'like', hashtag, upvote, and retweet is worth it's weight in gold to market researchers, and advertisers.  It's time we realign our interests with the greater good and allow the people who do the best work at indexing and distributing to earn the most profit from sharing with the people. 

It's common knowledge that buskers often make hundreds of dollars a day. This is because it simply feels good to put your penny where you think it counts. Not only that, but Apple, EMI, and Universal aren't in the violin case waiting for a cut. These artists would stand the most to gain from sharing their content under such a system, but really, it extends to anyone with information that they think they can make relevant. 

A movement along the lines of what I've described could be what it takes to eradicate the notion that information must be "owned" to be beneficial to the creators, and lift us out of IP Feudalism.

Remember: In a sense, it's only illegal to share copyrighted information right now because we're doing the distributors job for free and disrupting an established monopoly. Bringing down monopolistic ventures has always been a formidable task, but if we simply make the monopoly irrelevant, we don't have to put up much of a fight in the first place.

By simply establishing a way for producers and consumers to establish peer-to-peer connects for distributing data, donations, and reputation, we eradicate the need to "own" data and rely on traditional distribution channels. Nate and I firmly believe that reputation as a parallel form of compensation is the key ingredient to A True Point, and indeed the two are literally one and the same.

A-R
T-E
R-P
U-U

E-T

P-A

O-T

I  -I

N-O

T-N

Liberty is Rising Truth in Media Project

I've got an inspiring quote for you re-tweeters and chain-email fanatics out there. When speaking on the largest single day presidential campaign donation drive, Ron Paul said in an interview with Ben Swann that "it was spontaneous, it was people who agreed with the message and spontaneously shared information through the internet."

Some of you might not be aware of Ben's record of investigative Journalism, but he has even interviewed President Obama, and you can check that out here, or just straight up watch his new Kickstarter campaign video right now:

Ron Paul hit the nail on the head with that quote, and it obviously resonated with Mr. Swann too. Now he's hoping the internet will mobilize once again for yet another cause that traditional channels seem to glance over or ignore. His Liberty is Rising Truth in Media Project sure looks like the real deal: It stands on his reputation for fearless journalism, it comes a flashy video, lofty goals, and a $1.25 Million asking price.

In no way are any of these bad things: They've displayed the production standards they hold themselves too quite nicely. Lofty goals are indicitave of minds who haven't given up on the possibility to disrupt the status quo. $1.25 Million is small change when it comes to securing a reputable channel of free press. It might sound cliché but you know what they say: Freedom ain't...

So take a look, and see what you think.

While you're there, you can also kindly let him know that we aren't actually positive that the quote he poses with and attributes to George Orwell is 'Orwellian' at all!

No matter. Everyone makes mistakes, but journalism is a process, and hopefully he's willing to edit and revise his work! Of course, I still support him in his efforts, but further diligence and vigilance will only make him a sharper ally. And after all, fair is fair. Credit goes to redditor u/mcantelon for spotting it in the first place.

Here's to journalism that WE can participate in.

@shawndavisATP

A Brief Conversation on the Nature of Our Information

What is our information worth?

With all the news lately regarding the NSA, we once again have to ask ourselves: What is our information worth? Obviously, it is worth quite a lot if our government is willing to spend billions of dollars collecting it. Previously, we've asked ourselves the same questions when Instagram altered their EULA, stating they claim the rights to market all images shared on the site. Coincidentally, this has been Facebook's policy the whole time essentially, but when the company began its ever encroaching push for targeted ad revenue, we realized that our data is more profitable to these companies than what ever dollar amount they think we'd be willing to pay to use their service. As Facebook ramps up to incorporate tagging, to further complete our marketing profiles, many of us will no doubt ask the question again: how much is this information worth? And perhaps it's more important to ask what it's worth, because there are two driving motives for these large data mining entities: profit, and power.

States will use the information to detect, smother, scatter, scramble, or otherwise disrupt any unpleasant or unfavorable behaviors. The state does not care to make profit outright off the data, because those behind the programs know that with enough information on any given individual, they can control all the outcomes. For now it's shielded under terms of "counter-terrorism" and "national security", but many of us are starting to think otherwise.

Corporations, especially those we are most giving with our information online, often feel as if the public at large is not willing to pay for the services they provide. To be sure, this is true, but we have shot ourselves in the foot in accepting their best alternative. Now, we face obtrusive ads that ultimately ruin the utility of the web services we have come accustomed to by cluttering the interface, distracting from content, or downright playing to our habits, vices, and interests with uncanny accuracy. Not only this but our deeply private emails passwords and sensitive information is within the confines of server that owes no notion of privacy or security to the customer. As we know, we face these negative side effects of the current system because we have given up the rights to our production for the right to consumption and free rent.

If our data and information truly is worth something, then by rights, we can consider producing it to be work. Work that should be compensated like any other. If we exchange this work for the rights to use the service, we are simply agreeing to a simplified form of feudalism, in which we are the serfs, the data we produce is the grain, and the services and facilitators we are beholden to act as the land owning noble class, able to coordinate, transport, and package our individually meager contributions into billions of dollars annually. It is their ability to aggregate and apply information on a macro-level that makes this information so valuable, and it is only our belief that we couldn't apply it as well ourselves that keeps us within the confines of the current status-quo.

Eventually though, the peasants revolted, and some time later, we thought to apply the ideals that men should be entitled to life (or land), liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without rights to the information we contribute and control over the information we choose not to contribute, how can these ideals still ring true for us today?

Why and how can it be worth so much?

We also have to ask ourselves why and how our information is worth so much to these super-entities. Again, it's partially their enormous stature and macro-scale application of the information that makes it so valuable to them, but its also our perceived lack of infrastructure and ability to market and manage it ourselves, that makes relatively easy to convince an internet hungry populace to give it up.

To be clear: Its not the data itself that's important, it's the data about the data. It might not make much sense right now, but this is the meta-data that the NSA claims to be solely interested in. In fact, it might be the one true thing they've said.

That photo you took of your cat on thursday wearing skinny jeans and sipping Starbucks with your iPhone is in no way relevant to the bigger scheme of things in the immediate sense. It's not an amazing picture, and your filter makes you no artist. But what is important is the metadata. What makes it important is that it's about a cat, that its about skinny jeans, that its about Starbucks, that you used your iPhone.

It is important to remember that all tags are considered metadata, and the NSA has no qualms in picking this up and using it to their advantage. The same goes for marketing directors and analysts the world over.

All that these groups need to achieve their desired profit is your description of the content. They simply need to know how many times #cat #skinnyjeans #starbucks #iphone is thrown into the mix. Marketers want access to this data to make sure they're using relevant terms to convey their products, and so they convey relevant products to interested parties. Facebook can give them both, at a price, all thanks to the information you work to produce.

States want access to this data to locate information and citizens participating in or assisting undesirable behavior. Tags are great! They makes it easier to connect people to data, data with people, and people to eachother. But in the wrong hands, it can easily be manipulated and misconstrued.

What rights should we claim to our data? We now see how clumsily all these institutions with any level of macro-control or oversight are grappling for control over it, and its time we kill the music and think long and hard over who has the rights to our information.

If we claim first rights to benefit economically from our own work contributing data, and prohibit corporations from selling our data and metadata, or even market-profiles comprised on our metadata to third parties, we can solve one aspect of the conundrum. Web services could no longer harvest and market our labor, we could maintain the rights to distribute and profit from our own creations, and share them freely with each other as we see fit.

It still doesn't allow us any security against the state, which as we know, thinks it can help itself to our meta-data at any moment. Currently, the Restore the Fourth movement is tackling this aspect of the issue, and we can all be a part of the solution. Remember that the Fourth Amendment refers to:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

We are not breaking any new ground in asking for privacy when it comes to the works we record. We are simply recognizing that "papers and effects" of 1776  cover "digital papers and effects" of 2013.

Check out Restore the Fourth to see how you can be apart of the first steps towards taking back the right to what is ours. Because to answer the question, our information is worth much more than the bottom line and the profit margin. That is all secondary. Our information IS our freedom. Without it, we have none. And when they own it, they have it. 

@shawndavisATP