Information Just Wants to Be Free

In my prior two postings I postulated that information wants to be free and cannot be contained.  That term is anthropomorphic isn’t it?  Information isn’t a being that can be attributed with human emotions or desires such as freedom.  However, the fact remains that it doesn’t appear that it can be contained. 

Genetic information is going to express itself in the environment.  We cannot keep it restricted to certain farmers who have licensed seeds to obtain particular properties such as crop yield or particular nutritional values.  Those plants when they reproduce will spread their pollen and seed and that which was legally constrained will travel via breeze, stream or animal carriers to places unforeseen. 

The information stored on computers also has a way of getting out.  Either you share it and give up the rights to your privacy for some presumed benefit.  Or, it gets stolen via a mistake by the steward of the data.  Or, the law is used to exert the right of eminent domain.  It gets out.

Last week the US government’s efforts to secretly monitor telephone metadata and social network information was exposed by the Guardian and the Washington Post.  So, not only do these disclosures  indicate that government will get to your data.  But, it indicates that government’s own secret information cannot be contained and kept classified either. 

My grandfather once said, “Don’t do anything you wouldn’t want on the front page of the Shelby Daily Globe.”  His advice was to an eight year old was made in a world before ubiquitous computing and communication.  It was made in the context of a small Ohio town over fifty years ago that left doors unlocked and keys in the ignition.  People were going to know your business so you you’d better be responsible or pay the consequences. 

I think the statement is as true now then as it was then and it applies to both individuals and governments.  Too many people have a fantasy that they can make up online identities and interact with the outside internet.  They think they can hide behind a digital anonymity or the state’s secrecy laws and million-person security apparatus.  But, it just is not so.  You can’t hide information; you may delay its exposure but eventually information will be disclosed and used.

Peter Steiner's cartoon, as published in The New Yorker

Big Data: Government Surveillance

The big news at the end of this last week was that the US government has been collecting internet and telephone data in order to combat terrorism.  Is anyone really surprised? 

I have been involved in what can be done with big data since 1987.  I never worked with government but only commercial businesses that had large amounts of data in industries that were undergoing tremendous change.  Our biggest customers were telephone companies, large retailers, airlines, and banks.  As you may recall, the 1980’s began a period of deregulation.  AT&T agreed to be broken up into separate units in order to foster competition.   The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 took the federal government out of setting fares and determining routes.  The financial sector saw the consolidation of banking and insurance and the repeal of Glass-Steagall.  The change in retail can be attributed to one firm: Wal-Mart dominated its category and influenced all of the industry with a big-box format, sourcing from low-cost manufacturers across the world, every day low prices and aggressive expansion.

What did all the firms in these industries do with all this data?  Typically they figured out who their customers were.  Prior to these changes either they didn’t care because they were operating in a monopoly environment and didn’t need to cater to customers.  Or, they operated at a small enough scope that the managers of the stores knew who their customers were from personal interaction.  However, once deregulation and consolidation occurred they couldn’t rely on personal knowledge; these businesses had to rely on data. 

The volume of data and the speed with which they processed it kept increasing.  They modified the capturing of the data at the customer touchpoint so that it could be collected in more detail.  They also introduced loyalty cards to induce customers to continue shopping or flying with them; but, more importantly, the loyalty cards allowed them to know when a customer came back and what they were buying; and, they got contact information for these individuals.

In other words, they could identify their customers; they knew where they lived, what their demographic are, who lived with whom.  Companies knew what they bought and when they bought it.  With telephone customers, they knew who was calling whom, how long they communicated, how often, and at what time of day these communications occurred.  The financial institutions knew your assets and how you spent your money.  The transportation firms knew where you traveled, when, and how long you stayed.

Then in the 1990’s the mobile phone became ubiquitous and the internet became consumer oriented with the changes derived from telecommunications deregulation.  We could communicate anywhere with the phone, web, email, text and tweet.  We could find out about anything from anywhere.  We could buy anything from anywhere.  The amount of data exploded and the amount of change to our lives was massive.  As Thomas Friedman stated so well in The World is Flat, the world became globalized.

The second thing these firms evolved to doing with all this data was predicting and then influencing what a customer was going to do.  They know what products and services you will likely buy.  They know when you’ll make this transaction. They predict how much bandwidth, airplane seats, teller machines, etc. will be needed.  Retailers know how much inventory they will likely need for a product that has never been sold.  On Black Friday they know within a few hours of stores opening on the East coast whether their predictions about retail customer behavior is accurate or not and then modify pricing before Denver stores even open.  They can instantaneously customize the webpage and the products offered to you based on what they know about you and your past behavior. Online advertisements are presented instantly to you because of where you’ve browsed in the past, who you’ve friended, and what you’ve liked.

Which leads me to my first question to you.  We have given very personal information about ourselves to the businesses we choose to interact with.  They know us intimately and seem to adapt to our whims instantaneously.  Now, place yourself in the federal government as someone responsible for defending us against terrorism.  Since the Oklahoma City bombing almost two decades ago, we have had a torrent of people who want to fly airplanes into iconic buildings, bomb public events and disable our digital economy.  Would you not want to use this information available about individuals to determine their nefarious whims?  Why should you be surprised that it has occurred?

When this kind of information is available and used openly in the commercial sector for twenty-six years, I can only assume that a government would use it, as well.  I admit I don’t like the thought of it with my libertarian ideal of privacy.  However, I like my frequent flyer miles and the discounts from using my loyalty card at supermarkets; I sell stuff on Craig’s List and I buy from Amazon; I use LinkedIn to market myself.  I use these things because I perceive them to be in my interest.  But, if I knowingly relinquish my privacy to an internet search engine, I am relinquishing this information to government, too. 

In some ways, its similar to the argument I made in my post on GMOs; in that case, if genetic material is made available to the environment, it will spread and you cannot predict how or where.  Genetic material is a code; it is information.  Likewise, any digital information, once disclosed on the internet, is going to spread; you cannot predict how its going to be used nor where it will be used.  Maybe it’s a law of nature that information, genetic or digital, cannot be contained.

Genetically Modified Organisms

The issue of genetically modified organisms (GMO) such as wheat or corn gets a lot of press.  For instance, this article from today's NY Times is about a farmer in Oregon who has found wheat in his field that has the gene inserted by Monsanto that will allow the herbicide Roundup to be used on it without killing it while getting rid of weeds.  The farmer's issue is that he has never purchased the wheat seed from Monsanto that has the genetic modification; nonetheless, its now present in his fields.  Out here on the West Coast this issue gets a lot of attention.  However, too many people protest the genetic alteration of plants for the wrong reason.

Too many think that the plants with altered genes will cause them some sort of harm.  I suppose they think that the genetic material will somehow alter their own genes.  It will not and let me explain.  When your body ingests food, it will break that food down to into very basic materials.  They'll be reduced in your stomach and bowels into carbohydrates, fats, proteins, and nucleic acids which are the building blocks used to make up cells.  The genetic material only exists at the cellular level.  After digestion there is no cell left and the genetic code which is in DNA and RNA are broken down to the pieces of the genetic alphabet, the nucleotides of adenine, thiamine, cytosine, guanine and uracil.  A gene only has meaning when the letters of the alphabet are in a very particular order. 

After digestion you cannot possibly determine from what type of cell and from what type of organism the nucleotides originated let alone what gene.  Genetic material cannot pass from one species to another via ingestion.  So, anyone who says that genetically modified foods could harm them by modifying their own genetic material is full of hogwash. 

Now what you can be offended about is the whole issue of using herbicides.  Any residue of herbicide on the plant being protected may cause harm.  And, even if the residue isn't present by the time you ingest it, the runoff of the herbicide into the soil and ground water may cause problems for other plants, animals or humans in the food chain that may be poisoned. 

In addition, you may be offended by the idea of making genetic modifications to any organism because of the problem of unintended consequences.  As illustrated in this story, once you let an organism out into the world you don't know where its going to end up  with a case in point being this Oregon farmer's wheat crop.  You also don't understand what impact it will have on the ecology.  We certainly have all sorts of examples of noxious plants such as some species of honeysuckle, scotch broom, and kudzu which have become dominant and crowd out other species of desirable plants. 

The other problem with genetically modifying plant either by engineering or by selective breeding is when it becomes the dominant variant and diversity is lost.  Take for example, the Irish Lumper potato in 19th century Ireland which became the staple of the population's diet until Phytophthora infestans came along and wiped out the crop resulting in the Great Famine.  If we become dependent upon the dominant variant, when pestilence of some sort occurs, as it always seems to do, we are at risk.  Diversity is good.

We may not want genetically modified food due to its impact on diversity.  We may not want to aid and abet the use of herbicides.  We many not want unintended consequences.  However, we do not need to fear our own genetic modification. 

A New Bishop of Oakland

A new bishop was ordained in Oakland last week, Michael Barber, SJ.  It was conducted at the beautiful Cathedral of Christ the Light.  I lived in Oakland for two years while going to school there.  I liked Oakland; it is vibrant, quirky, has cool architecture and a diverse population.  Medical people like to practice there because of the international population and the challenges of the diseases that they bring.  Berkeley with its culture is close by.  Jerry Brown, who is now the governor of California, had been mayor and is responsible for much of its revival.  He is present at the ordination and gets a shout out as a former Jesuit.

This video is the new bishop's homily.  I like his style and humor.  Barber is a native Californian and makes references accordingly.   Of course, I'm predisposed to liking Jesuits.  Why is that other than having spent a year in the Jesuits myself?  You have to go to the founder of the Society of Jesus (Jesuit is a derivative name), Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556) who is the creator of the Spirtual Exercises.  The Exercises are a method of going back to the foundation principles of faith in Jesus and how he guides us in following him.  Its brilliant in that it makes use of not only scripture and tradition but psychology to help the person following the exercises to examine their motivations and behavior.  You learn how to find out what is really going on within and for making decisions that are fully integrated into your personhood.  The Exercises become a way of doing things for the rest of your life and not just for the 30 day retreat where they are initially made.

A Jesuit is trained to examine themselves every day and touch base with the basics of what they are doing and the decisions they make.  At their best, I think this is what can make Jesuits so effective.  They know what they are about and what they going to do; they are directed.

Slippery Slope

We all have adverse periods that come from time to time.  Perhaps it is the stress of school or of trying to find a job in a tough job market.  Maybe it is sickness or the death of someone close.  It could be due to a realization of diminished skills in a competitive market or, even worse, diminished capacity due to failure of mind or body. 

One of the things that I’m experiencing at the present time is some adversity.  It has been many years without a period of troubles for me. Two types of things I have observed about myself. 

First, I get angry and feel that the situation is not fair.  I can make a cogent argument about particular individuals’ rudeness, the inequities in the job market, etc.  I then can get vengeful and even make plans of how to get back at people, organizations, or the system.  But, then I think about the suicide bombers. Like a lot of Americans, I wonder how can they think such actions can help their cause.  However, when I become bitter and feeling sorry for myself, I can see how frustrated young men who have no chance for getting a job and following their dreams could strike back in the horrible ways we’ve been seeing in the Middle East and even Boston.  When anger, frustration and impotence takes over, rational behavior dissipates. It is a slippery slope.

The second thing that these feelings trigger are memories of prior incidents from my past.  I remember not being able to find a job in Cincinnati in 1976 and sleeping on my sister’s couch for months while typing cover letters to go out with resumes.  I remember getting stiffed for a rent deposit by a landlord.  I remember adding up the bills that my wife and I had as a young couple with a new baby and realizing that there was not enough income to meet our very frugal expenses.   I also recall with chagrin that I didn’t always respond appropriately and had regrets for a letter written or a conversation conducted.  The Newtonian law about every action having an equal and opposite reaction is true in personal behavior as it is in physics.  My responses of blowing off steam may or may not have had any direct result but there was regret on my part. And, I don’t know what may have been the long term effect on those caught in the shock waves of my actions. 

With this reflection I can only try to better manage myself in the current situation.  I realize that I need to recognize the anger but I should not respond to immediate wounds.  I can only work to improve my situation by changing my approach and to not give in to despair.  I can also remember those who have situations much worse than my own.  The Palestinian men, the civilians caught in the wars in Syria or Congo, the minorities that are discriminated against, the inequity of pay for women, or those who are chattel in their cultures.  Not only does such reflection give me better perspective now but I need to keep these things in mind when my relatively miniscule issues are resolved.

I saw this article by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont on Politco decrying the shortage of primary care medical providers.

Where is this shortage of primary care providers?  No one is hiring primary care physicians, physician assistants or nurse practitioners unless they have two years experience.  If there were a shortage, even new graduates would be getting job offers.  In this current job market, all employers are sitting on their hands regardless if they are expanding a factory or health care.

I think the shortage is based on government statistics not market research.  A number cruncher does a calculation based on census numbers of medical providers by job type and makes assumptions based on the population as a whole.  But the reality is that those organizations that hire primary care providers don't see the profit in adding more providers unless they see a sure thing about reimbursement over the foreseeable future.  Most health care in the US is done by very small medical practices.  The small practitioner is a conservative small business person who sees only risk in adding a person who doesn't bring their own group of patients with them.  The larger organization isn't seeing the market demand either.  The government is in sequestration so they aren't expanding hiring either. 

The Affordable Health Care Act is a good thing in the long run.  But, everyone who could hire, isn't doing much of it.  I think there is too much uncertainty in the market.  Unless the economy starts expanding, Obamacare administrators start setting down a firm set of rules, or sequestration ends, not much is going to change I am afraid.

A Jesuit as Pope

Last Wednesday I had heard about white smoke over the Sistine Chapel and watched live on television the announcement of the new pope and I was astounded that a Jesuit was named pope.  Jesuits are very rarely made bishops, cardinals, etc. for two reasons.  One, its to keep them focused on their mission and not politicking for higher office and, second, so they are not seen as a threat to the powerful so they work on their projects.  But, a pope can name a Jesuit a bishop if they choose.  N.B. Popes can do whatever they want!  However, what was most surprising is that John Paul II almost shut down the Jesuits 30 years ago due to their liberal ways and the church turned extremely conservative and doctrinaire these past decades.  Thus, its amazing that these conservative cardinals would choose such a man from an organization so recently scandalous.

I don't know him nor do I know anyone who does.  But, I've gotten into the whole thing and have been reading all the news stories about him.  I am encouraged and hopeful.  I had been thinking while this whole conclave was in the works that I just wished the church would quit talking about abortion, birth control, gay marriage, etc.  They cannot win the argument with the public and the downside is that it distracts from the primary message.  I bet I'm like a lot of Americans; when I hear a bishop start ranting about Obamacare and how the rights of Roman Catholics are being trampled because of its inclusion of birth control, I think, "You'd lobby to throw out the whole legislation and deny 50 million people health care over this issue when almost all Americans and a vast majority of American Catholics believe its just common sense to practice birth control?".  To my point, my mother and father who were midwest, small town conservatives had made that conclusion about birth control by 1965 and had no qualms about its morality.   In addition, I say to myself, "Why don't these bishops do anything about pedophilia?  Why don't they speak out about this sin which is truly grievous?  Why, are they complicit?".   When you're going down that route about issues which are the derivative results of theological reasoning, to use an English expression, "You've lost the plot." 

The plot should be the gospel.  And, Francis has started his papacy focusing on that message and the poor.  I hope it can continue and that his brother bishops will move on to  important matters.  Heal the sick, feed the poor, protect the weak, and preach the good news!