One of the things that is at least implicit in Chris' post is that software isn't what it used to be. The idea that "identity is the platform" can either be terrifying or empowering (maybe even both), but it is an idea that most people do not understand at all.
Today in order to get most software to work at all you need to agree to an impenetrable Terms of Service agreement and/or bargain away information and data that it is nearly impossible to understand the consequences of at the outset.
We do these things "freely", on the one hand, but we are more often than not very naive when we strike what have become almost daily Faustian bargains.
What's wrong with this picture is not simply that Google (or any other company) is unreliable or conflicted in their duties to be clear, transparent or good willed in their policies. The truth is, eve if they were, most of us aren't paying attention.
More and more, because of the growth and ubiquity of the always-on Internet and the pervasiveness of computing (and sensing), we live in a world in which the environment is made up of software.
The paradox of also living within legal regimes that are mostly still quite naive about the realities of ubiquitous connectivity and pervasive computation is that we are constantly being forced to enter into contracts, and make covenants and agreements that are literally impossible to understand.
Again, the bizarro world this has created is one in which software doesn't work unless you enter into a contract that there is every likelihood you will not even notice, let alone comprehend.
What to do?
There's not an easy answer to that question. We need to ask more questions for a start. We need to think about and create alternatives. We need to figure out how to protect ourselves and others from abuses of power. We need to acknowledge that software has become political, whether we like it or not.
Today in order to get most software to work at all you need to agree to an impenetrable Terms of Service agreement and/or bargain away information and data that it is nearly impossible to understand the consequences of at the outset.
We do these things "freely", on the one hand, but we are more often than not very naive when we strike what have become almost daily Faustian bargains.
What's wrong with this picture is not simply that Google (or any other company) is unreliable or conflicted in their duties to be clear, transparent or good willed in their policies. The truth is, eve if they were, most of us aren't paying attention.
More and more, because of the growth and ubiquity of the always-on Internet and the pervasiveness of computing (and sensing), we live in a world in which the environment is made up of software.
The paradox of also living within legal regimes that are mostly still quite naive about the realities of ubiquitous connectivity and pervasive computation is that we are constantly being forced to enter into contracts, and make covenants and agreements that are literally impossible to understand.
Again, the bizarro world this has created is one in which software doesn't work unless you enter into a contract that there is every likelihood you will not even notice, let alone comprehend.
What to do?
There's not an easy answer to that question. We need to ask more questions for a start. We need to think about and create alternatives. We need to figure out how to protect ourselves and others from abuses of power. We need to acknowledge that software has become political, whether we like it or not.