Taking Back Ownership

There is a disturbing trend many of us have noticed in recent years, one that seems to affect an increasingly significant part of our lives.  Little by little, we're losing control over much that we once took for granted.

The concept of ownership is still not an alien one.  But it seems to be in danger.  In the past, if we bought a book or a record, that was considered an item that we indisputably owned.  We were free to do with it whatever we wished, bring it anywhere we wanted, and say with confidence that we, in fact, owned that tangible object.

Those days are threatened on a number of fronts.  Books give us a great example.  A digital copy may be more convenient and allow us to carry more works around with greater ease.  But it can also be taken away at a moment's notice when someone in control decides that we should no longer have access, whether it's because we didn't pay a fee or we simply moved to a different part of the world.  Or something entirely unrelated to us could change the circumstances.  There was a dramatic instance of this back in 2009 when - of all authors - George Orwell had his works quietly deleted from Amazon Kindles due to a rights issue.  Overnight, copies of 1984 literally disappeared as if they had never been there.  Naturally, the cost of the books was refunded to the customers, but that's not the point.  This kind of an action would have been inconceivable with a "real" book, regardless of copyright issues that are of no interest to the consumer.

We see similar scenarios regarding music and video.  Increasingly, we opt for digital over analog and cloud over local collections.  While there are significant advantages, specifically content availability and ease of access, none of this comes without relinquishing significant degrees of control.  Recordings can be removed if terms change as outlined above, our entire collection can disappear if the hosting company goes out of business, and our viewing/listening habits can be analyzed and shared by third-parties and even law enforcement.  Maintaining an account that isn't tied to an actual identity is a concept that's beyond the imagination of most people, meaning the days of anonymously viewing and listening have ended for many.  Sadly, they may never even know why that was important.

It's also becoming increasingly difficult to buy major pieces of software for local installation on our own machine(s).  Instead, subscriptions to cloud versions are pushed and, in more and more cases, are the only option left.  Again, there are advantages: the latest version, customer support, lower initial cost.  But, once more, control is sacrificed.  We lose the ability to experiment with the software, we're dependent on connectivity and the availability of the remote host, it becomes more difficult to compare with competing software, and there's no way out of continually paying for something.  Remember: we don't actually own the software - we're simply leasing a license, a license that goes away once we stop paying.  And, of course, the privacy issues persist.

The trend continues into the world of hardware - from computers to cars and well beyond.  The latest trend in operating systems is to exist in the cloud, leaving our local machine a lot closer to a dumb terminal than to a sophisticated computer.  But it's clearly more convenient (and cheaper) since there's no longer any need to worry about maintenance and updates.  And if you've bought a car in recent years, then you know that it's become next to impossible for just "any" mechanic to service it.  We need licenses, codes, and access in order to get the proper permissions to maintain newer vehicles, something our local car dealership is happy to be the exclusive supplier of.  The convenience aspect here is a bit more subtle, as this form of technology has more of a history of independence and do-it-yourself repairs.  But for quite a few people, not having the "hassle" of choice is actually an advantage.  Not for everyone, though.  And the issue of control couldn't be clearer.

With every example cited, we find ourselves on a tighter leash and, whether this bill of goods is sold with the promise of convenience or the threat of danger and all sorts of problems if we resist, we have less and less control.  We no longer actually own our technology; we are but an end user.  If we want to remain on the system, we have to follow the (their) rules.

This is not the kind of environment that hackers enjoy.  Convenience and control are for consumers who don't see the magic and beauty in the technology they use.  They have no desire to take it all apart and see how it works.  They just want a tool.  And this is fine for their purposes.  Ours are different and always will be.  Knowing how things actually function is how we learn to make them function even better.  It's how we find the flaws and occasional privacy violations hidden within.  And, of course, breaking things is the first step in learning how to fix them.  Without all this, we simply wind up blindly accepting updates and upgrades, losing features, accepting others without question, and allowing ourselves to be shaped by technology, rather than the other way around.

There's clearly a huge difference between the insides of an old rotary phone and a smartphone.  But that doesn't mean we can't still learn how each of them works.  The first is pretty straightforward while the second is far more complex and intricate.  All that means is that we need more sophisticated methods of experimenting, not discouragement from playing around with something we've bought.

We obviously can't go around disassembling intricate and tiny pieces of technology in the same manner that we can with something built by human hands.  But we also don't have to relegate ourselves to user status.  Taking apart a watch is different than taking apart a clock.  But there are still concepts and parallels we can apply to each.  That doesn't have to disappear as our technology becomes more complex.  We simply need to adjust how we learn.

This is a gap that must be bridged or we risk some very unpleasant scenarios.  We can reject the newer technology and only use that which we have full control over, losing out on all of the advancements and advantages coming out every day.  Or we can fully embrace all that is new and be spoon-fed for the rest of our lives without any real understanding of how any of it is even possible.  Clearly, we need something in the middle.  It's foolish to discard old technology; even if there's no practical use for it, there is still the very real possibility that its functionality can teach newcomers about theory in ways that more advanced applications simply can't.  It's equally nonsensical to reject new technology outright since everyone deserves to benefit from the advancements made possible through our continuing evolution.

By putting forth the idea that none of this actually belongs to us and that we're all just licensed to use the technology from month to month, we not only lose the ownership and control we've always valued, we lose our rightful place in the development and growth of technology.  If we can't open it up and see how it ticks, it becomes nothing more than a magical product that somehow works.  We never get to ask: How?  We never get the joy of seeing it come together.  It just is.  And that may be enough for many.  For us, we're always going to want a bit more.

In our rush to take advantage of modern bells and whistles, we often forget to add in our own values, the effects of which may not be readily apparent.  For example, we increasingly see that it's not so easy to give digital items we "own" as gifts or to bequeath them for future generations to enjoy.  We've all been to garage sales or secondhand stores where we peruse old record and book collections.  That just doesn't work with a Kindle or a collection of MP3s, at least not in the same way.  The digital files are a convenience, but the loss of a physical object is quite tangible.

As mentioned already, privacy issues are a big concern, something we don't think about nearly enough.  Having systems in place where there's an ongoing log of what book or article we've read, what movie we've watched, the exact software we've used, or where and when we've gone on a drive should be a huge red flag, regardless of whether or not we think we have anything to hide.  We never would have accepted that level of surveillance in the analog world and we shouldn't accept it now.  And it's most certainly not necessary in order to have the things we want.  It's just something thrown in by the designers - and those who want more control.

We are at a true crossroads in so many ways.  We want to embrace all of the new developments and help to apply creativity and imagination to them.  To do that, we cannot be restricted or told we're simply users and that we're not permitted to access, experiment, and take things apart - even when the very definitions of those concepts have changed.  Because what hasn't changed is our desire to keep learning.