Category: Current events


Last weekend, I participated in Hack for Change, a 24-hour codeathon sponsored by Change.org and Code for America where developers and designers were challenged to create apps for the public good. As my first hackathon, it was a tremendous experience in a number of ways, and some really cool applications came out of the process. Though we didn’t win, I’m very proud of the app my group built, Safehood — an entirely SMS-based anonymous communication channel for a neighborhood to discuss crime and potential safety threats, sort of a real-time backchannel for an existing neighborhood watch.

There was something that one of the groups said in their presentation, though, that kind of pressed my buttons. They made some very enthusiastic–grandiose, even–claims about how their application was going to change the world. But, I wondered, who would it change the world for, in whose interest? iPhone users, apparently–their app was iPhone-only. Well, this shouldn’t be a surprise, but even in San Francisco, most people don’t have iPhones. Most people don’t own smartphones, even. And for a significant–and radically underserved in many other aspects–segment of the local population, their only access to the Internet comes in thirty-minute increments at the public library.

Granted, there are many social problems that need addressing besides the digital divide. But it’s an issue that affects every entrant in this hackathon to at least some degree because of its very nature–trying to solve problems with technology. If a segment of the population can’t realistically use or access your app, your claims about the extent to which you successfully address your chosen cause should reflect that.

When my group started brainstorming what we wanted to do for our application, my teammate Michelle had a simple suggestion: let’s build something to help poor people, something to address at least one aspect of the cycle of [urban US] poverty. You wouldn’t think such a suggestion would be radical at an event called “Hack for Change”, but it totally was. All the app ideas I had thrown out previously were things that I could see myself using–an anonymous photo-submission police tipline-type service in response to the Vancouver riots, or an app for emergency response and resources in case of an earthquake or other natural disaster. Certainly they weren’t apps that only I would find useful, or even only people in my socioeconomic class. But that was a major bias in my thinking. Michelle’s suggestion took us out of that frame, and after further brainstorming and deliberation, Safehood was the eventual result: an application for helping communities collaborate to make their neighborhood safer, with a user interface designed from the beginning for a population that might not have a computer or smartphone at home. In our mental picture of how the app would be used, we now had Oakland in our head instead of Berkeley. I won’t go so far as to say that we succeeded in all this–there’s a million ways the app could be improved. But at least that’s where our heads were at.

Of the 16 or so applications at Hack for Change, I don’t know for sure, I wasn’t part of their brainstorming sessions, but I don’t think that a single other group had “Let’s build something to help poor people” or similar as their starting point. That’s not to say that some of the apps couldn’t be useful to poor people, or that they didn’t successfully address whatever their other chosen cause was. But still, that seems… off, somehow.

Most of my coding experience is on free and open source software projects, and most of the coders I know are part of that community. In FOSS, projects get started (and get continuing contributions and enthusiasm) because a developer wants to scratch his or her own itch. Which is understandable, and just fine most of the time. Hacking for “change” is different. Hacking for social change isn’t about scratching our own itch–it’s about scratching someone else’s itch, especially someone who may not have the resources to scratch it themselves. Being cognizant and deliberate about that difference is a challenge, but a necessary one, and one that I suggest that all designers, developers, and others think about taking on.

The Hooligan and the Underdog

I’m going to write a bit about soccer today. But first, some football context. Bear with me.

Having grown up in Minnesota, I’m a recovering (always recovering) Vikings fan. The Vikings are perpetual heartbreakers and heart attack givers. Even from the days of Bud Grant and “Two-Minute Tommy”, you could never count the Vikings out. Fourth quarter, even two minutes left—it didn’t matter how much the other side led by. The Vikings were the king of last-minute rallies. The Vikings are explosive—and, appropriately, inconsistent. My time as a Vikings fan was spent watching them win against far better rated teams—and lose to teams they ought to have blown out of the water. They’d spend most of the season playing like Super Bowl champions, then lose ignominiously in the playoffs. My team has only been to the Super Bowl once, and has never won it. Vikings fans take nothing for granted—we’ve seen too many impossible wins and aneurysm-inducing losses.

The problem with soccer for many people, I think, isn’t really that it’s so low scoring (give each goal a touchdown’s worth of points and it’s comparable with American football). It’s that as the game goes on, often the players and the match as a whole give off an air of inevitability—it’s assumed that the team that’s ahead will win the match, or that both teams will let things drag to a draw. Of course it’s boring when teams don’t fight and the announcers take things for granted!*

Which is why the US-Slovakia game, and later the US-Algeria game, were SO great, and SO American. Everyone thought we were goners when Slovakia was up 2-0 at half. Two goals is considered a commanding lead in this bloody sport! Fortunately, our team was made of Americans who didn’t know better, so they not only went on to tie 2-2, they would have had a third goal and won the damn game if it weren’t for a terrible call.

And the US-Algeria game: what a Hollywood script match! Taking more risks, hitting more and more shots as the game went on in a passionate, full-hearted, grit-in-your-teeth effort to get the ball over the damn line and stay in South Africa. I’ve seen many a “hurry-up” football game, carefully managing the clock and racing against time. I’d never seen real, serious “hurry-up” soccer before. The New York Times declared that the second half was more like a track-and-field meet than a soccer game, with the US offense constantly sprinting toward the Algerian side as fast as they could, Tim Howard hurling the ball well past midfield to Altidore’s running feet. (The soccer version of a Hail Mary?) How many hundreds or thousands of Americans who’d never even watched a soccer match before ignored their work, clenched their teeth, begged for a goal, and hollered like madmen we when finally got it in stoppage time? All this for a “boring” 1-0 point difference? We love the team representing us. We LOVE this kind of game.

Soccer can become the kind of game that Americans love. Not if we try to play like Brazilians, or like Germans, or like any other powerhouse team style. We have to make the game our own. Arguably, at this World Cup, the US side is doing just that.

* This is becoming less true worldwide. The gap is closing between the traditional powerhouses and smaller teams. New Zealand was thought to be one of the worst teams in the World Cup; in fact, they went undefeated. Slovakia killed Italy; Mexico dominated France; both those teams from last year’s World Cup final are going home early. There are no kings in soccer anymore: it’s now conceivable that any team can beat any other team on a given day. The US, with its sports culture full of teams like the Vikings and deep-seated love of the underdog, just tends to believe that fact more readily than most.

A common trope in comment threads across the Internet on articles about Facebook’s recent, myriad, astounding privacy fuck-ups is “Just don’t post anything on the Internet that you don’t want your employer or grandma to see. LOL DUUUUHH.” This isn’t terrible advice, but it completely misses the point.

There’s nothing on my Facebook profile that would be actually embarrassing or harmful if it became accessible by the public. But I keep my privacy settings as high as I can because I’m only interested in sharing that information with my friends. It wouldn’t be *terrible* if someone I wasn’t friends with saw it. I’m just not interested in sharing with marketeers or random Internet people. It’s none of their business. And that’s reason enough.

Take another security context. I’m not opposed to strip-searches or backscatter X-rays at the airport because I’m secretly hiding weapons or drugs. I’m opposed to them because my body is simply none of the TSA’s goddamn business. I’m opposed to unwanted exposure for its own sake, not because I’m fearful for the consequences of whatever’s exposed. And, again, that’s reason enough to be opposed.

Additionally, in the words of Cory Doctorow, “In any other context, making public something previously promised to remain private [as Facebook has done] is called ‘lying.’” Facebook has broken a promise made to its millions of users that they would empower them to control who saw their content. It’s broken its own freaking list of Principles for site governance. Facebook has lost its users’ trust; we have no faith in Mark Zuckerberg’s integrity or that of the rest of the company. It deserves to die.

The latest bit of hubbub in free culture world is a project called Diaspora, started by a couple NYU kids. They’re trying to make the StatusNet of social networks, replacing Facebook with an open-source, decentralized web app that you can run on your own server and which ties into existing services like Twitter and Flickr. Since Facebook is the Great Satan and doesn’t give a crap about its users’ privacy, yet network effects keep me trapped there, I’d kill for an interoperable, federated replacement.

Diaspora is raising money via Kickstarter, which will enable the four-person team to work on this full-time this summer. I encourage you to contribute. In the meantime, I hope they choose to release their code and find ways for the community to contribute in non-monetary ways as soon as possible.

For instance: Diaspora currently uses a picture of a dandelion as their ‘logo’. Nice photograph, but photo =/= logo. So I spent the afternoon futzing around with Photoshop and came up with this:

I emailed them it a few minutes ago, we’ll see if they like it or not.

A response to Cory Doctorow’s post on the iPad.

The reasons he lists are all reasonable reasons to not buy an iPad. Like Cory, I don’t need a computer-like appliance. That’s also why I don’t own an iPhone or a Wii or a Kindle. (Also, I’m poor.)

But just because *I* don’t need it doesn’t mean that I think it’s ethically dubious for someone else to. Yes, you’re opting into Apple’s walled garden. Yes, you’ll never be able to hack the device or install your own stuff on it or replace the battery yourself. But if you’re fine with all that, if your needs match what the iPad appliance offers, go ahead and purchase one. Especially if you already own a “real computer” (which is pretty likely, and something a lot of criticisms along these lines seem to miss). No one argues that purchasing a car with closed-source software embedded in it or a stylish, no-screws toaster is akin to investing in blood diamonds.

So why all the hate on the iPad? My guess is misplaced expectations. Critics expect a “real computer” and howl that it isn’t one. That’s frankly like whining about how the Eee PC sucks for running Photoshop. Those who want it and will buy it have different expectations.

An article ran in the Star Tribune today about the Kelsey Smith Act, a bill being presented in the MN legislature that would require phone companies to triangulate and disclose the location of a cell phone whenever the police ask for it. No court order or subpoena needed.

It’s being billed as a way to find kidnapping victims. And indeed, triangulating cell signals is an important tool for finding lost people—that’s how James Kim’s family was found. But no court oversight whatsoever? Making it possible for the police to get the whereabouts of any cell phone owner, regardless of whether or not there is a real emergency? Creepy!

What’s so bizarre isn’t that people are willing to hand over that kind of authority to the cops, or don’t think through the privacy implications of their proposals. It’s that discussion of the privacy implications of this bill is nowhere to be found in the article. There’s just no mention. It’s presented as this common-sense bill that will save children. Are privacy advocates so few and far between that the writer completely failed to think of the civil liberties angle of the story? Or was it edited out?

I attended a liberal arts college. They taught us to analyze social institutions and their interactions as complexes, systems of power. Well, here goes.

College expenses in the US are absolutely insane. When my parents went to school, you could realistically work your way through college. Today nearly all of the better-ranked liberal arts colleges charge more than $40,000 a year–the entire income of an average American household. How did we get here? Liberal arts colleges across the country have raised their tuition faster than inflation every year, year after year, for decades. When times are bad, they claim their endowments are hurting. When times are good, they claim they need to charge more to improve the academics or athletics or build a shiny new dorm to stay competitive. No matter what, like clockwork, colleges are draining generations of students and their families faster than their incomes improve. It’s been long enough to say that these excuses are bullshit.

For extra infuriating context, consider that in most civilized countries, university is *free* to those who are admitted. No needing to save for kids’ college from zygote to age 18 instead of funding your 401k. No crippling student loan bills that beggar graduates, force young workers to stick with jobs they hate instead of taking risks, and have brought about the boomerang generation and the endless delay of adulthood that social conservatives bemoan. Think of all of the possibilities that are squelched by this ever-increasing drain on our populace’s resources, productivity, and well-being. (The parallels with our lack of universal health care are dire.)

So why hasn’t the market intervened? Why haven’t tuitions leveled off? A major cause is the normalization of student loan debt. Student loans, both federal and private, are guaranteed by the government–even if you declare bankruptcy, you have to give the banks their due. So banks have been giving student loans away like candy–they know young people are good for it, even if they end up living in their parents’ basements to pay them off. College financial aid offices count on this; by default they include student loans as part of their packages, as if deferred penury is the same thing as actual aid! And since the FAFSA punishes savers and completely f***s middle-class families–defined as families whose money comes solely from income, as opposed to the rich whose money comes from wealth–expected family contributions are usually unreasonably high. Thus, even those few schools that claim that their financial aid packages include zero loans are lying through their teeth. For their part, institutional lies and mischaracterizations aside, high school students have zero grounding in basic personal finance–it’s not part of nearly any high school curriculum. Even if they knew, up front, what debt level attending a given school would entail, they don’t have the skills to evaluate whether or not that level is sustainable. (Look how many young people have gotten screwed by credit card debt–which by law is far better documented!)

At the same time, elite schools have convinced generations of parents and students that through their hallowed halls lies the path to financial security. Without a solid education, they say, kids today have no chance of making it. And, indeed, if at the end of racking up all this student debt, graduates were quite likely to find plum jobs that could easily pay that debt back, perhaps it’d be justified.

HA.

The sad thing is that they’re mostly right about their schools being the gatekeepers to the middle class. With the exception of a few trades, statistically it’s basically impossible to “make it” without a bachelor’s, and pretty darn hard without one in the liberal arts or sciences. But although it’s a necessary condition, it’s no longer a sufficient one. There are basically no jobs for new grads anymore. Scripps’ career center does one-year-out surveys of each of its graduating classes. Even in 2002, there are comments about how it’s been hard finding a decent job because of the economy. It was hard in 2007. It was hard in 2008, when I was first looking–even before the banks collapsed in the fall. It’s been nigh-impossible for the grads of 2009. The jokes about liberal arts majors working at Starbucks were funny jabs from the engineering kids in 2004. Only now have we realized it’s the reality.

A couple months ago I interviewed for a job barely paying enough to live on that mostly consisted of testing and shipping widgets, with a nominal bit of web marketing and design associated. I told a friend about it and his response: “Oh. Shipping?” I said, “What?”. He said, “Nothing,” but thirty seconds later proceeded to tweet, “This recession is beating the enthusiasm and ambition out of my generation.”

(I didn’t get the job.)

Now, a year and a half out of school with a variety of new media production, research and writing, and startup development experience under my belt, I’m living with my parents and applying for part-time internships and retail positions at big-box clothing stores. I hate to think what he’d say now. Yes, I know I’m capable of so much more than this. So are most of us. But the creative, white-collar jobs aren’t there for us, and I just can’t afford to try and do cool things on my own anymore.

I still hold out some hope that someday when I’m older I’ll develop a career that will enable me to achieve my parents’ standard of living, even if the statistics don’t bear that out: people who graduate college during a recession are basically screwed for the rest of their working lives. I must admit that between offshoring, business oligarchy, American economic incompetence and cowardice, ridiculous debt levels across the board, and the lack of spending on US education and R&D, I have some doubt as to whether or not there’s going to be a middle class in America when I’m 40. I’m not the only one. But right now? Yeah, I guess the recession, and being unemployed, and everything else that’s been going on have beaten the crap out of me.

So, no. Don’t even try to justify your ballooning costs based on lucrative employment upon graduating. Our income isn’t rising alongside your tuition increases; liberal arts majors are f***ed more than ever right now.

This situation is completely inexcusable. If university presidents are congenitally incapable of capping or trimming costs, they should resign. Immediately. Cutting college costs–yes, including the “sticker price” that they lie and say no one actually pays–is their job and their responsibility. Hang the market forces that have enabled them to shirk it for so long! If they can’t bring themselves to give a damn about financial sense, boards of regents should find people who can. If liberal arts colleges do not even try to keep education affordable enough to be within range of all Americans, without heavy debt, they are NOT fulfilling their mission. They’re just diploma farms with an over-inflated sense of superiority and no head for business.

Because, truly I tell you, the day of reckoning is coming. How many articles this year have focused on parents and college seniors’ new wariness of excessive tuition bills and student debt? Perhaps the prospective engineering, science, economics, and CS majors will still be able to justify elite colleges’ insane bills–studies have found that they still stand a good chance of making money when they graduate (at least, so long as they don’t become teachers). But the rest?

My sister, a high school senior, is very smart and works way too hard. She’s a first chair violin, captain of the debate team, a karate instructor, and fluent in Spanish–among other extra-curriculars and accomplishments. With her grades and resume, there’s a decent chance she could gain admission to any school in the country. BUT…she wants to become a math teacher, potentially in low-income/Spanish-speaking schools. She’s seen my financial difficulties, even with my marketable webcrap skills and the (sadly) relatively low amount of student debt I have. Thus, she has completely ruled out any college that would require her to take on student loan debt: teachers hardly make a living wage, let alone with loans on top! Short of a miracle, this will eliminate her top choice school, whose yearly bill has increased about $10,000 since when I applied, yet caps its merit scholarships at half tuition. It already eliminated any number of top schools that she refused to even consider.

St. Olaf, I can tell you right now that you’re going to lose out big. And, if you don’t get your shit in shape, so will the rest of you liberal arts hypocrites over the next decade or so. Yes, you’re already hypocrites and have been for years. But now you’re running out of families rich enough or foolish enough to pay you for the privilege.

I support quite a few of Obama’s policies and decisions thus far in his administration. However, when it comes to the future of civil liberties in America, Obama’s tenure makes me MORE worried than I was under Bush.

Yes, you read that right.

I didn’t look at immigration websites during the last eight years. I figured sooner or later the madness had to end. But now I find myself semi-seriously considering attending school in Canada and/or positioning myself for a career that could potentially take me to continental Europe. (NOT the UK; that island has been positively hurdling toward fascism over the last eight years. Frickin’ “New Labour.”)

Why? Obama’s DOJ is making the same–if not worse–arguments for expansive executive power. We’re still being wiretapped–and Obama voted for immunity. Sure, Obama may use these powers more responsibly. And stopping torturing people and giving the folks in Gitmo trials are good things to do. But if the powers to wiretap and deny judicial scrutiny over any rights violation with the scantest of national security claims aren’t dismantled, it doesn’t MATTER if Obama never uses them. They’ll still be there when future, potentially crazy/intolerant/power-hungry presidents come in.

If we can’t get rid of the big red authoritarianism button now, with this administration, it will never go away. And that scares the shit out of me.

November 4

I was completely unable to focus on work yesterday. All the time, refreshing blogs, reading voting stories, worrying that, somehow, this was gonna get screwed up.

When they called Pennsylvania for Obama, a McCain win was nearly impossible. When they called Ohio for Obama, it was done. At that point, Obama could lose Virginia, Indiana, North Carolina, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, AND Nevada–and, short of all the Democratic ballots in Iowa, Minnesota, or the West Coast spontaneously combusting, still get to 270.

Of course, at that point all the news networks just talked about how a Republican has never won without Ohio, it’s looking rather bad for McCain, blah blah blah. Only the friggin’ mathematician was willing to actually call it. Of course, the media has an interest in making a race close, or appear to be close-it keeps people watching longer. Or maybe the news networks were charitably trying to encourage voting on the West Coast, so all the Californian Obama folks wouldn’t go home and let Proposition 8 pass. (Unfortunately, it looks like it did anyway. California! What the hell is wrong with you?)

In any case, at that point I walked to the grocery store to buy a box of chocolates, a bottle of wine, and some broccoli (don’t ask) and updated the cashier on the results. As a young black dude, I figured he had about a 93% chance of being an Obama supporter. Yep. He was.

DC went nuts at the news, as you’ve probably heard. My roommate went downtown to join in and asked me and Nelson to join him. I almost wished I was still unemployed, so that I could have spent the night screaming and dancing and hugging random people in a fully historic fashion. But we didn’t. Instead we sat in the exercise room of the condo building (we don’t have a TV, and I was having a hard time getting the news outlets’ online streams to work) and watched McCain’s concession and Obama’s acceptance over a glass of wine.

Last night in part of his speech, Obama reprised New Hampshire, and I was reminded of when I first saw him speak. I was at a hole-in-the-wall Mexican place with Elaine, getting food before attending an acapella concert at USC. They had a tiny TV on the wall, tuned to Obama’s speech after losing New Hampshire. When I say I “saw” Obama speak, I mean it literally. The TV’s sound was off, so I didn’t actually hear what he said that evening until later when I ran across the ‘Yes We Can’ video. But I just looked at him, addressing the crowd, and I knew–this is the next president of the United States of America.

Obama’s right, that the struggle has just begun. The two most recent movies I’ve seen are An Inconvenient Truth (finally) and the short version of I.O.U.S.A. They’re kind of frightening. This country has hella problems. They’re gonna be challenging to fix. Right now there is no goddamn way the government can afford to support all the programs I wish it would, even if Obama supported all of them (he’s significantly closer to the center than I am–still mad about FISA) and could get them passed (Democratic congress, yes, but many close victories and centrists there too). Our country is neither solvent nor sustainable at this juncture. But I think that Obama’s the guy to tackle these things. He won’t be able to fix things right away, or ever without grassroots commitment and support. But I trust him to talk to experts instead of industry hacks, to cross party lines, and to present some very interesting ideas. I can’t wait to see what’s to come.

Crossing my fingers: Bruce Schneier for Homeland Security chief and Lawrence Lessig for FCC head/IP czar, anyone?

One more day…

On the one hand, to be fair, as someone who tends to cheer for the Democrats, the party is exceptional at pulling defeat from the jaws of victory. I can’t help but feel like Charlie Brown waiting for Lucy to pull the football away again. You never know how many percentage points to subtract for incompetent and/or fraudulent election administration. You never know when a candidate’s gonna die in a plane crash. I’ve been doing a lot of knocking on wood.

On the other hand, the small dose of CNN I have seen recently makes me want to set the exercise room television on fire. With C4. And plutonium. For mostly the same reasons as this comic.

Is Obama a noncitizen Muslim terrorist who never graduated from Columbia? No! Is he the anti-Christ? No! Does McCain have a chance of winning Pennsylvania? No, unless Obama devours a live puppy on live TV today–and even then, like a third of voters have already voted! Yet the mere utterance of these things is apparently enough to obligate the media to dignify and amplify them with coverage…

Creative Commons License
Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Powered by WordPress.
Theme NewRiver by Karen Rustad, based on Motion by 85ideas.