Comments on: If as a citizen you can no longer fix your own car… http://nearfuturelaboratory.com/pasta-and-vinegar/2009/02/05/if-as-a-citizen-you-can-no-longer-fix-your-own-car/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=if-as-a-citizen-you-can-no-longer-fix-your-own-car mind/tech bazar from outer space Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:57:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Scott Boone http://nearfuturelaboratory.com/pasta-and-vinegar/2009/02/05/if-as-a-citizen-you-can-no-longer-fix-your-own-car/#comment-3504 Scott Boone Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:49:48 +0000 http://liftlab.com/think/nova/2009/02/05/if-as-a-citizen-you-can-no-longer-fix-your-own-car/#comment-3504 I approach this phenomena a little differently (but in a similar vein to Mayo's 'next thought'). I have tended to focus on the eventual problem being that use of physical objects (such as repair of a car) will not only be harder to do, but will actually be prevented. In other words, the technology will prevent you from repairing it yourself and require you to pay the carmaker to repair it. Further, possible circumvention of that technology will be contractually prohibited and remotely detectable. Rights management of physical objects is what worries me an internet of things (or ubiquitous computing, ambient intelligence, etc.). Maybe I'm overly paranoid about corporate motivations and not placing sufficient confidence in the market. I originally wrote about this in terms of a displacement of personal property rights by technology or a combination of technology and contract. I'm currently working a more basic approach and trying to place computer mediation of the physical world into a traditional liberty framework (primarily Berlin's framework). I approach this phenomena a little differently (but in a similar vein to Mayo’s ‘next thought’). I have tended to focus on the eventual problem being that use of physical objects (such as repair of a car) will not only be harder to do, but will actually be prevented. In other words, the technology will prevent you from repairing it yourself and require you to pay the carmaker to repair it. Further, possible circumvention of that technology will be contractually prohibited and remotely detectable. Rights management of physical objects is what worries me an internet of things (or ubiquitous computing, ambient intelligence, etc.).

Maybe I’m overly paranoid about corporate motivations and not placing sufficient confidence in the market.

I originally wrote about this in terms of a displacement of personal property rights by technology or a combination of technology and contract. I’m currently working a more basic approach and trying to place computer mediation of the physical world into a traditional liberty framework (primarily Berlin’s framework).

]]> By: Mayo http://nearfuturelaboratory.com/pasta-and-vinegar/2009/02/05/if-as-a-citizen-you-can-no-longer-fix-your-own-car/#comment-3503 Mayo Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:55:13 +0000 http://liftlab.com/think/nova/2009/02/05/if-as-a-citizen-you-can-no-longer-fix-your-own-car/#comment-3503 Interesting thought - but I'm not sure how accurate the observation is. People who grew up in a world of mechanical objects were able to repair/fix/enhance mechanical cars. The opposite might now be true: those of us who have grown up in a digital world might be capable of fixing software but baffled by complex mechanical objects. Although I studied industrial design and thus have an affinity to the physical (mechanical/solid/object/product), I feel like I could figure out and eventually understand a pile of code as much as I could a mechanical part. It's just a question of literacy (whether with a particular programming language or a physical/mechanical one), and needs balance between the two. After all, what use is code without hardware for it to run on, but also increasingly, what use is hardware without software to control it? (The next thought is whether end-users have access to the code or if it's all wrapped in proprietary and inaccessible forms - perhaps that will change as more people have the skills to dive in on their own? how do business models fit into that (for the car makers, for garages, for users)? Do you want overclocked cars on the road, that go faster but suffer from instability, anyway? ?How would it all work? But that's an entire separate thread). Interesting thought – but I’m not sure how accurate the observation is. People who grew up in a world of mechanical objects were able to repair/fix/enhance mechanical cars. The opposite might now be true: those of us who have grown up in a digital world might be capable of fixing software but baffled by complex mechanical objects. Although I studied industrial design and thus have an affinity to the physical (mechanical/solid/object/product), I feel like I could figure out and eventually understand a pile of code as much as I could a mechanical part. It’s just a question of literacy (whether with a particular programming language or a physical/mechanical one), and needs balance between the two. After all, what use is code without hardware for it to run on, but also increasingly, what use is hardware without software to control it?

(The next thought is whether end-users have access to the code or if it’s all wrapped in proprietary and inaccessible forms – perhaps that will change as more people have the skills to dive in on their own? how do business models fit into that (for the car makers, for garages, for users)? Do you want overclocked cars on the road, that go faster but suffer from instability, anyway? ?How would it all work? But that’s an entire separate thread).

]]>