keskiviikkona, tammikuuta 28, 2009

Thoughts on social network services

Reading about "The net and real costs of free" on BBC, reminded me of some old theories I had. It all comes down to the question whether a service should be centralized or distributed. The current killer services like Facebook and Piratebay, are examples of centralized services. All services with these providers require a connection to their respective servers. At the same time, the main problems associated with, for example, Facebook, is that it stores your private data on a central server. Likewise, Piratebay is seen as the distributor of copy protected material, even though it doesn't store the data itself, but only links to users storage spaces. So Piratebay gets the blame for the users illegal actions, because it stores sensitive data on a central server.
The question is then clear; would it be possible to generate the same services in a distributed manner, where the sensitive data would be stored only locally, or at least, at an operator you can choose yourself? In other words, would it be possible to design a distributed system with the same services?
If we take a look at another well eshtablised social service, perhaps we can find a solution. For example, let us look at telephone services or postal services. All data is stored locally, connections are relayed in a standardised fashion, privacy is protected by laws and we can, to some extent, freely choose an operator. Perfect. These eshtablised services avoid all the problems we face with the newcomers.
I do think that similar operation principles would be possible to organise also among the social network providers. All that we would need is a standardised communication interface. This is not a trivial task (as it is always with standardisation), but manageable.

lauantaina, tammikuuta 10, 2009

Oikeusfilosofia

Päivän väite: Huomioonottaen kuinka paljon päivän politiikassa puhutaan oikeuksista, puhutaan oikeusfilosofiasta huomattavan harvoin.

Muutama esimerkki:
  1. Kettutytöt ajavat eläinten oikeuksia, mutta itse en tunne yhtään eläinten oikeuden filosofisia perusteita. Onko joku kirjoittanut siitä jotain? Tietääkö joku? Jos eläimillä on oikeuksia, onko myös kasveilla oikeuksia? Entä kivillä?
  2. Taitelijat/yritykset/muusikot perustelevat kopiosuojaustarpeitaan tekijänoikeuksilla, mutta tekijänoikeuksien filosofisista perusteista puhutaan harvoin. Miksi tekijällä pitäisi/pitää olla oikeudet teokseensa? Mitä näiden oikeuksien pitäisi kattaa ja miksi?
  3. Graffiitti-teinit sanovat että kansalaisilla pitää olla oikeus päättää ympäristönsä ulkonäöstä. Jos kansalaisten mielipiteet risteävät, kenen mielipidettä noudatetaan, kenenllä on suurempi oikeus?
  4. Oikeusvaltiota pidetään yksiselitteisesti parempana valtiomuotona kuin muita hallintotapoja (epäoikeusvaltioita?). Mutta oikeusvaltio-käsite on jo aika vanha käsite, luotu aikana jolloin maailma näytti hyvin erillaiselta kuin nyt. Missä määrin oikeusvaltion filosofiset perusteet ovat yhä voimassa? Miksi oikeusvaltio on hyvä asia? Mitkä ovat sen puutteita/ongelmia? Onko vaihtoehtoja olemassa?
  5. Hajonneissa perheissä vanhemmille annetaan tapaamisoikeuksia yms. Missä määrin vanhemmilla on oikeus päättää lapsistaan? (Myönnettäkön että tästä aiheesta puhutaan enemmän kuin muista ihan oikeusfilosofiselta kantilta.)
  6. Ihmisoikeudet ovat määritelty YK:n peruskirjassa. On tietysti hienoa että jonkunlaiset perussäännöt ovat olemassa, mutta ovatko nämä säännöt ajan tasalla? Missä määrin niissä on keskustelun varaa?
  7. Helsinki ryösti Sipoolta maita. Oliko se oikeudenmukaista? Missä määrin abstrakteilla yhteisöillä, kuten kaupungeilla ja kunnilla, on materiaalistista hallintaoikeutta?
  8. Aseestakieltäytyjät kieltävät valtion oikeuden pakottaa palvelukseen. Mitäs jos minä kieltäisin valtion oikeuden kantaa veroja?
Minusta vaikuttaa vankasti yleistäen siltä että oikeuden käsitettä käytetään yleisenä lyömäaseena silloin kuin jotain tarvetta tai halua ei muuten osata perustella.

Olen varma että näistä asioista puhutaan paljonkin yliopistojen pölyisillä käytävillä, mutta ne keskustelut tavoittavat suurta yleisöä huonosti. Ja koska ne tavoittavat yleisiöä huonosti, on suuri yleisö (minä mukaanlukien) autuaan tietämätön näistä varsin olennaisista kysymyksistä ja varsinkin, oikeuskäsitteen nykyaikaisista perusteista.

keskiviikkona, tammikuuta 07, 2009

Stories from the United States of Germany, part 1

Due to my increasing international circle of friends, I've decided to start to write in English at least some times and at least on topics that could interest a larger audience. I realise that this comes with a great annoyance to my German friends, who would prefer me to write in German, but right now I'm most interested in communicating with as many people as possible, so English is a natural choice.

This brings to my mind one of the most baffling recurring experiences I've had here in Germany. It concerns the attitudes to languages, and especially, the attitude Germans have to their own language. In short, living in Germany, I face great pressure to learn to communicate in German. When arriving in Germany, I was determined and motivated to learn German, but this in-your-face attitude displayed everywhere has seriously deterred my motivation.

During the first weeks here, people would approach me and start a rapid unintelligible monologue in German, giving me the chance to interrupt with a "Wie, bitte?" only when they stopped to breath. Initially I thought that they just weren't accustomed to foreign languages, but this theory is contradicted by the large number of foreigners present both at the office and around town.

Once settled, I began to hear suggestions "We should talk German, shouldn't we?", which were soon changed to "We should talk German" or "Wir sollten Deutsch sprechen". Observe the lack of options. It is not really a question that would give me any chance to choose, but it is a statement, we really should talk German. I once made the mistake of asking a good friend why we are supposed to talk German, upon which she frowned at me and answered "because we're in Germany", like I've insulted her intellect (sadly, this event made me also question the depth of our friendship). Not satisfied with the answer, I tried to inquire why it is so important to talk German, and as an answer I got a emotionally heated story about a foreigner who had not learned the language after five years in Germany. Unable to connect the logic of this story with my present situation, utterly perplexed, I did not pursue the question further at that time.

A mysterious feature of these demands is the way they are presented. Like I already noted, the demands come as statements of something obvious, something that does not deserve to be doubted. But what is more stunning is that the statement is regularly finished off with a grin. "Wir sollten Deutsch sprechen [grin]" or in written form "Wir sollten Deutsch sprechen :-)". This attempt of making it a friendly gesture fails upon me. It feels like some sort of evil joy, "you must learn German, hah-ha"! I can almost see the Simpsons bully-character, Nelson, pedalling away on his tricycle with an sadistic smile.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand the motivation of the Germans. Germany is flooded with foreigners, most notably from Turkey, but also many from Eastern Europe, many of whom don't speak German. Such immigrants are often of low education, which combined with the inability to speak German is a receipt for trouble. They arrive here with hopes of improved standards of living. This can readily be seen as (a view that I don't completely share) living off the Germans, and it is thus fair to demand something from the immigrants as well, like conforming with the norms of the society.

To me, conformity requirements have a bad vibe, especially in a country like Germany. It brings back memories of some history lessons in high-school. Moreover, I have never been the one to conform with the majority unless in very rare cases when conformity has a specific purpose that I happen to agree with. Personally, I think cultural diversity is a value in itself, which is positive in all forms, with the exception that it does not go well with a low level of education and unemployment (just think about the unrest in Paris some time back).

So, when I face demands of learning German, it feels like a conformity requirement, motivated only if I am an immigrant of low education living off the German society. While I can't deny being a foreigner, I don't really see myself as an immigrant since I come from an EU-country and plan to stay only for a limited time. Immigration implies in my perception a more permanent change of country. Moreover, I definitely feel insulted if I am labelled a person of low education, which is in objective terms, a rather inaccurate label. Worse, if I am referred to as someone who lives off the well being of the German society, I take it as a rather harsh insult. Upon leaving Finland, one of my greatest two regrets (the other regret is not being with my friends and family) is that as the Finnish society invested so much in my education, I am now donating the fruits of my education and learning efforts to the Germans (for a rather low compensation salary-wise).

Finally, I think that I could take all this with a smile, if there wouldn't be for a one last thing (there's always a one last thing, isn't there?). If the Germans would be holding the moral upper ground, I can't believe I would have any objections of learning German. If, for example, most Germans would be speaking, say, five languages fluently, they would have the "right" to demand that I perfect my skills in my fourth language, indeed, I would feel it my duty to learn it no time at all. Thinking about it, it doesn't seem like a too far fetched utopia to imagine a centrally located country like Germany, where everyone would know several of the languages of the neighbouring countries. But reality is sad and I find it disturbing how few Germans speak more than two languages. Most people do hesitantly speak a few words of English (whereby their skills in English were on par with my skills in German when I arrived here), but most of the time that is about all they know.

At the end of this ramble I should decided upon a course of action. The obvious, but ill-advised action would be to protest, to attempt to not-learn German. While that is an intuitively attractive option, I find such a choice lame, too easy, an option only for the weakest of minds. My personal favourite is to continue learning German, but in addition attempt learning some other language, like French, which would be my fifth language. What better counter-insult than a straight-faced display of intellectual superiority? Ha-ha.

Paineita

Joulun aikaan tapasin paljon sukulaisia, ystäviä ja kavereita, ja sehän on kivaa. Kun nyt sitten kyläilin monen eri tahon luona, panin merkille yhden tyypillisen ahdistuksen aiheen. Kun käyt kylässä, olisi hauskaa viedä joku tuliainen. Olin varannut jonkun verran tuliaisia Saksasta Suomen-lomalle, mutta eihän ne riittäneet mihinkään. Tässä tilanteessa minun on tietysti helppo perustella että en voi raahata mukanani määrättömästi tavaraa lentokoneella, mutta ilmiö sinänsä on mielenkiintoinen.
Tuliaiset on selvästi hauska antaa ja saada. Kun minäkin nyt olen vähitellen saavuttanut "aikuisen" iän, niin tuliaisista on tullut tapa. Kyläilyn yhteydessä on tapana antaa jokin lahja isäntäväelle ja antaminen on kivaa. Mutta samalla kun kivasta toiminnasta on tullut tapa, se asettaa myös oletuksen; kun kyläilet oletetaan sinun tuovan mukanaan lahjan, koska se on "hyvien tapojen mukaista". Toisin sanoen, lahjatta vieraileminen on hyvien tapojen vastaista, eli tylyä. Käydessäni kyläilemässä saan siis paineita ottaa mukaan tuliaisia ja kun se on käytännössä hankalaa (ja lisäksi kallista), aiheuttaa se minulle ahdistusta.
Vaikka minusta tuliaisten vieminen on siis mukavaa, ei minusta ahdistusta aiheuttava toiminta kokonaisuudessaan voi olla kovin hauskaa. Tätä tapaa vastaan on kuitenkin vaikea taistella, koska se on niin kivaa. Höh. Umpikuja.