Fixing Journalism? Two Approaches

Everybody knows that journalism is in crisis. It turns out that the Internet lowered the cost of delivering information to the point that anyone can play the role of journalism. Anyone. For any reason.

Worse, as the information economy has been increasingly captured by the advertising industry, all other interests have been obliterated. Everything is subordinated to the need to command a large enough audience to generate revenue for advertisers. We now have a word for this, “click bait”.

At the same time, the idea of “mass” media has been replaced with individually filtered channels. It isn’t necessary to serve a least-common-denominator, each person receives a custom stream, potentially different from any other. This has shattered cultural consensus that, for better or worse, was a side-effect of mass media.

These developments have had pernicious effects everywhere, but the destruction of quality (or even mediocre) journalism is particularly damaging to civil society and democratic government.

Scarcely a week goes by without hearing about some new effort to “save” or “reboot” journalism. Shorn of marketing hype, these ideas are basically about money. How can you sustain the activities of journalists or equivalent content creators?

There aren’t many candidate solutions, and they are all pretty much the same ideas as sustained print based journalism.

  1. be a captive propaganda organ
  2. advertising
  3. subscription

Setting aside the “ministry of truth” approach favored by political groups, let’s look at two recent examples of the other approaches.

Civil: Self-Sustaining Journalism

One diagnosis of journalism’s malaise is that they need to adapt to the new world of on-line advertising and the accompanying need to “attract eyeballs”. Conventional journalistic organizations must be rebooted for this new world.

There are many versions of this, but one interesting concept comes from “Civil”, which not only aims to fix journalism, but uses trendy blockchain technology to do so.

The goal is “is a self-sustaining global marketplace for journalism that is free from ads, fake news, and outside influence”. Wow!

One of the key insights in this approach is to view the goal as a global marketplace for journalism, which eschews notions of a special fourth estate with a critical role in democratic self-governance. From this point of view, journalism is one kind of content, and it has to compete in a global marketplace filled with lots of other content.

In one sense, this is essentially conceding defeat. Journalism is over, so we’ll reuse the term for journalism-like content.

Their promised solution sounds too good to be true. Somehow this global, unregulated market will be free of influences, and “self-sustaining” without ads. How will this work?  Magic.

The magic is blockchain based “autonomous” organizations. This technology replaces a conventional organization with code, and, most important, aims to replace the critical functions of journalism with “autonomous” processes—protocols that are not controlled by any person.

So, Civil proposes a suite of processes that they believe replace everything important from conventional journalism,  and avoid costly overheads and intrusive outside interest.

Who are the stakeholders in the journalism game? At the heart, there are journalists (“sellers”) and citizens (“buyers”). There are  funders, owners, advertisers, and sponsors.

But the critical piece that makes it journalism rather than entertainment is quality control, selection of topics, honest investigation, and careful fact checking. In a conventional organization, this role is performed by editorial staff and other managers, who exercise power with judgment.

The ‘Civil’ project eliminates all of these players except the producers and consumers.

Civil aims to create a marketplace model for journalism where citizens and journalists connect around shared interests and standards.

This is both technologically and organizationally identical to many other Internet markets.

The Civil project diagnoses the weakness of this “Amazon” model as being the ease with which “anonymous black hats to cheaply produce and spread fake, malicious content in pursuit of clicks-for-cash ad dollars or nefarious propagandist aims.

Their solution is inspired by Wikipedia, and seeks to “incentivize journalism” while defeating non-journalistic behavior. In their analysis, the way to do this is to create a cryptocurrency and use it to implement micropayments. It’s a bit more complicated than this, because they want to encourage more than just personal payments. They want stable channels of information with strong quality or at least reputation for quality.

Their design has three pieces:

Newsrooms” – “Newsrooms allow citizens to pool funding to support coverage for a specific topic. The more citizens, the more funding, the more journalists will be drawn to cover it.”

Stations” – “Stations allow journalists to productize and price their work to their own dedicated audience however they want”

Fact-checking-as-a-service” – this is crowd sourcing of the editorial role.

These ideas are to be implemented with Ethereum-style “smart contracts”, creating protocols for buying and selling content, as well as voting, penalizing ‘inaccuracy’ and other activities.

The two “innovations” here would have to be the “newsroom” and the “fact-checking-as-a-service”. (“Stations” are indistinguishable from many other digital channels, including this blog.)

The Newsroom concept is an interesting take on how journalism is supposed to work. The idea that journalists should cover what “people” want them to cover is, well, problematic. There are lots of things I don’t want to know about (e.g., wars), but I need journalists to tell me about it. The idea that journalistic coverage should be driven by customer demand is pretty poor journalism.

The “Fact-Checking-As-A-Service” is even more problematic. This concept replaces the efforts of editors and quality control staff with an unspecified crowd sourcing. They don’t explain how this might work or even what it does.

First of all, “fact checking” is only the first level of journalistic quality controls. A report can be 100% “accurate” and still mislead by omission or bias. For that matter, much of the “fake news” is based on interpretation and even “alternative facts”. If there are multiple “fact checkers” who give different rulings, how does that help?

Second, actual quality control is far more than just double checking names and dates. Tracking down alleged events and sources isn’t trivial. More important, judging the weight to give various sources is hard. In this, journalists act as trusted sources of information, and we implicitly trust their sources because we trust them. Replacing this chain of trust with a “trustless” system is dubious.

As an aside, I’ll point out that the best journalists are not “incentivized” by money. They are motivated by a desire to be a trusted source of information. And the best of them report on things that no one wants to know about—and they make us care whether we want to or not.  Thus, the incentives of this system are probably misguided from the start.


The bottom line is that “Civil” is almost a caricature of the cryptocurrency culture. They aim to “fix” journalism, but they seem to misunderstand what it is, and misdiagnose its ills. Not surprisingly, the proposed “fix” is problematic, and unlikely to work.

The Conversation

“The Conversation” offers a rather different “fix” for at least part of the same problem. The conversation is a not for profit enterprise, dedicated to promulgating reliable, fact-based information.

Provide a fact-based and editorially independent forum, free of commercial or political bias.”

The Conversation is responding to the challenges described by Civil. They also perceive a disconnect between universities and the public. Universities are repositories of knowledge, but that knowledge is poorly represented in journalism.

The Conversation sees itself as a source of trusted information dedicated to the public good.

In contrast to Civil, The Conversation does not rely on a “market” to “incentivize” their producers. For one thing their writers are already highly motivated. What they do focus on is careful editing, which is not just ”fact checking”, but also helps create clear, understandable information for non-specialists.

Above all, The Conversation is aiming to create trusted and trustworthy information. They enforce strong rules on transparency, including disclosure of financial interests. The authors are not paid in cryptocurrency or anything, and the content is open for anyone to reuse under Creative Commons Attributions-No Derivs (CC BY-ND). This license preserves the attribution and precludes modification of what the author said, which are necessary to maintain both the trust of the readers and the reputation of the writers and editors.

In short,  “We aim to help rebuild trust in journalism.”

The content is not driven by user demand, it is curated by The Conversation. They are looking for people who know a lot about a topic of public interest, who want to inform the public about it.

Authors must agree to “Community Standards”, which amount to straightforward rules of civil discourse: mutual respect, staying on topic, be constructive, be responsible. It is interesting that one of the rules is “Be You”. No anonymous or pseudonymous posts allowed: you must take personal responsibility for what you say.

Articles are “pitched” to the staff, and if selected an editor is assigned to help create the article. The editor is not a “fact checker”, she or he is a co-creator,  charged to help design the article to be valuable for the general audience.

The published article will include the name, qualifications, affiliations, and funding sources of the author. In this, they are taking practices from academic publishing out to general readers.

The content is free for readers, and available for republishing. No one is writing to make money, but there is plenty of reputation on the line.

One reason this works is that the contributors must be affiliated with an academic institution. Aside from filtering out complete fakes and robots, this means that the authors have their own funding, and generally have a mission to publish. The Conversation doesn’t need to “incentivize” with a starvation wage.


Comparison

These two (of many) efforts to “fix journalism” offer an interesting comparison.

Both Civil and The Conversation say that there is a crisis in journalism, and describe the illness in similar terms. But these two projects diagnose the underlying disease rather differently, and therefore prescribe different treatments.

Civil is concerned with the financial underpinnings of journalism, and seems to be mainly interested in coverage of current events, especially local events. They seek to use digital technology to create a more efficient, decentralized funding model. Specifically, they use trendy blockchain technology to design “markets” that replace the processes of journalism.

While Civil deploys “disruptive” technology, it’s processes aren’t especially novel, nor even that different from conventional practice. The main novelty is the replacement of editorial decision-making and quality control with market incentives and rather hazy notions of “fact checking as a service”.

The Conversation is concerned with creating better content in ways that are distributed as widely as possible. They are particularly interested in disseminating the deep knowledge accumulated at Universities to the general public.

The Conversation is focused on trusted information. As such, quality control is at the center of the solution, and incentives are aimed to support public interest, not market share.

The Conversation uses digital technology (of course), but musters motivated people from the existing pool of academic researchers who have a desire to support the public good. Authors are not paid, and the content is given away for free. Editors, on the other hand, are paid. If there is a market, it is a reputation economy.

It is notable that The Conversation has been operating for a number of years. No one is getting rich, but there is a lot of solid journalism being made. In that sense, it is a proof by existence.

Civil, on the other hand, is untried as yet. The blockchain technology it aims to use is not only new, it is extremely shaky.


My own view is that Civil’s approach to journalism exhibits fundamental misunderstandings and even a repudiation of what journalism actually used to be. Editors have always been aware of market forces, but are supposed to act as a buffer between producers and raw demand. That is, editors want to foster solid reporting, even if there is no immediate “demand” for it, and they want to report accurately regardless of what the customers want to hear.

Editorial staff does fact checking, but fact checking per se is only the most trivial aspect of quality control. In any case is neither an optional after market service, nor something that you choose to match your own prejudices.

I think that The Conversation’s focus on trust is a great idea, and I’m glad to see it working. On the other hand, The Conversation is focused on a small part of the problem with journalism, which is the poor use of expert knowledge. This problem has been around for decades in the form of anxiety over the challenges of disseminating scientific understandings.

The Conversation works because it uses already existing social mechanisms, specifically, the credentialing and public mission of Universities. These institutions are designed to create trusted information and conduct civil discourse. The Conversation extends the reach of these processes.

However, the entire enterprise of public universities is increasingly threatened by both cultural attack and politically motivated defunding. The Conversation only works if you think that University affiliated experts are trusted sources, and that belief is far from universal. A lot of “fake news” is simply nihilistic denial of expert opinion, and no amount of editing can overcome the will to deny.

The bottom line is that neither of these projects is much of a cure for journalism. The Conversation does a good job, but depends on the fate of academia and rational debate in general. Civil misunderstands journalism, and attempts to fix the problem of trusted information via “trustless” technology and market forces. Whatever Civil is doing, it isn’t good journalism.


  1. Civil Civil: Self-Sustaining Journalism.June 20 2017, https://medium.com/@Join_Civil/civil-self-sustaining-journalism-a5caa49005c3
  2. The Converstaion. The Conversation: In-depth analysis, research, news and ideas from leading academics and researchers. 2017, https://theconversation.com/us.

 

Cryptocurrency Thursday

Collapsable Delivery Drone

I’m not a huge fan of buzzy little quadcopters, nor am I a fan of delivery drones. The former are about as welcome as a cloud of mosquitos, and the latter promises to transfer even more wealth to the 0.001%. (I’m not sure who these drones will be delivering to, when none of us have jobs or money to buy things.)

That said, I was interested to see the “origami-inspired cargo drone” developed by a group at Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne [2]. Their design wraps the copter in a flexible cage, which protects the package and also encloses the dangerous rotors. The cage is foldable, so it closes up to a relatively small package when not in use.

The cage is a nice design. It addresses the safety (and perceived safety) of the drone in a nice way. Rather than depending on complex algorithms to make the drone “safe” and “friendly”, their design makes the drone a soft beach ball like thing—the affordances are obvious and visible. Furthermore, the safety factor is passive. The effectiveness of the enclosure does not depend on either software or humans.

I’m sure that this basic idea can be realized in a lot of geometries. The EPFL design is modular, which means that a variety of cages can be made from the same design. It folds up rather neatly, and, of course, is light and strong.

I could imagine versions of this concept that have a standard coupling to a range of quadcopters. Sort of a “delivery cage” costume for drones. (I smell a new standard for “drone costume attachment” coming.)

Clearly, there is no reason why the cage has to be so bare and undecorated. Why not streamers, glitter, and even LEDs? These might make the drone more appealing, and would also make the drone more visible to cameras, radar, and sonar. (Another standard? Passive safety reflectors for drones?)

I’m still not eager to have my local stores put out of business by Amazon, but if I’m going to have to live with drones, I’d like them to bounce off walls and people, rather than crash into them.


  1. Evan Ackerman, EPFL’s Collapsable Delivery Drone Protects Your Package With an Origami Cage, in IEEE Spectrum — Automation. 2017. https://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/drones/epfl-collapsable-delivery-drone-protects-your-package-with-an-origami-cage
  2. Przemyslaw Mariusz Kornatowski, Stefano Mintchev, and Dario Floreano, An origami-inspired cargo drone, in IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. 2017: Vancouver. http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/230988

 

Robot Wednesday

Handheld Mass Spectrometry

Mass-Spectrometry is pretty much magic. A tiny sample of matter can be analyzed to get a chemical fingerprint which reveals exactly what it is.

Today, mass-spectrometry requires a large and expensive machine, and generally requires a fairly large sample which is destroyed by the process, which takes 30 minutes or more to complete. This is fine for laboratory studies, but impractical for many medical applications.

This fall a group from University of Texas report on a new device intended for use in course of cancer surgery [3]. The device is a pen-sized sampler that is touched to the tissue around a removed tumor. It samples the chemistry of the tissue without damaging it, feeds the sample to a mass-spectrogram machine, and quickly screens the results to determine if the tissue is cancerous (and so should be removed). The algorithm is highly accurate, enabling a surgeon to find the edges of what must be removed.

The quick turn around and spatially precise sample are essential for use during surgery. The technique picks up metabolites from the tissue without destroying it, which is a great improvement over previous methods.

As Emily Waltz points out, this technique still requires a mass-spectrogram machind, which is impractical for most operating rooms. However, there are new developments that will make smaller and cheaper mass-spectrogrametry possible [1].  And, of course, machine learning can be used to create many different fast classifier algorithms.

Combining these developments, as well as other non-invasive sensing will lead to some pretty amazing medical tech.

Cool!

Aside:  Please note the careful experiments and detailed open report of their validation studies in [3].  Compare to the usual Silicon Valley hype-intensive, data-light technology.


  1. Dexter Johnson, Mass Spectrometry Gets a New Power Source and a New Life, in IEEE Specturm – Nanoclast. 2017. https://spectrum.ieee.org/nanoclast/semiconductors/materials/mass-spectrometry-gets-a-new-power-souce-and-a-new-life
  2. Emily Waltz, Handheld Mass-Spectrometry Pen Identifies Cancer in Seconds During Surgery, in IEEE Spectrum – The Human OS. 2017. https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/biomedical/devices/handheld-mass-spectrometry-pen-identifies-cancer-in-seconds-during-surgery
  3. Jialing Zhang, John Rector, John Q. Lin, Jonathan H. Young, Marta Sans, Nitesh Katta, Noah Giese, Wendong Yu, Chandandeep Nagi, James Suliburk, Jinsong Liu, Alena Bensussan, Rachel J. DeHoog, Kyana Y. Garza, Benjamin Ludolph, Anna G. Sorace, Anum Syed, Aydin Zahedivash, Thomas E. Milner, and Livia S. Eberlin, Nondestructive tissue analysis for ex vivo and in vivo cancer diagnosis using a handheld mass spectrometry system. Science Translational Medicine, 9 (406) 2017. http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/9/406/eaan3968.abstract

 

What do birds do in an eclipse?

The August solar eclipse had a noticeable impact on solar power generation and other human activities (such as tourism).

Birds are quite aware of the sun and weather conditions. Many birds are active at particular times of day, hunting in sunlight or in darkness. So what do birds make of a sudden, unexpected nightfall and then another dawn

Benjamin Van Doren, Andrew Farnsworth, and Ian Davies write in BirdCast about “What Do Birds Do During a Total Eclipse?” The article is a collection of field observations during the solar eclipse.

Overall, birds seem to have responded to the darkness the same way that they behave at night. Daytime species seem to have gone to roost, and nighttime species came out to hunt. The eclipse doesn’t last very long, though, so nobody had time to completely go to sleep or wake up.

One interesting image shows radar data that detects birds in the air. As the total eclipse passed the area, the air cleared in the shadow. Daytime birds dropped down toward their roosts, and nighttime birds did not take off yet. The result is a circular trace of “empty sky”. Cool!

The reports also note that insects woke up, and flowers started to close.  Many of the reports indicate that the birds seemed confused, which is certainly reasonable under the circumstances.


BirdCast also reminds us that It will take a long time for the Southern coast of the US to recover from the Hurricanes of September 2017. We will no doubt learn that wildlife was affected by the huge storms. For instance, it is likely that birds (and other animals) were pushed North by the powerful winds. As they find there way back to the usual homes, like the people the birds will find trees (their homes) destroyed, and flood waters everywhere. As everyone returns and rebuilds, birders will no doubt report how birds cope with the storms.


  1. Benjamin Van Doren, Andrew Farnsworth, and Ian Davies, What Do Birds Do During a Total Eclipse? Observations from eBird and Radar on August 21, , in BirdCast. 2017. http://birdcast.info/forecast/eclipse/

 

Book Review: “Discovering the Mammoth” by John J. McKay

Discovering the Mammoth by John J. McKay

Speaking of paleontology….

Before there were dinosaurs and other prehistoric wonders, there were petrified remains of animals, plants, sea shells. From earliest days, humans have found them, and recognized that they appear to be life that no one has seen alive.

But to understand fossil remains, you have to be able to imagine that what we know now is not all there is to know. You have to be able to accept that the Earth is old, that it has changed a lot through time, and, above all, species of animals and plants emerge, change, and may even die out.

These concepts are hard to grasp, even when there aren’t dogmatic religious or folks stories contending.

McKay recounts how European thinkers “discovered” the Mammoth, a prehistoric elephant that died out at the end of the last ice age. As he notes, the tusks and other bones of Mammoths were known for many centuries, as well as other related species. But the notion of extinction was alien to the Western philosophy (Pagan, Christian, Jewish, and Muslim, alike), and almost no one thought of the world as being millions of years old.

Most of the book is a history of Renaissance and Enlightenment times, during which Europeans became aware of the wider world, including the remains of unknown animals. He tracks down nearly every written mention of Mammoths and related fossils. This is a tangled mess of speculation and blinkered assumptions that only slowly recognized the actual evidence.

This story meanders through central Europe, Colonial New Spain, Colonial America, and, above all Siberia. In Siberia, there are not only massive numbers of Mammoth tusks and bones, but there are whole frozen Mammoths! It’s difficult to mistake or deny that these remains are a real and once living animal when you can smell the rotting carcass from miles away.

I learned lots about the early exploration of Siberia, and more than I really care about the politics of eighteenth and nineteenth century Russia.

McKay says that understanding the Mammoth is basically the beginning of paleontology, and he has a good point. Working out that Mammoths are related to but not the same as modern elephants, that they lived a long time ago, and that they are extinct took huge leaps of imagination. Furthermore, establishing the case required moving from travellers’ tales and biblical analogy to careful excavation, comparative anatomy, geological stratigraphy, and knowledge of similar finds all around the world. These are the very definition of modern paleontology, and the problem of the Mammoth was one of the first real successes.

Ironically, the Mammoth is also one of the most intriguing of all the extinct species because it overlapped with Homo Sapiens, even if there is no living memory of that fact. We know this because we have paintings and etching of Mammoths and other extinct fauna, made by our ancestors, who knew them and likely hunted them.

Thus, figuring out the story of the  Mammoth also helped push the history of humans far into the past, and far beyond most folk stories and Biblical narratives. This is one of the crucial intellectual turning points where a thinking person is forced choose between science and received revelations.  Do I believe the traditional story, or the evidence of my own eyes?

The beginning of paleontology is also one of the great beginnings of natural science in general. Mammoths are not only old and extinct, but they were normal (if extraordinary) animals who lived by the same natural laws that we live by today. This notion that scientific theory extends to all times and places is the essence of the scientific enterprise.

McKay appears to be really, really into Mammoths. The book jacket says he is “the Mammoth Guy”, and that seems to be accurate. He is also a historian, and it shows. This book has some interesting history in it, possibly too much history. (Honestly, I completely lost track of who was who in Russia circa 1800.)

Personally, I wouldn’t have minded a lot more about Mammoths, and less about eighteenth century opinions about Mammoths. I suspect that McKay could write such a book, and maybe he will.


  1. John J. McKay, Discovering the Mammoth: A Tale of Giants, Unicorns, Ivory, and the Birth of a New Science, New York, Pegasus Books, 2107.

Sunday Book Reviews

Cassini End of Mission

After twenty years in space (launched 10 years Bi, Before iPhone), traveling over a billion KM, and returning data for 13 years from more than a light-hour from Earth, the Cassini Spacecraft ended its mission this week.

The project has accomplished lots of amazing science, represented by 3,948 papers so far. There will surely be a few more—lets go for 5K papers!

The end was a planned dive into the atmosphere of Saturn, collecting a few more bits of data on the way down, and assuring the complete destruction of the spacecraft.

As has been explained before, the spacecraft needed to be vaporized to prevent even the slighted chance that it might contaminate the area with Earth microbes. Aside from not wanting to harm any life that might exist on the moons or dust, we also don’t want to accidentally leave something that a later spacecraft might find and not realize was inadvertently sent from Earth.

(Which, if you think about it is way, way cool. How many human endeavors have to worry about the possibility of contaminating alien ecosystems, even in principle?)

Hence, the final dive.

This montage of images, made from data obtained by Cassini’s visual and infrared mapping spectrometer, shows the location on Saturn where the NASA spacecraft entered Saturn’s atmosphere on Sept. 15, 2017. Credit NASA/JPL-Caltech/Space Science Institute

Cassini signed off permanently on September 15. Loss of Signal. End of Mission. Lots of accomplishments.

 

Space Saturday

Inaudible Speech Commands Hack Your Home

I’m not a huge fan of speech interfaces, or of Internet connected home assistants a la Alexa in general.

I have already complained that these devices are potentially nasty invaders of privacy and likely to have complicated failure modes not least due to a plethora of security issues. (Possibly a plethora of plethoras.) I’ve also complained about the psychology of surveillance and instant gratification inherent in the design of these things. Especially for childred.

Pretty much exactly what you don’t want in your home.

This fall a group at Zhejiang University report on yet another potential issue: Inaudible Voice Commands [1].

Contemporary mobile devices have pretty good speakers and microphones, good enough to be dangerous. Advertising agencies and other attackers have begun using inaudible sound beacons to detect the location of otherwise cloaked devices. It is also possible to monkey with the motion sensors on a mobile device, via inaudible sounds.

Basically, these devices are sensitive to sound frequencies that the human user can’t hear, which can be sued to secretly communicate with and subvert the device.

Zhang, Guoming and colleagues turn this idea onto speech activated assistants, such as Alexa, or Siri  [1]. They describe a method to encode voice commands into innocent sounds. The humans can’t hear the words, but the computer decones it and takes it as a voice command.

These devices are capable of almost any operation on the Internet. Sending messages, transferring money, downloading software. The works.

In other words, if this attack succeeds, the hacker can secretly load malware or steal information, unbeknownst to the user.

Yoiks!

Combine this with ultrasound beacons, and the world becomes a dangerous place for speech commanded devices.

The researchers argue that

The root cause of inaudible voice commands is that microphones can sense acoustic sounds with a frequency higher than 20 kHz while an ideal microphone should not.

This could be dealt with by deploying better microphones or by software that filters out ultrasound, or detects the difference between voiced commands and the injected commands.


I would add that a second root cause is the number of functions of these devices, and the essentially unimodular design of the system. Recent voice activated assistants are installed as programs on general purpose computers with a complete operating system, and multiple input and output channels, including connections to the Internet. In general, any program may access any channel and perform any computation.

This is a cheap and convenient architecture, but is arguably overpowered for most individual applications. The general purpose monolithic device requires that the software implement complicated security checks, in an attempt to limit privileges. Worse, it requires ordinary users to manage complex configurations, usually without adequate understanding or even awareness.

One approach would be to create smaller, specialized hardware modules, and require explicit communication between modules. I’m thinking of little hardware modules, essentially one to one with apps. Shared resources such as I/O channels will have monitors to mediate access. (This is kind of “the IoT inside every device”.)

This kind of architecture is difficult to build, and painful in the extreme to program. (I’m describing what is generally called a secure operating system.) It might well reduce the number of apps in the world (which is probably a good thing) and increase the cost of devices and apps (which isn’t so good). But it would make personal devices much harder to hack, and a whole lot easier to trust.


  1. Guoming Zhang, Chen Yan, Xiaoyu Ji, Taimin Zhang, Tianchen Zhang, and Wenyuan Xu, DolphinAtack: Inaudible Voice Commands. arxive, 2017. https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.09537

 

A personal blog.

%d bloggers like this: