The Light bulb and the candle maker

Great leaps forward in technology don't always come from the places you'd expect.  Did the light-bulb come from some forward thinking investment from the candle makers?

It's commendable to think our way into the future by building upon what we have today, forecasting incremental improvement.  But if we always did this, would we ever see the greater potentials, the step-changes, that spark a whole new evolution of ideas? These are often born of disruption.  And sometimes that disruption goes unrecognised, gets under-resourced or simply ignored because we're all far too invested in the status quo and can really only handle evolution. But what about revolution?

Big on evolution, where's the revolution?

Now I'm really pleased that the responses so far cover the ground of evolution really well [see our interim report for full details].  There is a big consensus, but is consensus the most important thing?  It's encouraging that more than 70% of respondents to the consultation would say the internet " should ensure citizens' sovereignty over their own data and protect privacy," and that the majority of these conclude that distributed architecture and decentralised governance are the technology areas we should be focussed upon (see an exclusive on what the EC are already thinking about this here). 

The consultation [join here!] suggests that a primary focus on robust infrastructures is needed; infrastructures that are resistant to cybercrime and yet accurate and fast on discovery of information amongst an infinite resource of data.

/futurium/en/file/distributedarchitecturechallengejpgdistributedarchitecturechallenge.jpg

Secondarily a focus on the management of data and identity needs to be driven by human needs and supported by authentication and measures to prevent the manipulation of personal data.

The Internet is like a Failed State

All of this, to me, suggests that we're looking at the Next Generation Internet in a rather linear way.  Is this really how we should look at what some are analogising as a "Failed State".

The internet's content keeps growing, the connections become greater and with that there are greater chances to fall into trouble.  So, sensibly and incrementally, we look for interventions that are more robust and protocols that let the machines protect our privacy from, well, the machines!

But aren't these changes rather too incremental?  Wouldn't they "happen anyway" without dedicated interventions?  Do they deal with wider implications that'll only begin to impact us in 10 years time?

Read this gloomy prediction and the concepts proposed by the Atlantic Council and reported by John Naughton for some thought provoking background.  Perhaps if we're still wishing the Status Quo route will work best, whilst in reality, maybe we're headed for "Cybergeddon"?

To delve deeper into these concepts, take part in tomorrow's Web Science televised conference.  Nigel Shadbolt and Martha Lane-Fox are among the key presenters looking forward to how we deal with the future of the internet.

Refreshing to see

On a bright note, there are plenty of comments on past projects and a solid dismissing of certain areas in the consultation. Perhaps most encouraging is that, when participants were asked for alternative topic areas, the quantity of responses that support "humanising" the internet was remarkable.

/futurium/en/file/alternativecategoriesofstatementsjpgalternative_categories_of_statements.jpg

But in your view... does our interim report indicate we're being imaginative enough?