Cory Doctorow's "It's Not a Crime If We Do It With an App" argues that enclosing formerly analog activities within proprietary apps often transforms acceptable behaviors into exploitable data points. Companies use the guise of convenience and added features to justify these apps, gathering vast amounts of user data that is then monetized or weaponized through surveillance. This creates a system where everyday actions, previously unregulated, become subject to corporate control and potential abuse, ultimately diminishing user autonomy and creating new vectors for discrimination and exploitation. The post uses the satirical example of a potato-tracking app to illustrate how seemingly innocuous data collection can lead to intrusive monitoring and manipulation.
Cory Doctorow's blog post, "It's Not a Crime If We Do It With an App," housed under the provocative title "Potatotrac," dissects the pervasive yet often overlooked phenomenon of how technological platforms, particularly those manifested as apps, are employed to legitimize and normalize behaviors that would otherwise be considered ethically dubious or outright illegal. Doctorow illustrates this concept through a hypothetical scenario involving "PotatoTrack," a fictional app designed to manage and enforce potato rationing during a fabricated potato famine. He meticulously details how such an app, while ostensibly created for the equitable distribution of a scarce resource, could easily be manipulated and exploited to consolidate power, discriminate against specific groups, and ultimately exacerbate the very crisis it purports to solve.
The core argument revolves around the inherent power imbalance embedded within digitally mediated systems. The veneer of neutrality and objectivity provided by an app masks the underlying human decisions and biases that shape its design, implementation, and ongoing operation. Doctorow posits that the act of codifying rationing rules into software creates an illusion of fairness and inevitability, obscuring the potential for arbitrary enforcement and the inherent vulnerability of users to the whims of those controlling the platform. He elaborates on how seemingly innocuous features, like tracking potato consumption or implementing complex eligibility criteria, could be weaponized to punish dissent, reward loyalty, or further marginalize already vulnerable populations.
Furthermore, Doctorow emphasizes the insidious nature of data collection within these digital ecosystems. He argues that the seemingly benign act of logging potato transactions generates a vast trove of personal information that can be exploited for purposes beyond the initial scope of the app. This data, once aggregated and analyzed, can be used to construct detailed profiles of individuals, revealing their habits, preferences, and social connections. This information, in turn, can be leveraged for surveillance, manipulation, and even outright control, thereby transforming a tool meant for resource allocation into an instrument of social engineering.
Ultimately, Doctorow's analysis extends beyond the hypothetical potato famine and speaks to a broader societal trend. He cautions against the uncritical acceptance of technologically driven solutions, particularly those that promise simple answers to complex social problems. He argues that the seductive allure of efficiency and automation often obscures the potential for these systems to reinforce existing inequalities and create new forms of oppression. By framing the potato rationing scenario within the context of app-based services, Doctorow compels readers to critically examine the power dynamics inherent in digital platforms and to consider the potential consequences of entrusting essential functions to opaque, algorithmically driven systems. He urges a more nuanced and skeptical approach to technological "solutions," emphasizing the importance of human oversight, ethical considerations, and a deep understanding of the potential for misuse.
Summary of Comments ( 75 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42830646
HN commenters generally agree with Doctorow's premise that large corporations use "regulatory capture" to avoid legal consequences for harmful actions, citing examples like Facebook and Purdue Pharma. Some questioned the framing of the potato tracking scenario as overly simplistic, arguing that real-world supply chains are vastly more complex. A few commenters discussed the practicality of Doctorow's proposed solutions, debating the efficacy of co-ops and decentralized systems in combating corporate power. There was some skepticism about the feasibility of truly anonymized data collection and the potential for abuse even in decentralized systems. Several pointed out the inherent tension between the convenience offered by these technologies and the potential for exploitation.
The Hacker News post "It's not a crime if we do it with an app" (linking to a Pluralistic article about potato traceability) has generated a moderate number of comments, mostly focusing on the complexities and potential downsides of blockchain-based traceability systems, particularly in the context of agriculture.
Several commenters express skepticism about the real-world benefits of such systems, arguing that they primarily serve to shift responsibility and risk onto farmers while offering little tangible improvement in food safety or other areas. They point out that blockchain technology doesn't inherently prevent bad actors or data manipulation, and that the added complexity and cost of implementation could disproportionately burden smaller producers.
One compelling argument highlights the potential for these systems to be used punitively against farmers, creating a situation where minor infractions or discrepancies in data could lead to significant penalties. This concern ties into a broader discussion about the balance of power within the food supply chain and the potential for technology to exacerbate existing inequalities.
Another commenter draws a parallel to existing traceability systems in other industries, noting that their effectiveness is often limited and that they don't always prevent issues like counterfeiting or fraud. This suggests that simply implementing a blockchain-based system isn't a guaranteed solution and that other factors, such as robust oversight and enforcement, are crucial.
The discussion also touches on the environmental impact of such systems, with one commenter questioning the energy consumption associated with blockchain technology and whether the potential benefits justify the added environmental burden.
Finally, some commenters express a more general distrust of large corporations and their motives for implementing these systems, suggesting that they are more concerned with controlling the supply chain and maximizing profits than with improving food safety or empowering farmers. They argue that these technologies could lead to further consolidation in the agricultural sector, ultimately harming smaller producers and consumers.
While there's not a widespread consensus on the value of blockchain-based traceability in agriculture, the comments on Hacker News generally reflect a cautious and critical perspective, highlighting potential downsides and unintended consequences.