316
Epilogue
research communities, including more than 25 European countries, the USA, Japan,
Singapore, Australia, and many other states. Far more than 100 academic institutions
and a similar number of companies wanted to be partners of the project. As a result,
about e90 million of co-funding had been promised for the first 2.5 years.
Leading the FuturICT project, however, also turned out to be an adventure. Big
players from all over the world became interested in the project. The USA quickly
launched Big Data research programs amounting to $150 million or more. China
broadcast a film about the project on national TV, watched by hundreds of millions
of people. Russia sent big TV teams to cover the project. Moreover, on the title page
of the Christmas edition of the Scientific American in 2011, FuturICT was featured
as No. 1 world-changing idea.
3
Months later, the FuturICT project was in the final round and performed well, but
contrary to everyone’s expectations, it wasn’t funded. At this point in time, I started to
worry that governments might enter a digital arms race rather than building the global,
participatory information and communication system that FuturICT had proposed.
I also worried that a powerful surveillance-based digital society may be brought on
the way, ignoring privacy, informational self-determination, democracy and human
rights. Therefore, I wrote an article entitled “Google as God?” to make the public
aware of the potential dangers of information and communication systems that lack
transparency. In fact, the digital revolution created the scary possibility to control
entire societies and every one of us.
When I later searched the Internet for “Google as God?”, I was surprised to find
results such as the “Church of Google”. While these sites are perhaps not meant to be
serious, they provide interesting food for thought nevertheless. At some webpages
4
one can find “proofs” that Google is God, for example: “Google is the closest thing to
an Omniscient (all-knowing) entity in existence” or “Google is everywhere at once
(Omnipresent)” or “Google can ‘do no evil’ (Omnibenevolent)”. My book explored
these ideas further and asks how realistic it is to realize such ambitions.
When I talked about a “crystal ball”, “magic wand”, “wise king” or “benevolent
dictator”, I used these terms to represent some abstract concepts. Even when I used
names for illustration, I didn’t mean any particular company or institution, such
as Google, the NSA, or a particular computer network with Artificial Intelligence.
Nevertheless, we must ask ourselves where we are heading. Could we unintentionally
create a digital nightmare, even if all the Big Data companies and institutions had the
very best intentions? And if so, what can we do to minimize the risk of such a scenario?
In other words, what institutions and technological solutions will the digital society
need? How much decentralization and encryption are required to ensure sufficient
Internet security? How much transparency and informational self-determination are
needed in order to enter an age of digital enlightenment, i.e. to avoid “digital slavery”
and ensure “digital freedom”?
3 See https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-machine-that-would-predict/; in the meantime, several FuturICT-like projects are running or being prepared in the world, but most of them
don’t seem to be participatory and public, in contrast to what we proposed.
4 Such as http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/Scripture/Proof_Google_Is_God.html.
Epilogue
research communities, including more than 25 European countries, the USA, Japan,
Singapore, Australia, and many other states. Far more than 100 academic institutions
and a similar number of companies wanted to be partners of the project. As a result,
about e90 million of co-funding had been promised for the first 2.5 years.
Leading the FuturICT project, however, also turned out to be an adventure. Big
players from all over the world became interested in the project. The USA quickly
launched Big Data research programs amounting to $150 million or more. China
broadcast a film about the project on national TV, watched by hundreds of millions
of people. Russia sent big TV teams to cover the project. Moreover, on the title page
of the Christmas edition of the Scientific American in 2011, FuturICT was featured
as No. 1 world-changing idea.
3
Months later, the FuturICT project was in the final round and performed well, but
contrary to everyone’s expectations, it wasn’t funded. At this point in time, I started to
worry that governments might enter a digital arms race rather than building the global,
participatory information and communication system that FuturICT had proposed.
I also worried that a powerful surveillance-based digital society may be brought on
the way, ignoring privacy, informational self-determination, democracy and human
rights. Therefore, I wrote an article entitled “Google as God?” to make the public
aware of the potential dangers of information and communication systems that lack
transparency. In fact, the digital revolution created the scary possibility to control
entire societies and every one of us.
When I later searched the Internet for “Google as God?”, I was surprised to find
results such as the “Church of Google”. While these sites are perhaps not meant to be
serious, they provide interesting food for thought nevertheless. At some webpages
4
one can find “proofs” that Google is God, for example: “Google is the closest thing to
an Omniscient (all-knowing) entity in existence” or “Google is everywhere at once
(Omnipresent)” or “Google can ‘do no evil’ (Omnibenevolent)”. My book explored
these ideas further and asks how realistic it is to realize such ambitions.
When I talked about a “crystal ball”, “magic wand”, “wise king” or “benevolent
dictator”, I used these terms to represent some abstract concepts. Even when I used
names for illustration, I didn’t mean any particular company or institution, such
as Google, the NSA, or a particular computer network with Artificial Intelligence.
Nevertheless, we must ask ourselves where we are heading. Could we unintentionally
create a digital nightmare, even if all the Big Data companies and institutions had the
very best intentions? And if so, what can we do to minimize the risk of such a scenario?
In other words, what institutions and technological solutions will the digital society
need? How much decentralization and encryption are required to ensure sufficient
Internet security? How much transparency and informational self-determination are
needed in order to enter an age of digital enlightenment, i.e. to avoid “digital slavery”
and ensure “digital freedom”?
3 See https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-machine-that-would-predict/; in the meantime, several FuturICT-like projects are running or being prepared in the world, but most of them
don’t seem to be participatory and public, in contrast to what we proposed.
4 Such as http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/Scripture/Proof_Google_Is_God.html.