Author: JP

It’s not that easy any more, finding questions that can’t be Googled or Tineyed or Shazammed. Getting harder by the day.

How can I be sure that a photograph hadn’t been indexed yet? Well, one way to be sure is to know the provenance of the object. Who took it. When and where. And where it has lain dormant since.

Here’s one such photograph. I took it. And it’s been uploaded nowhere. And I have removed most signs of things/people who could give you a hint as to who the person is. There is still a residual hint in that I have met this person. And he is someone I respect greatly. Greatly.

So who is he? Whom am I with here below, with the background excised? Usual rules, first to get it right gets into the annual league table.

Sorry, I’d been travelling, and the question I’d wanted to set for this week proved unsettable (TinEye had an answer). I therefore had to wait till I was back at home and rested before composing the next question.

And here it is:

What are these?

Thought I would try something out for a while. Every Friday, I will post an unGoogleable question. When it’s an image, I will make sure it’s unTineye-able. If it’s music, I will make sure it’s unShazam-able. [And yes, I understand that something that’s unGoogleable today becomes Googleable tomorrow. That’s the nature of the internet and the Web].

So here goes. Today’s question is simple. Who is this?

 

If this becomes popular then I’ll publish a list of “winners” at the end of every month, along with a year-to-date table. First correct answer via comment here on this blog, on facebook, on twitter or on Google+.

A few days ago, I was reading Chris Skinner’s then-latest post on the Financial Services Club’s blog, headlined Never Mind The Channels, Here’s the B&**&^ks. And agreeing, of course. We are connected not channelled, as I wrote in the Kernel For This Blog seven years ago. And yet, as Chris says, there are still many who try and recreate the segments and channels and isolations of the past, as if nothing has changed.

Yet so much has changed, and changed irrevocably.

I thought I’d try and summarise the changes in a small number of word dichotomies, just to see how they would play out. Depending on the comments I receive, I can always extend the list and, where required, expand on the explanations. So here are the first three:

AND not OR

Channel-like choices are about mutual exclusion. You can choose BBC or ITV. An MP3 file or a CD. A digital download or a DVD. A “pirate” copy or a “legal” copy. Mobile or fixed. Wireless or cellular. A or B. One or the other. Sometimes the choices are binary, sometimes there are a series of choices. But one way or the other, the product and hierarchy mindset tends to think about mutual exclusion.

Customers don’t think that way. Why would they? Mutual exclusion constrains their ability to derive value. Customers prefer to think about AND rather than OR. Customers may listen to an “illegal” download and then go buy the original. Start a conversation via SMS and pick up the phone and talk part way through the conversation. Invite someone to join in, then carry on after they leave. Have LPs, tapes, CDs and MP3s of songs, listening to the highest quality version that’s convenient to listen to at the time. Analog and digital, instant and delayed, original and copy, these dichotomies can be played out in the context of price, often as part of a spectrum. But that does not make them mutually exclusive.

AND not OR is about understanding abundances and scarcities. People listen to their free CD of Prince AND pay handsomely to see him perform in person. Digital copies of Prince’s music are abundant. But there’s only one Prince.

BECAUSE not WITH

Doc Searls has written about this many times, as have I: we call this the Because Effect. When you deal with things that are scarce, you can make money with those things. Scarcity has value. If you have the only Penny Blue you can command your price. But scarcity is not the only way to make money. You can make money out of abundance as well. Linux is abundant. IBM used to make money with its operating systems. Then, when Linux came along, IBM saw a way of making money because of Linux rather than with it. There are many bloggers I know who don’t charge for their blog or allow any advertising. They don’t make any money with their blog. But they still make money because of their blogs.

BECAUSE not WITH is also about understanding abundances and scarcities.

WE not ME

George Bernard Shaw said something along the lines of “If I have an apple and I give you that apple, then you have an apple and I don’t have an apple. But if I had an idea and I give you that idea, then we both have that idea”. Information, and information-like digital goods, are often “extreme nonrival goods” in economic terms. When they are replicated and shared, they are able to be enjoyed by all and sundry. Over the last few decades, many of the things we’re involved with have become standardised and expressible in mathematical terms. Many financial instruments have become dematerialised; compute and storage power have both become virtualised; personal genomes have been modelled sufficiently and can now be sequenced and analysed, allowing us to model personalised medical treatment based around the individual genotype.

When something can be expressed mathematically, the ability to model it increases dramatically, as is the ability to simulate it. As we learn more about the world we live in, as we learn more about ourselves, we’re able to form better abstractions about our environment and our engagement with that environment. As we form better abstractions we’re able to develop standard ways of looking at things, of expressing things. As we develop those standards we’re able to model and simulate aspects of ourselves and of the world around us.

This has significant implications for us in terms of what we can achieve in health, in welfare, in education, in government.

But it needs us to share. It needs us to start each of these processes thinking open rather than closed, abundant rather than scarce, public rather than private. Shared rather than exclusive. WE not ME.

WE not ME is also about our understanding abundance and scarcity.

AND not OR. BECAUSE not WITH. WE not ME. These may seem trivial discussions at present, but in time to come they’re going to form the core of some very serious discussions; so far, the creation of artificial barriers around extreme nonrival goods has been about the amount of money people stand to make as a result of the barriers.

Soon, it will be about the number of people who live. Or die. Because the ideas will relate to how people can replicate medicines cheaply and efficiently; get access to drinking water safely and securely; grow sufficient food affordably and sustainably.

Humanity is about life and death. It is up to us to make sure it is not about life or death.

 

In 1997 I was hired by Dresdner Kleinwort Benson to run their Euro, Y2K and Regulatory Minimum Requirements Programmes. Three classic “mandatory” projects that engendered classic responses: everyone agreed the projects needed to be done, everyone had an opinion on the how and what of each project, but nobody wanted the job of actually getting them done. It turned out fine for me, though: the programmes formed an excellent induction to the bank’s business: its customers,  its culture, its processes, its people, its infrastructure and its systems estate. The three years I spent doing all that helped me enormously with my next role there, as CIO.

Not surprisingly, one of the first things we did was to baseline everything, starting with the systems and applications estate. Questionnaires were sent out, validation fieldwork followed, the database constructed, every system, associated version details, location, architecture, feeds, interfaces, usage characteristics, business sponsors, systems “owners”, the whole nine yards. We had ourselves the basics of a detailed inventory of the systems estate.

I then wanted to apply the Eric Raymond version of Linus’s Law to the inventory, on the basis that “Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow” holds true for “information” bugs as well. Open up the data to everyone in the bank, so that errors and omissions could be identified quickly and efficiently. Simple, no?

No.

Not simple at all.

Someone in information security felt that by making all this data available, I could be providing criminals and terrorists with a detailed set of instructions for a full-throated attack on our estate. It took a few months of robust debate (and a few changes of personnel) to get them to change their minds. What matters is that they did change their minds, the inventory was made available to bank staff, partners, suppliers and contractors; errors and omissions did surface and were dealt with in time. This in turn created a more usable information asset, helped us reduce project risks and costs, and paved the way to our doing everything that needed doing with a minimum of fuss and bother.

I was reminded of this last week when reading Rollie Cole’s excellent post Some Observations on the Practice of Open Data as Opposed to its Promise. If you have the time, do read the whole thing, it’s worth it. In it he analyses the reasons why people hold back from making open data available, the legal and operational issues involved, the heterogeneous nature of the environment at present and the resource implications. He then proceeds to summarise how these issues are being dealt with in pragmatic terms.

I’ve been privileged to know Rollie for a while; we met as readers of Gordon Cook’s excellent Cook Report on Internet Protocol, and belong to a related, and very active, online discussion group. I’ve had a deep interest in open data for a while: during my time as Chief Scientist at BT, I was involved with the Web Science Trust, where Tim Berners-Lee, Wendy Hall, Nigel Shadbolt et al made me an instant convert; I have remained in close touch with the Trust since.

I love numbers. I can stay awake for long periods with my eyes closed working out the Fibonacci sequence from scratch; I can as easily put myself to sleep very quickly counting sheep in Fibonacci. I marvel at the beauty of the primes; I’m mesmerised by “circulating” decimals.

Not everyone is moved by numbers. For many of the people I meet, what they look for are stories, narratives they can follow. So, given the influence of the people at the Web Science Trust, and given the observations made by Rollie, I thought it was time I collected and published stories about open data.

The first one I want to share with you comes courtesy a friend of mine, Conor Ogle. There I was, gently sipping my green tea while on vacation in Barcelona last week …. I nearly choked when I saw what he’d shared on his Facebook timeline: 20,000 pregnant men on the NHS. I had to know more. So I read the associated article, felt I should delve into more detail, wanted to see the original as published in the British Medical Journal. Didn’t feel like taking a subscription out just for that one article. So I downloaded the BMJ iPad app, waited one week for the “current” issue (April 7th) to pass into “back issue” status, then bought the issue for £2.99, read the whole thing. Here’s the summary:

In an article headlined The importance of knowing context of hospital episode statistics when reconfiguring the NHS, the authors (Lauren Brennan, Mando Watson, Robert Klaber and Tagore Charles) look at data freely available on HESOnline. I quote from their study:

On average, 1600 adults aged over 30 apparently attend outpatient child and adolescent psychiatry services in England each year. Indeed, the number of adults attending outpatient paediatric services since 2003 has increased steadily, with a steep increase, to nearly 20,000, in 2009-10. Adults over 60 are also being admitted to inpatient child and adolescent psychiatry services.

The rest of the article goes on in similar vein. Here’s another extract:

We were quite surprised to discover that many males seem to be attending outpatient obstetrics, gynaecology and midwifery services. Amazingly, between 2009 and 2010, there were over 17,000 male inpatient admissions to obstetric services and over 8,000 to gynaecology with nearly 20,000 midwife episodes.

They had good reason to be surprised. Apparently the term “midwife episode” is used to describe childbirth. So, according to the data, over 20,000 men had babies in 2010.

Now do I believe that over 20,000 men had babies in the UK in 2010. Of course not.

But do I believe that the data suggests that it happened? Unfortunately, yes.

Data. Erroneous data. Data that could be used to make erroneous decisions. Data that may already have been used to make erroneous decisions.

Data that should not be used to make erroneous decisions.

This is not a new thing. When I was at university, we were told horror stories about a couple of failed hydroelectric dam projects based on bad data related to river depth and speed, data that could have been corrected if it had been inspected and commented upon. Flawed reasoning about security led to the loss of lives and of economic and social well-being.

The authors of the article have performed an important public service in pointing out that there may be just a few, shall we say “classification” errors in the source data in HESOnline.

This is the 21st century. In years to come we’re going to have to deal with far larger data sets than we’ve ever dealt with before. Some of these data sets will turn out to be critical to our ability to deal with the problems of the 21st century, not just the ones we can see but also the ones we can’t as yet.

Let’s move to a different example, in the context of climate change: The International Centre  for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) has been gathering and making available data on, amongst other things, the status of glaciers in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan Region. Quite important, these glaciers. They’re pretty involved in nature’s cycle of getting drinking water to maybe a third of the world’s population. We just haven’t had the tools or the ability to get detailed information about the glaciers in the past; now we can, and the data sets that are generated are immense. Incidentally, it’s heartening to see the number of countries involved in the study, countries that do not form part of the geographical region. Global issues need global participation.

Having accurate data is very important in our quest to solve many of the larger and newer problems we face. Without it, we get posturing and bigotry rather than reasoned and informed debate. Disease control. Climate change. AIDS. Eradication of poverty. The financial crisis. Education. Government. In every case, there seems to be an inverse relationship between the volume of the arguments and the quality of the data made freely available.

Arthur Wellesley, the first Duke of Wellington, is recorded as having said Publish and Be Damned, in response to journalist John Joseph Stockdale’s threat to expose his affair and mistress. The consequences were not of import to us.

Soon, humanity may be dealing with a variant, with consequences of import.

Publish. Or be damned.

When it comes to the open data movement, those are the choices we face. Publish, so we can correct the errors and make better decisions as a result. Or be damned by poor decisions.

And large quantities of pregnant men.