soberania_tecnologica_v2/en/content/03algos.md

# Code is political, algorithms are weapons of math destruction [^1]

We hear a lot about them, but we never see them.  What are these algorithms?
These invisible and tantalizing creatures that slip into our minds and inhabit
our pockets.  What are their intentions?

Formally speaking, an algorithm is nothing more than an inoffensive series of
operations fed by data to produce a result.  Nevertheless, they automate the
resolution of a set of complex problems [^2] and that is how some of them
become high level Artificial Intelligence, thanks to companies that stuff them
with data, kindly provided by us for free.

## A bestiary [^3] of algorithms

There is no comparison for knowing what they eat and identifying and better
understanding their role in a society of informaticized humans.  They were not
born of an electrical spark at the bottom of a sulphurous sea of data.  Their
progenitors are the human beings who write the lines of code that produce a
programme that carries within it a political and social project dictated by a
public or private sponsor.

Algorithms are never “neutral” or impartial.  They focus on carrying out the
mission assigned to them, usually by western males from the higher classes,
cradled by capitalism.

It is also important to mention that a stupid algorithm fed with lots of good
data will be more successful than the famous artificial intelligence, even if
the latter has sharper claws.  How can we not cite those American ogres, the
GAFAM (Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Microsoft) or BATX, their
alter-egos on the other side of the Pacific (the Chinese giants: Baidu,
Alibaba, Tencent and Xiaomi).  Their metabolism is based on the collection,
with our help, of the maximum amount of data about our smallest acts and
gestures, “increasing” our day-to-day with a large number of mobile apps and
connected objects which are supposedly meant to make our lives easier.

### Algorithms that eat our personal data

The resulting algorithms are polymorphous.  They have grown, observing us from
afar, spying on our activities online, and the places we frequent most.  They
then rose above our interactions in order to better determine who had
authority, ignoring the logic of popular voting and classifications based on
merit.

Then, in a third moment, they entered our digital intimacy, analysing the
quality and frequency of our exchanges in order to assess our reputation and
trace our affinities.

Finally, they hide from view in order to better predict the tiniest of our
desires, in order to be able to shape them.

| | **To one side** | **Above** | **Within** | **Below** |
| --- | --- | --- | ---| --- |
| **Example** | Audience measurement, Google Analytics, advertising tabs | Google PageRank, Digg, Wikipedia  | Number of friends on Facebook, Retweets on Twitter, notes and opinions | Recommendations on Amazon, behaviour based advertising | 
| **Data** | Visits | Relationships | Likes | Tracking |
| **Population** | Representative samples | Votes census, communities | Social networks, affinities, declarative | Implicit individual behaviours |
| **Type of calculation** | Vote | Classification by merit | Benchmark | Machine Learning |
| Principle | Popularity | Authority | Reputation | Prediction | 

*According to Domenique Cardon in “À quoi rêvent les algorithmes”.* [^4]

These different generations of algorithms still live together, side by side,
and are easily recognisable in that they very efficiently provide us with many
services.  They try to make us pay our “digital dividend” [^5] because they
discretize our existence, cutting it into the finest possible slices, in order
to extract all monetizable information [^6].

Every State breeds a terrifying ogre that works in surveillance.  The
interests of this ogre frequently mix with those of its friends the commercial
ogres, as it shamelessly raids their stores, with their approval [^7].  Its
insatiable appetite leads it to stalk those places with the most data traffic.
It is assumed that it should be able to find a terrorist in a haystack,
although it often suffers from myopia and obesity, proving more efficient at
stealing political and industrial secrets than at trapping the bad guys before
they take action.

### Algorithms that eat public data

The different administrative strata of the forces of order also cultivate
flowering gardens of many-flavoured data: biometric, fiscal, environmental,
urban, professional, or even linked to health.

Apparently neutral and objective, the public algorithmic creatures
would be the solution to inequalities in treatment in the face of the
arbitrations of some civil servants.  Nevertheless, they can turn entire
families into Kafkaesque insects hanging from the typewriter in the film
*Brazil* [^8].  In fact, it is they who determine which school our child
should go to, whether you can benefit from social subsidies, what jobs you can
apply for, and if your menstrual cycle is ripe to procreate.

The traders in personal data kindly offer to help public bodies to digitalise
and clone the most beautiful plants in the public garden, be they cultural
flowers or medicinal herbs.  Like the traders, the forces of order pass from
observations to predictions, and not only to optimise garbage collection, but
also send police forces to where there is the highest possibility that a crime
will be committed, thanks to their algo-dogs, PredPol CompStat or HunchLab
[^9].

### Algorithms that eat money

Thomas Peterffy is a financier who dedicated himself to replacing the brokers
and their manual operations with automated machines.  In 1987, on seeing that
the number of orders placed by Peterffy was surprisingly high, those in charge
of the markets sent an inspector, who, where he expected to find a room filled
with white men shouting and sweating, found nothing more than an IBM computer
connected to a singe official Nasdaq terminal [^10].  So it was that in 1987,
algorithms were launched onto the financial markets.

These days, algo-trading is everywhere, and the serene, algorithmic blinking
of the information networks has replaced the hysterical traders.  However,
even these digital financial creatures have allowed themselves to been
overtaken by high-frequency algo-traders, which move at the speed of light.
They build routes to arrive at the sale faster than the others [^11], making
profits with every operation.  They currently find refuge in the many “dark
pools” that the banks have been able to create thanks to the paradoxical
relaxing of regulations.  In the lucrative comfort sometimes seen in the
“Flash Crashes” [^12], the diversity of algorithmic species increases (Blast,
Stealth, Sniffer, Iceberg, Shark, Sumo,... [^13]) on a par with the complexity
of their strategies, making the “markets” more and more illegible and
uncontrollable, even though the assumption is that they are regulated by the
stroke of invisible hands.

Evidently, this all impacts on what we call “the real economy”, that is to
say, people's lives.  For example, when Syrian pirates compromise the White
House's Twitter Account and post an alarmist tweet that is immediately read by
the algo-trader robots, causing the stock market to fall 136 billion dollars
in just 3 minutes [^14].

A new algorithmic creature has emerged in the finance jungle, in the form of a
worm that duplicates in all the receiving computers and gets fatter as it is
used, devouring, as it passes, an impressive amount of electricity [^15].  It
is called a “blockchain” [^16] and it has made itself known through “Bitcoin”,
the first dematerialised crypto-currency to pass through a central banking
body attached to a State.  Today bitcoin is worth 28 billion dollars [^17].

Luckily, initiatives like Ethereum [^18] have allowed the worms to mutate so
that not only do they register transactions, but they also drive databases and
“intelligent” applications (“smart contracts”).  This encourages projects such
as DAO [^19] (Decentralized Autonomous Organisation), a decentralised
investment fund with no directors, where everyone participates in decision
making as a function of the capital they hold.  This fund quickly found itself
surrounded by different investors, to the tune of 150 billion dollars.

Nevertheless, a malicious joker managed to get away with a third of it, by
exploiting a fault (they call it a feature) in the code, irreparably marked on
the body of a DAO hosted by Ethereum.  Will it be necessary to cut out the
rings of the sick worm?  Or kill it to create a new one?  The latter is the
solution that was adopted to enable investors recover their money, following
many “political” discussions, despite the fact that they work from the
libertarian principal that “the code makes the law”.  This raises important
legal questions, particularly for defining responsibility in a distributed
network [^20] or imagining forms of governance for this “code” that, in some
domains, is replacing the law in the U.S.

There are other algorithmic creatures that are fans of money and which seek to
replace the work of human beings, maximising productivity and costs and thus
contributing to a greater concentration of capital.  The major companies
understand this well, so Foxcom announces the replacement of almost all their
employees with a million robots [^21] or the law firm BakerHostetler contracts
ROSS, an artificial intelligence, to faster study complex legal files [^22].
The “death of work” has been declared [^23], however it seems that the
economic and social regime will barely be able to sustain it in the (near)
future.

### Algorithms that eat human brains

The final family to be identified in our bestiary of algorithms are those
whose will is to fill the human brain, and those who, on the contrary,
ultimately aspire to replace it.  Artificial Intelligences must be fed with
data in order to be able to replace humans in a wide range of processes.  This
is something Google does with its reCAPTCHA [^24] project, those illegible
images that we are asked to decipher and transcribe to show the server that we
are not robots, but rather humans, passing the Turing test in reverse [^25].
The great innovation with reCAPTCHA is that the fruit of your responses goes
directly to feed artificial intelligence and the evolution of Google
programmes: deciphering text to improve the digitalization of books,
identifying house numbers to refine mapping, and now identifying images
containing animals or road signs, to make car autopilots less myopic.  The
accumulated results are becoming more and more relevant, and they represent
millions of hours of human labour [^26].

In terms of the algorithm that contributes to feeding our brains, this is,
like it's friend the personal data collector, becoming ever more elaborate and
subtle.  We feed its brain daily with the aid of a search engine that shows us
where to find the right place, the most precise information, the most
emblematic video.  At the beginning of 2017, in 92.8% of cases that search
engine was Google.  This makes it a cultural dictator in a totally new
hegemonic position (and what are the competition doing?!).  Not appearing
within the first results pages is like not existing.  Yet the Google search
algorithm is a jealously guarded industrial secret and can only be countered
by the right to be forgotten [^27].

From the surrealist experience of the researchers in the laboratory that is
Facebook [^28], who conducted experiments in 2010 on 61 million users, during
the U.S. congressional elections, it is known that controlling political
messages has a direct influence on the people who are made unwitting guinea
pigs, as well as that of their friends, and friends of friends.

From false news reports that have crushed the truth on the social networks,
ultimately swell the ranks of post-truth.  What political line do the
algorithms that govern content on our “walls” take?  Incorporating solutions
to problems of incitement to hatred and harassment on these platforms too
quickly will place the algorithms and their controllers in the official
position of controlling the morals of a large part of society.

One might think that to faster reach the point of technological singularity
[^29], our digital creatures are crouching in the shadows and plot to make us
servile.

Algorithmic governance [^30] would be a new mode of governing behaviour, fruit
of shifts in our relationship with the other, with the group, with the world,
with the very sense of the things that have, thanks to or despite the digital
turn, fundamental repercussions on the way norms are created, and with them,
obedience [^31].

When an algorithm eats from the human brain, this can also lead to the
clinical death of the human in question.  This can be said of the algorithms
that predefine the victims of killer drones, even if they are piloted by men
and women.  How do the algorithms of a driverless car chose the lesser evil/or
number of deaths, when they are involved in an accident that cannot be
avoided?  Cyber war flies low over our occupied networks, each country
sharpening its algorithms to be more and more insidiously lethal than the
enemy.

## How do we know if an algorithm is bad or good?

Is a bad algorithm one which turns video surveillance cameras into an army of
blood-thirsty botnets that come down in droves to strangle the servers?  Is a
good algorithm one which reminds me of my friends' birthdays?  Setting the
criteria is not so simple, because we have to consider interdependence between
algorithms, the data they use and the intentions behind them.  Nevertheless,
it can be hoped that a good algorithm will comply with the following:

- it should be “auditable” and therefore consist of open and documented source
    code;
- it should be “open” and therefore only feed on sets of “open data”, that are
    complete and “harvestable” by others, which means access should be
    discriminated and should be paid for certain commercial uses;
- it should be “loyal and fair” without the capacity to create discrimination
    or injustice (social [^32], gender-based [^33], etc.)  nor to damage human
    beings [^34];
- it should be “transparent” [^35] and capable of conducting systematic audits
    of its own operations and evolution (if it has learning or predictive
    capabilities) and be capable of subjecting itself to citizen's control;
- it should be “modifiable” and ready to respond to complaints that could
    require changes to the function of the algorithm.

In this search for algorithmic morality it is also necessary to mention the
“ports”, the APIs (standing for Application Public Interfaces), which permit
these digital creatures to hunt data from other servers and services, or to
place containers, or lay bait... these APIs can be considered a patent-pending
for industry, a new form of patenting anti-open-source software.  These ports
can be opened or closed at the strategic discretion of the owner, or tolls can
be implemented when an algorithm's traffic becomes abundant, if such
monetarization becomes opportune.

In the public sphere and civil society, we can imagine that the above
mentioned criteria of openness, transparency, accountability and modifiability
might be respected some day.  This is harder to imagine in the lucrative,
private sphere, where data and the algorithms that consume it are being
considered “the oil of the future” [^36].

Thus a group of American researchers and some “giants” of the digital world
have tried to formulate the “principles for responsible algorithms” [^37] and
they have met to start an encounter about the ethics of artificial
intelligence [^38].  This is a good way to say to politicians and concerned
citizens that that the private sector can “anticipate and administrate” this
complexity with positive results, so there really is no need to legislate.

Nevertheless, the issue is not to demand transparency for the code of the
algorithms, but rather for their aims.  As these are not limited to commercial
communication, it is necessary to deploy the law as a means of coercion [^39].
We can seek comfort in the participatory debate taking place in France about
the “Law of the digital republic” which has led to the obligation of
transparency regarding all algorithms used by the forces of order [^40], or
even INRIA's “TransAlgo” initiative [^41] which aspires to assess the
accountability and transparency of information robots.

## Sovereign Algorithmic Futurutopias

So, how do we pass from an algorithmic beast we must suffer to a pet that we
feed?  Let us compost some earthworms to draw the biotechnological
ramifications that drive men and technology to live in silicon harmony.  How
can we take our destinies back into our own hands, retake our mental autonomy,
our technological sovereignty which today is driven by algorithms in a space
of social control.

Code is a political objective, as in this “numerical” world filled with
algo-bots that invade our realities.  As political objects, we can therefore
attack with the classic weapons: militancy, lobbying and awareness raising
with the political power, attempts to influence and deepen regulatory
processes, and valuing initiatives that contribute to autonomy and happiness
for human kind.  It is equally important to demand a more important rôle for
civil society in the regulation and norms of the Internet, and the adoption of
standards for network technology [^42], taking the equivalent of an article of
a country's constitution as an example.

At an individual level, it is necessary, without a doubt, to “de-googlise” the
Internet [^43].  That means, as the Framasoft association proposes, to support
hosting of autonomous, transparent, open, neutral services based on solidarity
(see, for example, the KITTENS initiative [^44]), or self-hosting [^45] in an
unambitious mini-server.  It is also possible to camouflage oneself using
end-to-end encryption, although this is not always adaptable nor possible to
adopt (PGP and emails); and depending on the situation there may be resources
to create interference, trying to hide the “true” data within fictitious but
credible data, which a friendly algorithm can provide in abundance.

From the point of view of public power, there is work to be done, the road to
ethical transparency is open, they just need to be firmly pushed down it.  Of
course, these days you need a strange haircut and makeup [^46] to escape the
facial recognition systems [^47].  Biometric files and the linking of public
databases and the digital derivatives of the state of emergency, which is now
permanent, invite us to not put all our bytes in one basket.

It is also possible to take part in feeding garbage to these “algo-AI”, just
like the Twitter users who managed to turn Microsoft's AI TAY sexist, racist
and pro-Hitler in less than a day [^48].

We could imagine instead raising little “algo-ponies” that would exclaim, with
a wave of their multi-coloured manes, against a background of green fields of
data, that “friendship is magic!”.

Cheesiness aside, it is perhaps necessary to propose a digital intermediary, a
“proxy” between us, our data and the public and private actors that host them.
This intermediary could comfortably host Eliza [^49], my strictly personal AI
that feeds on my activities and preferences to help me better share data and
content, anonymously, giving them to public bodies as a matter of general
interest, encrypting them or hiding them to escape with my friends who did not
manage to get out of the commercial social networks.  Distributed in
everyone's pocket, personal AIs could become symbiotic, in agreement with
their tutors, to tell micro fictions to humanity in the political and cultural
context, with a view to building harmonious realities where algorithms,
humans, nature and the inorganic world can cohabit peacefully.

[^1] This title refers to the book by Cathy O’Neil: *Weapons of Math
    Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens
    Democracy*. Crown, 2016.

[^2] In this Isaac Asimov futuristic novel, the United States has converted to
    an "electronic democracy" where the computer Multivac selects a single
    person to answer a number of questions.  Multivac will then use the
    answers and other data to determine what the results of an election would
    be, avoiding the need for an actual election to be
    held. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_%28short_story%29

[^3] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestiaire

[^4] Dominique Cardon: *A quoi rêvent les algorithmes. Nos vies à l’heure: Nos
    vies à l’heure des big data*. Le Seuil, 2015.

[^5] Evgeny Morozov and Pascale Haas: *Le mirage numérique: Pour une
    politique du Big Data*. Les Prairies Ordinaires, 2015.

[^6] http://centenaire-shannon.cnrs.fr/chapter/la-theorie-de-information

[^7] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28programme_de_surveillance%29

[^8] Terry Gilliam: Brazil (1985). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088846/

[^9] Cathy O’Neil: *Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases
    Inequality and Threatens Democracy*. Crown, 2016.

[^10] Some days later, he stipulated that the orders should come from the
    keyboard of the terminal and gave Peterfly a week to disconnect from
    IBM.  In this time, Peterffy contracted engineers to build a camera-eye to
    read the screen, and send the information to the IBM brain where
    electromagnetic hands could take the orders and transmit them to the
    terminal via the keyboard.

[^11] Sniper In Mahwah: Anthropology, market structure & the nature of
    exchanges. https://sniperinmahwah.wordpress.com/

[^12] The Flash Crash of 6th May 2010 analysed by Nanex:
    http://www.nanex.net/20100506/FlashCrashAnalysis_Intro.html and
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1xqSZy9_4I

[^13] Laumonier Alexandre: *5/6*. Zones Sensibles Editions, 2014.
    http://www.zonessensibles.org/livres/6-5/

[^14]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/04/23/syrian-hackersclaim-ap-hack-that-tipped-stock-market-by-136-billion-is-it-terrorism/

[^15] This creature is so costly (a single operation requires as much
    electricity as an average American home uses in a day and a half), that it
    is principally based in China and is currently very slow.
    http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bitcoin-is-unsustainable

[^16] https://marmelab.com/blog/2016/04/28/blockchain-for-web-developers-thetheory.html

[^17] Capitalisation and everyday movements of crypto-currencies:
    http://coinmarketcap.com/

[^18] https://www.ethereum.org/

[^19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_%28organization%29

[^20] Primavera De Filippi: “Ethereum: Freenet or Skynet?”. Berkman Center, 2014. https://cyber.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2014/04/difilippi

[^21] http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/30/14128870/foxconn-robots-automation-appleiphone-china-manufacturing

[^22] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/05/16/meet-ross-thenewly-hired-legal-robot/

[^23] Bernard Stiegler: *La Société automatique. L'avenir du travail.* Fayard, 2015.
http://www.philomag.com/les-livres/fiche-de-lecture/la-societe-automatique-1lavenir-du-travail-11454

[^24] https://www.google.com/recaptcha/intro/index.html

[^25] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test

[^26] http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/techflash/2015/01/massachusettswomans-lawsuit-accuses-google-of.html

[^27]
https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-removal-request?complaint_type=rtbf

[^28] A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3834737/

[^29] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularit%C3%A9_technologique

[^30] Antoinette Rouvroy and Thomas Berns: “Gouvernementalité algorithmique et
    perspectives d'émancipation: Le disparate comme condition d'individuation
    par la relation?”. Politics of algorithms.  Web-metrics.  *RESEAUX*, Vol.31,
    n.177, pp. 163-196 (2013). http://works.bepress.com/antoinette_rouvroy/47/

[^31] ifapa.me is a collective dedicated to research and subvert the effects
    of mathematization and quantification of daily life in necrocapitalist
    societies: http://www.ifapa.me/

[^32] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/big-data-may-be-reinforcing-racialbias-in-the-criminal-justice-system/2017/02/10/d63de518-ee3a-11e6-9973c5efb7ccfb0d_story.html?utm_term=.b7f5ab5df1f9

[^33] http://www.genderit.org/feminist-talk/algorithmic-discrimination-andfeminist-politics

[^34] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trois_lois_de_la_robotique

[^35] http://internetactu.blog.lemonde.fr/2017/01/21/peut-on-armer-la-transparencede-linformation/

[^36] Documentary “Le secret des 7 soeurs”:
http://secretdes7soeurs.blogspot.fr/

[^37] http://www.fatml.org/resources/principles-for-accountable-algorithms

[^38] http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2016/09/28/intelligence-artificielleles-geants-du-web-lancent-un-partenariat-sur-l-ethique_5005123_4408996.html

[^39] http://www.internetactu.net/2016/03/16/algorithmes-et-responsabilites/

[^40] https://www.service-public.fr/particuliers/actualites/A11502

[^41] https://www-direction.inria.fr/actualite/actualites-inria/transalgo

[^42] The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF): http://www.ietf.org/

[^43] http://degooglisons-internet.org/

[^44] http://chatons.org/

[^45] http://yunohost.org/

[^46] https://cvdazzle.com/

[^47] http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2016/10/19/inquietudes-autour-de-lareconnaissance-faciale-aux-etats-unis_5016364_4408996.html

[^48] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/24/tay-microsofts-ai-chatbotgets-a-crash-course-in-racism-from-twitter

[^49] http://elizagen.org