[-empyre-] Search, privacy, data - the abuse of encapsulation

[Rob Jackson]

Hey all,

Thanks for the comments Gabriel.

> <<<<I wonder if here we could trace connections between the logic of
> encapsulation and the broader one of abstraction, which is inevitable
> for dealing with computational complexity (and complexity in general).
> Taking this into account, could the issue be not only technical or
> political, but also epistemological?
> 
> Is there any way of circumventing the forced removal of complexity of
> a system if this removal is what makes it understandable (operational,
> engageable) as the system in the first place?
> 
> Is it practical for the users to take control of abstractions
> themselves (e.g. choosing what and how to encapsulate)? Or does it
> suffice to build up awareness about them?>>> [GABRIEL]


I should have mentioned the other three properties of OOP alongside encapsulation. As Gabriel states there is abstraction, which is indeed quite broad, but also inheritance and polymorphism. OOP in essence is simply constructing new forms of methods and algorithms from old parts, like a dumping field and then making those parts discrete to aid a stable system.

Abstraction is highly accountable too in it's own way. It is the programmatic representation of an object (say a data set which can be recalled in SQL of a list of employees, only certain features of the employees are recorded to modify in the system) in so far as only a certain modification of the instantiated object actually exists. This definitely brings up epistemological issues in terms of how human intelligence takes representational advantages of certain features, while excluding others in some Heideggerian way I suppose. There is a political issue in terms of how companies and users who use systems to abstract certain features worth knowing about, are always relying on those abstractions from day one. There are technical issues as well as issues concerning knowledge.

But its worth pointing out with encapsulation one other important detail that does not concern human influence (at least not always). OOP encapsulation is constructed so that the content of the software object is not only hidden from human users, but also from other software objects too. The entire thing is discrete, and so other parts of the system can also be hidden from others within the same system. If one wishes to enact political action engineering surprises within systems (which I would wholeheartedly endorse) one could approach a OOP methodology this way. What surprises are lurking in between technical systems, rather than just relationships between human communicative culture and a computer?

Taking control means understanding at arms length, because the computer does the actual work. The bits are the bits. "Understanding" in some ways is always already a computational act in the form of an abstraction, trying to compress phenomena down to a few stable ideas.

> What role does the removal of complexity of the system at hand plays
> in its alienation from circuits of
> productions-distribution-consumption – all the while inscribing it in
> its own history of programmed obsolescence (an older iPhone being
> always shittier than a newer one)?

Obsolescence is quite a hot topic at the moment, especially for media archaeologists (or anarchaeologists) and those interested in creative uses of old technology. It's odd, because the founding gesture of discovering computation is one of a general purpose in universal terms. A computer is a fixed system which can be programmed to simulate any corresponding machine. This is a separate topic though which is beyond a simple commentary.

The point I'd like to finish with though (and it links into Tero's previous reply) is that there is a big big difference between heavily encapsulated programs or software and heavily encapsulated programs or software that tell you its the right way of doing things, via its encapsulation. Apple's products are exemplars which do just that IMO. This isn't a new thing either, Apple have been preaching their 'correct' way using technologies since the Macintosh; Here's the right way to print this, here's the right way of sharing things on Facebook. Everything is so clean, so fresh and useable. The design ethos is a religion. 

Jobs was explicit, and unabashedly fascist about this, "We know the best way of doing this, that's why you buy our products - be honest." This is why humans are so sanguine, unfortunately iPhones do work really well, because the infrastructure of the recreational and working world require it to. This requires more than an active interest when the veil slips from time to time. 

Remember the Apple motto from the late Steve Jobs? "It just works!"
We should all be more interested in the motto Apple usually neglects to say, i.e they never say "Here's how it works."


best 
Rob


On 29 Feb 2012, at 14:34, Gabriel Menotti wrote:

> And finally, trying to stretch “encapsulation” in different directions:
> 
>> Whilst others disagree, I am of the opinion that
>> computing is an independent real process: it is
>> not the logic of encapsulation which is the issue,
>> but its proprietary use and abuse which should
>> worry the masses. [ROBERT JACKSON]
> 
> I wonder if here we could trace connections between the logic of
> encapsulation and the broader one of abstraction, which is inevitable
> for dealing with computational complexity (and complexity in general).
> Taking this into account, could the issue be not only technical or
> political, but also epistemological?
> 
> Is there any way of circumventing the forced removal of complexity of
> a system if this removal is what makes it understandable (operational,
> engageable) as the system in the first place?
> 
> Is it practical for the users to take control of abstractions
> themselves (e.g. choosing what and how to encapsulate)? Or does it
> suffice to build up awareness about them?
> 
> 
>> The problem with iPhones is that they
>> aren't shitty enough. Again, this is linked to
>> the logic of encapsulation, and the ability to
>> save us time, as per the Western infrastructure
>> of career enforcement and obsession with
>> social attention 'sharing'. [RJ]
> 
> Considering the culture of gadgets, could we also relate encapsulation
> to degrees of technical concretization?
> 
> What role does the removal of complexity of the system at hand plays
> in its alienation from circuits of
> productions-distribution-consumption – all the while inscribing it in
> its own history of programmed obsolescence (an older iPhone being
> always shittier than a newer one)?
> 
> Best!
> Menotti
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au/pipermail/empyre/attachments/20120229/c20bfe57/attachment.htm>