 Thanks for staying so long. This is sort of a nerd political action talk. What I would like to leave you with is two pieces of jargon that if you get it and you like it, you can help spread it. The first piece of jargon is the carried network demarc. And my purpose is to suggest what that is. And the second piece of jargon is the microcomputome. And they'll both come together and hopefully it won't take even 15 minutes to present it both. These ideas started in the response to Steen's Bink workshop that he held in the Netherlands last October or something like that. That he challenged all of us, he challenged me to think how do these things apply in the larger context of the coming industrial, post industrial society. And the issue I want to start with is reframing of an issue of a concept that we take too glibly, too easily in my mind. It's a little bit dated. It's the idea of cyberspace. I want to say cyberspace is the wrong way to think about our relationship with machines and in fact it is hurting us if we think about it that way and we need to reframe it. Then number two, the idea of the carried network demarc itself and then finally the connection to artificial life, this idea of the microcomputome. Okay. Where is cyberspace? This is my problem. Cyberspace was coined by a science fiction writer and then adopted by lots of folks and it was valuable in its time because it suggested there was more than one thing you could do with a computer. You could go here and you could go there as opposed to just talking to a computer and that was good in the 80s or 90s. But now cyberspace is nowhere. The computational world is everywhere. Google Maps knows where we are if we get in a rocket and go to Mars. Google Maps is going to come with us. That's the reason that cyberspace is a bad framing of the problem because it suggests there's a separation between computational space and where we are and that is not true. It hasn't been true for ages and now it's becoming radically untrue. The reality is that computational space is just ordinary physical space. It's where we are and where we are living today is in the rise of computational space. The amount of live nonlinear decision making elements in all of the space around us is beginning to explode. It used to be if you couldn't see someone and they couldn't see you, you were the only computation really happening at that level of description no longer. Okay. If we are embedded in computational space, then the fundamental question of where do we end and the rest of computational space begin cannot be finessed much longer. The philosophers think about this in terms of the extended mind. The legal system is thinking about this. Here's a recent paper. If you damage a prosthetic, is it property damage or personal injury? If it's property damage, you can only recover the cost of the prosthetic. If it's personal injury, you can recover for the loss of function of that item. In this article, he goes back to the Colorado Supreme Court holding that a guy could only recover for the cost of his wooden leg when it got damaged in his job. But over the years, the legal system has been moving incrementally more and more towards considering things like mobile wheelchairs, artificial assistive devices as being personal injuries when they are destroyed by the airplane companies or whatever it happens to be. And this drives home the point. And he ends in a sort of tongue in cheek way to keep up with the problems of the legal system. We may need time traveling sideworks in the future, or we may have to merge with our own machines and join the cyborg revolution. No, yes, that's exactly what's going to happen. That's exactly what we're going to do. And that's what the microcomputome is going to be. It's going to be this cloud of machinery that is going to support and surround us physically close to us. That will interface with the world around us, will protect us against the world around us, will alert us, will deflect the incoming advertisements, and so forth. And what I'm suggesting, the reason this is a political talk is that that, as far as I can tell, will not happen unless we make it happen. Okay. All right. So before I was in academia, I worked in research for the phone company. And there was this very nice idea, the idea of the demarcation point. And that in wireline telephony is the point at which the public tele, the public telephone network met up with your internal telephone network. The wiring inside your house joined with the common network outside at the demarcation point. And originally it was just two pairs of terminals, one wire coming up from the pole, another wire going out into your house. And that was the demarc. Why did it matter? It mattered because of these wires broke, the telephone company had to pay for it. And if these wires broke, you had to pay the telephone company to fix it. It also provides a very natural choke point to divide what counts as me and what counts as world. Okay. So the picture was, and so the demarcation point also known as demarc. Here's my cartoon of what it looked like. We've got a family to little happy kids. They're inside. They've got the telephone lines outside and they've got the demarc being a choke point between the blissful happiness going on, protected within the house, and the horrible stuff that the internet is dragging in, whoops, from behind. This picture is no longer true. This picture hasn't been true for a long time. And this next slide was part of the reason why. So what if you have a clean distinction between your wire line and the inside of your house? Now, there are so many other ways that information moves through physical space. And surveillance cameras are just the poster child for all of that other ways that information moves. Millions, hundreds of millions installed. Most of them are still analog cameras, but increasingly they're digital cameras, they're network cameras. Today, most of these things go into finite time loops, where they're going to drop out after 24 hours or two weeks. But increasingly, there are computing elements behind those things. They're doing facial recognition, gate recognition, doing terrorist spotting, you name it, what it is. As the density of computation in computational space increases, the world presses in upon us. And this is why we need the ability to press back out, to have machines that are beholden to us and not to anybody else. And it only looks to get worse. The internet of things that we're supposed to get excited about, man, the NSA is excited about. That's everywhere. That's in your fridge. That's in your kidney. It's going to be terrible if we don't make it better. That's deputy director of the NSA. Okay, so in addition, we have all of these new sorts of information gathering sensors looking in at us. We also have these new mechanisms that we're looking out in the world, which of course led to the sort of predictable reaction going back and then the reaction to the reaction, and so forth. I've marked this as the new millennium, but in fact, it goes back quite a bit further than that. This scary picture is Steve Mann, who's been wearing homemade equivalence to Google Glass for 25 years, long before this was a gleam in anybody's eye. And he's written quite a bit about it. He's thought a lot about the issues. And one of the key ideas that he brings to the table is the idea of surveillance, surveillance, seeing from above, surveillance, seeing from below. And if we have this sort of individual computational machinery beholden to me, looking out into the world, backing up to offsite space that I control, that gives us power. That gives us the ability to force accountability onto the world around us in a way that we haven't had beyond just saying, it's my word, I swear, that's what happened. So this is closer to reality. Now, the wire line is still there, the network interface device is still there, and it's completely pointless, because there are so many ways that information is moving through so many different electromagnetic regions of the spectrum. And soon there will be DNA sniffers in every doorway to see us going through. This is the challenge. So how do we respond to this? We respond to this with the carried network demarc. It is a political statement saying that the machinery that you routinely carry with you should be considered part of your body for purposes of law, social norms and sanctity for purposes of non interrupting it non disputing it. Okay, this is what Steve Mann has been saying for 25 years. He's had several situations where people got quite mad at him because he was had this camera and he might have been recording them. He was the original glass hole. But honestly, I think that's mostly due to the fact that it was so new, so weird, and it was just extremely rich, pretty people that had that. And once we get to the point where everybody's got them, well, then it's just a different world. So the network machinery, your cell phone, your case maker, your God forbid Apple watch, whatever it may be that you routinely carry with you should be considered part of your body. The hashtag our bodies, our machines. Okay, you might say, Well, that's silly. But the important point is, you can't not choose. Even if you don't want to think about this, you are making some kind of choice about what's in and what's out. And so here's a bunch of alternatives, you might say, no manufactured object can be can be human to be part of my body, in which case, you know, too bad for the guy with a pacemaker to too bad with the guy with a screw in his leg, or you might take a more liberal interpretation saying anything that's actually inside my body counts. So I have to swallow my cell phone when the cop shows up in order to get it to be protected. I suggest the carry network to mark is a better principle. Or you could say everything I own is my protected body. You cannot touch my vacation home. You cannot touch my scratch racket that maybe I own. And I think that's too general. Carry network to mark is an attempt to find a compromise. What you routinely carry with you is you. Okay. So how does this relate to artificial life? I've been using something like a cell phone as a poster child for the kind of machinery that would be inside your personal body space. But in fact, my God, if you trust your cell phone, you deserve what you got. The way we're building hardware that we're building computing machinery today is pitiful. It is not merely insecure. It's unsecurable by design. The von Neumann machine, the whole idea of determinism is fundamentally unsecurable. It's not because programmers write bugs. It's because the architecture is broken. And there are alternate ways. These ideas of robust first computing, which is mainly what I'm about. And it was Steve's fault that pushed me into becoming this political beast for purposes of this idea. When we build artificial living machinery, that's what we're going to populate our microcomputone with. The whole idea of authenticating with a password. Passwords are for strangers passwords are for knocking on the speakeasy door and saying swordfish. Passwords are not for authenticating to your own machinery. That's point. Now, how would that happen? That would happen in the microcomputone. This is a time cover that came out when the Apple Watch was just announced. The title isn't quite right for me. The important point is the company Tom is never away from you. You never have to authenticate to it because it's always there. Okay, and I'm at a time. So what does it mean for us to practice? Number one, we need to make room for hardware manufacturers to be indemnified. As Apple did with the San Bernardino iPhone case to say no, I am building machinery that's beholden to the owner. And it is no more admissible to be cracked by you than it would be to waterboard the owner to try to get the information out of this hat. And as we go forward, viewing computers, computer equipment is prosthetics or medical devices and so forth. And then the challenging idea is in the San Bernardino case, lawyers were suggesting perhaps we could avoid the problem by saying that your phone is protected against unreasonable search and seizure. I say your phone is protected against self incrimination. It's part of you. How can we all contribute? Number one, all you have to do is want it. Thank you for listening.