Using Floridi’s “HyperHistory and the philosophy of information policies”, as well as Verbeek’s section from the Onlife Manifesto, “Designing the Public Sphere” as a backdrop, how should markets, businesses, groups, and individuals be regulated or limited differently in the face of diminishing state power (information asymmetry) and the intelligification (Verbeek, p217) and networking of the material world?

In today’s society, technology is expanding at an exponential rate as we become more reliant on computers. The computers are everywhere; they include our desktops, laptops, tablets and our smart phones. They also run a lot of things we use every day from our cars to our robot vacuum cleaners. I don’t think that becoming reliant on technology is necessarily a bad thing; however, it does make us more vulnerable to getting hacked. More importantly, will our dependence on technology put at greater risk of physical danger. We have computers that do everything from flying planes, running the subway system and operating cars. We even use computers to vacuum our floors. Soon, cars will be able to drive on the roads without direct human interaction. Computers are now used in advance human limb replacement. What if these computers were susceptible to getting hacked? If a hacker had bad intentions or a disregard for human life, they could put a person’s life in danger. What if someone figured out how to hack into an airplane’s cockpit; all those people are now vulnerable, because they cannot do anything about it. Maybe this is not even possible, but if at any point, someone outside of these systems had a way in, than it is possible for a hacker to get in. Whether we are there or not, we are reliant on technology for more than just physical interactions; we are often reliant on technology for our information and many people are not able to validate the information that is coming at us faster than ever. This means people can use technology to manipulate how other think, which may be the more dangerous problem right now.