Zero Geography reports on a real-time game using GPS devices which has – for our purposes, interesting applications for coordinating SAR or other response efforts. From Zero Geography: GPS Real-World Gaming in Hybrid Space.

A real-time, multiplayer, GPS game for mobiles is being played out in the real-world. The game, played by groups of four or five people, uses a one kilometer radius around any point on Earth to delineate spatial extents in which three or four chasers try to capture one runner. Each one of the players is tracked via a GPS phone and their coordinates are mashed onto a map that they can all see. The only twist that that the runner is always allowed to view the map, whilst the chasers only have access to the map every six minutes. The game is a fascinating way to roll elements of the physical and virtual together into an adrenaline-pumped experience.

Zero Geography is a brilliant blog about matters geographic by a person, persons, or entity named Mark Graham, who is otherwise reticent about identity or contact information. Check it out.

Monica Hesse at the Washington Post reports that a team from MIT has won a DARPA prize for solving a distributed problem with a team/network that was partly ad hoc. TheDARPA Network Challengerequired teams to locate 10 weather balloons located around the country. From Hesse’s article, “Spy vs. spy on Facebook:”

In DARPA’s Network Challenge, tied to the 40-year anniversary of the Internet, the Department of Defense’s research arm placed 10 weather balloons in public places around the country. The first team to locate and submit the balloons’ correct geographic coordinates would get the cash prize. Ready, set, Twitter!

More than 4,000 teams participated. More than a few interesting things were revealed about the human psyche.

“It’s a huge game-theory simulation,” says Norman Whitaker of DARPA’s Transformational Convergence Technology Office. The only way to win the hunt was to find the location of every balloon, but a savvy participant would withhold his sighting until he’d amassed the other nine locations, or disseminated false information to throw others off the trail.

The winning team was spearheaded by Riley Crane, a postdoctoral research fellow at MIT’s Media Lab. MIT’s team set up an elaborate information-gathering pyramid. Each balloon was allotted $4,000. The first person to spot one would be awarded $2,000, while the people who referred them to the team would get smaller amounts based on where they fell on the info chain. Any leftover money, after payment to spotters and their friends, will be donated to charity.

Crane says that the team’s decision to spread the wealth was instrumental to its success, as it gave people an incentive to share good information, and a feeling of investment in the process. He was less interested in the monetary prize than in the potential for social research.

More articles by Monica Hesse here.

See also

our earlier post, “How to Break Networks”

NB: It’s not clear how the Washington Post is archiving this article – it bears the html alternate title  MIT wins Defense Department balloon hunt, a test of social networking savvy. A minor example of the difficulties that come with technological change.

Excerpted from “Social Networks ,” by Nicholas Christakis on The Situationist Blog, which is a blog maintained by The Project on Law and Mind Sciences at Harvard Law School

. The excerpt is long, but well worth reading. Let me first posit this question – why do some communities develop disaster-resilient networks and organizations – and others not?

In social networks, there is an interdigitation between the higher order structure and the lower order structure, which is remarkable, and which has been animating our research for the last five or ten years. I started by studying very simple dyadic networks. A pair of individuals is the simplest type of network one can imagine. And I became curious about networks and network effects in my capacity as a doctor who takes care of people who are terminally ill.

* * *

For example, one day I met with a pretty typical scenario: a woman who was dying and her daughter who was caring for her. The mother had been sick for quite a while and she had dementia. The daughter was exhausted from years of caring for her, and in the course of caring, she became so exhausted that her husband also became sick from his wife’s preoccupation with her mother. One day I got a call from the husband’s best friend, with his permission, to ask me about him. So here we have the following cascade: parent to daughter, daughter to husband, and husband to friend. That is four people — a cascade of effects through the network. And I became sort of obsessed with the notion that these little dyads of people could agglomerate to form larger structures.

Nowadays, most people have these very distinct visual images of networks because in the last ten years they have become almost a part of pop culture. But social networks were studied in this kind of way beginning in the 1950s . . . . But all these were still very small-scale networks; networks of three people or 30 people — that kind of ballpark. But we are of course connected to each other through vastly larger, more complex, more beautiful networks of people. Networks of thousands of individuals, in fact. These networks are in a way living, breathing entities that reproduce, and that have a kind of memory. Things flow through them and they have a purpose and can achieve different things from what their constituent individuals can. And they are very difficult to understand.

This is how I began to think about social networks about seven years ago. At the time when I was thinking about this, I moved from the University of Chicago to Harvard, and was introduced to my colleague James Fowler, another social scientist, who was also beginning to think about different kinds of network problems from the perspective of political science. He was interested in problems of collective action – how groups of people are organized, how the action of one individual can influence the actions of other individuals. He was also interested in basic problems like altruism. Why would I be altruistic toward somebody else? What purpose does altruism serve? In fact, I think that altruism is a key predicate to the formation of social networks because it serves to stabilize social ties. If I were constantly violent towards other people, or never reciprocated anything good, the network would disintegrate, all the ties would be cut. Some level of altruism is required for networks to emerge.

So we can begin to think about combining a broad variety of ideas. Some stretch back to Plato, and thinking about well-ordered societies, the origins of good and evil, how people form collectives, how a state might be organized. In fact, we can begin to revisit ideas engaged by Rousseau and other philosophers on man in a state of nature. How can we transcend anarchy? Anarchy can be conceived of as a kind of social network phenomenon, and society and social order can also be conceived of as a social network phenomenon.

And what happens when we set out to deliberately create networks, rather than merely letting them develop?

For a useful model of how to organize a network in your neighborhood, check out 3 Steps.

Just read a remarkable piece on Network Weaving about hub-and-spoke networks. From Connected Customers:

[The author, Valdis Krebs, had discussed attending a professional conference at a hotel]. The only negative with the event was the conference hotel’s awful WiFi service — and their response to it.

Hotels are used to dealing with disconnected customers — hotel guests who do not know each other. They can tell these guests anything. Since most guests do not talk to each other, nothing is verified, no action is coordinated.  In terms of social network analysis: the hotel staff spans structural holes between the guests — occupying the power position in the network. Below is a network map of the situation. The centralized hotel staff are shown by the blue node in the middle, while hotel guests are represented by the green nodes. The green nodes only talk to the blue node and not to each other.

When INSNA arrived, the hotel guests were no longer disconnected — many people in INSNA know each other and after initial greetings started to talk.

The conversation soon went to the lack of connectivity in the hotel — no one could get a connection out of the hotel to the internet. Not only did everyone discover they were having the same bad experience, but they discovered they were receiving the same lie from the hotel staff — “everything is fine, no one else is complaining”. Being lied to made “being disconnected” all the more infuriating.

Soon “emergent clusters” of INSNA members went to the front desk as small groups and started demanding better service — after all we were being charged for WiFi. The front desk manager became overwhelmed by the coordinated action and soon went into hiding and refused to talk about the topic. A network illustration of the connected INSNA hotel guests looks different. Because the green nodes are talking to each other and coordinating a strategy, the big blue node is now more constrained in it’s response, and ability to act.

There are lots of differences between these two structures: the latter structure looks more like Paul Baran’s description of a resilient network: redundant, decentralized. The first structure is entirely vulnerable to attack of the central node – and, under the circumstances Krebs describes, was incapable both of self-diagnosis and self-repair.

My apologies for not having the Paul Baran citations at hand – perhaps I’ll get an update in later – but for the nonce, am happy to send interested readers to Network Weaving; the proprietors also run OrgNet

, and make InFlow network analysis software.

I wonder, if we did a network analysis of survivors of, say Katrina, what connectedness characteristics matter.

Additional resources and ideas about the use of blogs during disasters:

Rex Hammock puts it very concisely in this post, “Hyper-Local Blogging:

In times of local crisis, the importance of having an active blogging community becomes very apparent. There are so many people outside an area who are desperately seeking information — any information — from the ground, so even if power and web-access is out in a city, the information being shared is much needed. (One of the reasons I blog hurricanes is that all of my family (including inlaws) live within one-mile of the Florida or Alabama gulf coasts.) In addition to the standard “meet-ups” that are popular among bloggers here in Nashville and other cities, I suggest that some emergency preparation might be a good thing for bloggers to discuss before the need arises. I’d be happy to point to any examples or list of emergency-blog planning suggestions that exist. Feel free to e-mail me some, or add to the comments below. And I’d be happy to assist in helping Nashville bloggers organize for such an effort.

Josh Hallett makes the case that public information officers should familiarize themselves with local bloggers and make use of them during emergencies. (Hallett was, I think, thinking about government PIO’s – but since so much of the private sector can be involved in crises, private organizations big enough to have a public information function, in my view, can take similar advantage of the blogosphere). From PIOs – Add Bloggers to your Media Distribution List for Disasters & Emergencies

My wife was the public information officer (PIO) for our local county for a number of years. During hurricanes or other emergency situations (remember Y2K) she would spend countless hours at the emergency operations center doing media updates.Like Rex, I feel it’s important for PIOs to be connected with their local blogging community. When a PIO sends out an update to the media they should include local bloggers. The best case scenario would be for the county/local agency to have a blog/rss feed of such content.

I was asked by one power company spokesperson, “if you don’t have power how can you blog or read a blog?” Easy. During Charley last year I:

- used my Blackberry to browse the internet and post (like Kaye is). One of the benefits of my Blackberry last year was that it’s GSM based rather than TDMA or CDMA. Nobody else in the area could get calls out, but I always could.

- Even with no power I was able to login via dial-up on my laptop and browse the web as long as my battery lasted. Worse case scenario I could start the car up and charge the battery via the cigarette adapter.

There are other issues as well. My neighbors knew I was getting updates online so I became the local news source. Getting a message to me helped inform 20-30 people. The other factor is relatives and friends not in the disaster area. I might not be able to view a power company web site but I can call somebody who can.

Now the question to all the local PIOs….can you list the prominent bloggers in your area?

Calvert Jones and Sarai Mitnick’s

article, Open Source Disaster Recovery: Case Studies of Networked Collaboration, is excellent, detailed, and thoughtful. Published on (in?) First Monday. Jones and Mitnick are very clear-eyed about the pitfalls and limitations of ad hoc networks – what NPS has referred to as “Hastily Formed Networks.

“