Smart objects, dumb ideas: your hyperconnected future (Pew/Elon 2016)

crestron-control-panel

We’re all going to hell in an IP-enabled handbasket.

The bland-looking control panel depicted above is the heart of a smart home – automated up the wazoo, so your fingers can play master of the universe with the lighting, audio system, appliances, heating and cooling, sprinklers, pool, spa, garage door – and your alleged security system.

Alleged because smart homes, cars and all the other items you’ll be connecting to the public automated-cat_feederInternet will offer unprecedented opportunites for hackers to infiltrate your life. Most personal devices like computers are already insecure enough. But so-called “smart” devices will be far more difficult for consumers to organize, update and secure than the familiar devices we can see and hold. (If you think any object in our lives will be spared, check out the automated cat feeder adjacent, courtesy Wikipedia.) Continue reading

Why algorithms are bad for you (Pew/Elon 2016)

al-khwarizmi

Statue of al-Khwārizmī, the 9th-century mathematician whose name gave us “algorithm”

~~~

I’ve written a lot about the Pew Research Center. Pew does a great deal of invaluable survey research on the behaviors and attitudes we develop online (okay, “we” means American here). In a departure from the science of probability surveys, Pew teamed up with researchers at Elon University back in 2004 to launch their Imagining the Internet project.

future-pew-elon

About every two years, the team prepares a set of questions that’s sent to a list of stakeholders and experts around the world. The questions reflect current hot-button items – but ask the participants to imagine how online trends will look a decade from now. The topics have ranged from broad social concerns like privacy and hyperconnectivity, to more technology-oriented questions like cloud computing and Big Data.

The 7th version of the survey was fielded this summer; it’s my 4th shot at predicting what life will be like in 2025. (For a look at what the survey tackled in 2014, see my posts starting with one on security, liberty and privacy.) Continue reading

Et tu, Reed? Big media’s war on privacy (3)

hastings-privacy-2

Netflix CEO Reed Hastings tells investors what he thinks of privacy advocates

~~~

Back in March I wrote two posts to express my surprise and frustration that Netflix would no longer let its customers gain entry through a VPN or virtual private network. Turns out the problem hasn’t gone away. Also turns out Reed Hastings is still every bit as dismissive of our privacy concerns – and our customer experience – as he was in January.

A lot of the recent coverage of the Netflix vs privacy phenomenon was prompted by my colleagues at OpenMedia, and in particular Laura Tribe, who acts as the advocacy group’s digital rights lead. When I spoke to her this morning, she pointed to the large number of media outlets that have covered the OpenMedia campaign against the Netflix VPN blockade (OpenMedia pays me from time to time as a policy consultant).

In an email letter to supporters last Friday, Laura and her team laid out the case, opening thusly:

Is protecting your privacy and security “inconsequential?” That’s what Netflix CEO Reed Hastings seems to think, based on recent comments reported in WIRED magazine.

It’s time to remind Netflix that privacy and security matter to us. Yesterday your open letter made international headlines.

If you want to throw your name in the ring, the OpenMedia campaign page for Netflix is here. Continue reading

Why is Reed Hastings bent on killing my privacy? (2)

ntflx-lulzsec-1

~~~

Hollywood vs the Boston Strangler

jack_valenti_4The Kings of Content have always shown an intense and belligerent dislike for new technologies, regardless of their promise or popularity. History is littered with the embarrassing results. Take Jack Valenti.

For over 35 years, Valenti was head of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). In 1982, the studios were in court trying to prevent Sony from shipping a single VCR to the US because of the alleged threat of piracy. Here’s how Valenti famously described the dangers of the VCR to a Congressional committee:

“I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone.”

Continue reading

Why is Reed Hastings bent on killing my privacy?

netflix-vpn-error-collage

“I don’t think we will see any impact.” — Reed Hastings, January 19

“The VPN crackdown is meeting fierce resistance from privacy activists and concerned users, with tens of thousands calling upon the streaming service to reverse its broad VPN ban.”Torrent Freak, Feb 26

~~~

Since Netflix came to Canada in September 2010, I’ve written 51 posts carrying the Netflix tag. I’ve sung the praises of Reed Hastings; objected to the anti-Netflix manipulation of data caps by our incumbents; defended Netflix’s right to operate in Canada over the self-serving protests of our media establishment; and sympathized with Netflix for the archaic treatment meted out to streaming services by the CRTC.

Netflix-6.0-for-iOS-app-icon-smallThe longest pair of posts I’ve ever written (about 6,000 words) was on the attempt by the CRTC and selected media barons to make life as difficult as possible in Canada for Netflix. That was 2011: Get yer grimy paws off my Netflix: Ottawa’s big OTT scam (part 1, June 16; and part 2, June 18).

There was a single exception. I fell off the wagon when Netflix linked arms with Facebook and produced one of the worst privacy policies I’ve ever read: Netflix showing way too much love – for your Facebook data (Oct 2011).

Which brings us to the much bigger privacy problem Netflix has created for itself. Continue reading

Rebooting basic services: hope for policy reform? (2)

turcke-crt-1

New ideas for policy reform from Bell

~~~

Update on other reactions to Turcke/Bell (1:10pm): Pete Nowak has his own biting critique in yesterday’s post – If VPN use is theft, then Bell’s CraveTV is extortion. And over at OpenMedia.ca, Josh Tabish has stirred up some really unfriendly reactions on Facebook about the whole fiasco – 181 315 and counting. (When I showed the FP article to my teenage daughter, her eye-rolling reaction was, OMG, as if using a VPN is hacking.)

As I suggested in my last post, some of the conclusions reached at the Rebooting conference will be echoed in the current CRTC proceeding on basic service objectivesDespite all the compelling reasons for reform, however, numerous barriers stand in the way. Some of those discussed at the conference will certainly play a continuing role in the broadband proceeding…

1 – No political will or vision. Short of improbable legislative change, we need something the Harper government is incapable of formulating: a national digital strategy. The CRTC suggested the need for a national strategy six years ago in its new media decision (2009-329, para 78). What we got from the Tories instead was a lousy marketing brochure. Even the opposition parties seem to regard our broadband future as unworthy of serious attention. Continue reading

CRTC’s code of conduct for TV providers: too little, too late?

coax-1

The CRTC is moving ahead with its Code of Conduct for TV service providers (TVSPs). The Code was initially announced on March 26, as a by-product of the Let’s Talk TV proceeding (Broadcasting Notice of Consultation CRTC 2015-105). Now, in its best populist spirit, the Commission is asking for public comment on its TV Code:

“Canadians sent us a strong message that they were encountering problems with their television service providers. The CRTC is acting on these comments and has prepared a draft version of a TV Code that reflects what Canadians told us. I invite them to take an active part in the discussions. Now is the time to shape your TV Code.”–CRTC Chair JP Blais, May 12, 2015 (emphasis original)

Less consulting, more research

The Commission may have the substance right, but it has the timing and execution all wrong. The idea that TVSPs provide lousy service isn’t exactly new. Much of the evidence has been anecdotal. A public consultation, however, will not make up for that shortcoming. Worse still, the idea of holding this public consultation arose from the earlier public consultation that was part of Let’s Talk TV. They’re breeding. Continue reading

Cancon redux: Canada’s TV “system” battles the Internet

netflix-browser-jan2015

~~~

“Somebody called me a protectionist this week. I’ve been called far worse, but the term rankled because I had not argued that Canadian television should be protected from foreign competition.”

Kate Taylor, Jan 18: A contemporary argument for Canadian content

~~~

The ball’s in somebody’s court and needs to be lobbed back.

Let’s start with who or what is protectionist. The only such reference I made was to  the policy regime we’ve had in Canada since the 1970s:

“Bell and Rogers (plus Shaw and QMI) have made fabulous amounts of money thanks to the vast protectionist apparatus they’ve enjoyed for decades.”

While life may be tougher now, it would be hard to argue that our broadcasters aren’t still benefitting from protectionism: foreign ownership restrictions, simultaneous substitution and restriction of US satellite signals to the approved list are three current examples. Simsub is also a good example of a policy designed to help our TV business rather than TV viewers, who hate it – as in, where are the Super Bowl ads? Continue reading