In the previous post, we discussed ways to mitigate the potential harms of digital life. In my responses to the Pew/Elon survey questions, I took two unvarnished truths for granted.
First, unless you’re shilling for Google or Facebook, the harms stemming from digital life are no longer “potential.” Second, we’ve barely begun to think seriously about mitigating any of the harms. That’s especially the case at the personal level: behavioral addiction is up there with cyber-terrorism when it comes to a long-term fix.
Below are some ideas mooted recently for stemming the towering tidal wave of compulsive and anti-social behaviors sweeping our society — what you might call the Smartphone Crisis.
I recently interviewed an undergrad from the University of Toronto who grew up in London but was educated in the French lycée system. She says phones were nowhere to be seen in any of her classes — part of the strict French approach to education.
So it was a little surprising to read that the French Minister of Education himself decreed recently that he’s banning phones from all primary and secondary school classrooms. That’s especially surprising since France passed such a law — seven years ago. As one high-ranking teachers’ union official put it, presumably speaking of their recalcitrant students, “It is extremely difficult to get respect.”
Part of the problem may be of the minister’s own making. He seems to be carving out exceptions before he even starts: “You may need a mobile phone, for example, for educational purposes, for emergency situations…” Oops. As soon as you allow that phones have any legitimate purpose in the classroom then students, vendors and campus admins will all find ingenious wedges to beat the system. Among the biggest opponents to a ban are parents worried about being out of touch with their kids for a few hours. Continue reading →
First we learned from WikiLeaks that the CIA has an arsenal of code designed to break into the world’s phones, cars and TVs, not to mention old-fashioned computers. Then the US authorities announced indictments in the largest hacking case on record: the breach of half a billion Yahoo accounts in 2014. Two of the men charged are Russian spies.
The Kremlin is becoming particularly adept at blending high espionage and lowdown criminal pursuits like the online theft of other people’s data. The king of that particular castle is Evgeniy Bogachev, the guy opposite with his Bengal cat and matching pyjamas. They say he’s extremely wealthy, and once had upwards of half a million computers under his command. He’s also a criminal standout for having a $3 million FBI bounty on his close cropped head. Back home in his redoubt on the Black Sea, however, Bogachev is a popular asset among intelligence operatives. Continue reading →
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 Internet 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 →
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.
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 →
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 →
The 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.”
“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.
The 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).
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 objectives. Despite 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 →