Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×
Privacy EU

Internet of Things Demands New Social Contract To Protect Privacy 95 95

chicksdaddy writes "Changes brought about by the Internet of Things demands the creation of a whole new social contract to enshrine the right to privacy and prevent the creation of technology-fueled Orwellian surveillance states in which individual privacy protections take a back seat to security and 'control.' That, according to an opinion piece penned by the head of the European Commission's Knowledge Sharing Unit. Gérald Santucci argues that technology advances, including the advent of wearable technology and the combination of inexpensive, remote sensors and Big Data analytics threaten to undermine long-held notions like personal privacy and the rights of individuals."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Internet of Things Demands New Social Contract To Protect Privacy

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 20, 2013 @12:39AM (#44899509)

    I reserve the right to disable the network connection and recording capabilities of any device in a public space with sensors capable of detecting or inferring my presence.

  • by Zontar The Mindless (9002) <plasticfish.info ... m ['l.c' in gap]> on Friday September 20, 2013 @12:41AM (#44899515)

    To which the only sane response is, "Good luck with that, Ace".

  • by stenvar (2789879) on Friday September 20, 2013 @12:54AM (#44899553)

    Gérald Santucci – “We need new thinking and new concepts”“ ... What is at stake is the capability of the EU to integrate modern, adequate legal data protection into its socio-technical fabric, i.e. its hardware, software and the many associated protocols and standards that enable and constrain its affordances.”

    Maybe "we" need more than platitudes. Maybe "we" need an original thought instead of bloated, vomit-inducing bureaucrat speak.

    But "we" definitely need to find a new hair stylist, Mr. Santucci.

  • by Animats (122034) on Friday September 20, 2013 @01:22AM (#44899631) Homepage

    We need to be much less tolerant of things that "phone home" to some headquarters. Or accept remote patches. We now have to assume that anything with a remote patch capability can be exploited.

    You might think open source would be better. It's not. Even the Mozilla Foundation has become squishy-soft on enforcing their own privacy rules. Check out BlockSite [mozilla.org], a Firefox add-on which used to just block requested sites. It was bought up by a company called WIPS, which buys up abandoned apps and puts in back-door tracking of every site visited. After a year of pressure from WIPS, Jorge Villalobos at Mozilla caved in and let them install tracking in an existing add-on and auto update it.

    For Linux, Ubuntu pushes an awful lot of updates to supposedly "stable" versions. Is there a back door in there? Is anybody looking?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 20, 2013 @02:23AM (#44899797)

    The parent's suggestion is quite similar in concept to the very popular electronic gadget TV-B-Gone [wikipedia.org] which turns off TVs.

  • by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojo@worl[ ]net ['d3.' in gap]> on Friday September 20, 2013 @03:31AM (#44900061) Homepage

    I think there is a real danger that within a generation or two the concept of privacy will just go away. We will just come to accept that everything is recorded and monitored for our own safety. It's the age old conflict between people wanting privacy but also wanting there to be CCTV footage when someone dings their car.

  • Here's an idea (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 20, 2013 @03:44AM (#44900123)

    Don't connect your lightbulb to the internet.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 20, 2013 @05:03AM (#44900487)

    The problem is that those EULAs usually grant the company all rights and remove all uour rights. And since you really really want to get started with using that application you dont care about the terms... until later. I think it would be an interesting thought experiment having a law that gave each person non-transferable rights to certain information. Slavery is still forbidden, right? so you can put "We own you " in an EULA but it would not hold up in court. What if this was extended to include more aspects?

Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.

Working...