Will 'Smart Cities' Violate Our Privacy? (computerworld.com) 108
An anonymous reader quotes Computerworld's article on the implications of New York City's plan to blanket the city with "smart" kiosks offering ultrafast Wi-Fi.
The existence of smart-city implementations like Intersection's LinkNYC means that New Yorkers won't actually need mobile contracts anymore. Most who would otherwise pay for them will no doubt continue to do so for the convenience. But those who could not afford a phone contract in the past will have ubiquitous fast connectivity in the future. This strongly erodes the digital divide within smart cities. A 2015 study conducted by New York City found that more than a quarter of city households had no internet connectivity at home, and more than half a million people didn't own their own computer...
Over the next 15 years, the city will go through the other two phases, where sensor data will be processed by artificial intelligence to gain unprecedented insights about traffic, environment and human behavior and eventually use it to intelligently re-direct traffic and shape other city functions... And as autonomous cars gradually roll out, New York will be well positioned to be one of the first cities to legalize them, because they'll be safer thanks to 5G, sensors and data from all those kiosks.
Intersection, a Google-backed startup, has already installed 1,000 of the kiosks in New York, and is planning to install 7,000 more. The sides of the kiosk have screens which show alerts and other public information -- as well as advertisements, which cover all the costs of the installations and even bring extra money into the city coffers.
New York's move "puts pressure on other U.S. cities to follow suit," the article also points out, adding that privacy policies "are negotiated agreements between the company and the city. So if a city wants to use those cameras and sensors for surveillance, it can."
Over the next 15 years, the city will go through the other two phases, where sensor data will be processed by artificial intelligence to gain unprecedented insights about traffic, environment and human behavior and eventually use it to intelligently re-direct traffic and shape other city functions... And as autonomous cars gradually roll out, New York will be well positioned to be one of the first cities to legalize them, because they'll be safer thanks to 5G, sensors and data from all those kiosks.
Intersection, a Google-backed startup, has already installed 1,000 of the kiosks in New York, and is planning to install 7,000 more. The sides of the kiosk have screens which show alerts and other public information -- as well as advertisements, which cover all the costs of the installations and even bring extra money into the city coffers.
New York's move "puts pressure on other U.S. cities to follow suit," the article also points out, adding that privacy policies "are negotiated agreements between the company and the city. So if a city wants to use those cameras and sensors for surveillance, it can."
Yes (Score:5, Funny)
Question answered. Move along now...
Re: Yes (Score:1)
Obviously you haven't been paying attention very long on Slashdot. Betteridge's Law of Headlines clearly states that the answer is no.
Re: (Score:2)
We already are asked in every shop today if we are members or want to be members, all to get our privacy invaded.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you say "No". Most people give up their privacy because of laziness.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I do, but they bug me every time.
Re: Yes (Score:2, Insightful)
No. We will all implicitly give permission. Or explicitly by the terms of use for our apartment, job, shop visit, city app, etc. No violation is possible when everything is permissible.
Re: (Score:2)
Proof needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The rule is that articles with a question in the title answer this question with 'no,' but in this case a resounding 'YES' is in order. So the question should be: Is Our Privacy Safe in the Smart City?
Re: (Score:2)
Quit waiting for Congress. Congress will never do anything for you. Why would you even think they are on your side?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Oath of Fealty (Score:5, Funny)
Here's a Larry Niven novel (I haven't read it, unfortunately) in which the inhabitants are "sacrificing privacy - there are cameras (not routinely monitored) even in the private apartments - in exchange for security" (Wikipedia).
Unfortunately, due to the vast amounts of data collected on us by myriad gadgets (smartphones, Alexa, cell phone towers, public cameras, private cameras with Geo tagged data on social media, credit card machines, ATMs... perhaps even smart parking meters!), it appears as if we've already sacrificed privacy. Have we gotten more security? Honestly, maybe, aren't crime rates supposed to be down?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, they are down.
Re: (Score:2)
Petty crime yes. Organized crime? No, that's way the hell up.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation?
Crime rates in the USA, per 100K population look to be less than half what they were in 1980 for the most part. And none of the crimes they track are "way the hell up". Or even "up".....
As always (Score:1)
Duh.
You want to know the information that's never abused, and never hacked? The _information you never gather._
obligatory Manna (Score:1)
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm [marshallbrain.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is no. Smart cities will not violate our privacy.
Yeah, i'd say that too, if the city was watching. You don't want to piss it off.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with Trump is not Trump, but those that voted for him. They show that a large faction of the voting population have zero smarts and easily fall for a con-man if he is just loud enough and promises the right things. They will then proceed to ignore his failures and cheer for anything that looks like he made good on a promise, even if completely unrelated to his actions. These people ask to be defrauded and they have zero understanding of how things work. When this mindless faction reaches a size
Re: (Score:2)
I do not hate working class people. I am merely an observer in this. But judging by what these people do to themselves, it seems they hate themselves very much.
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans want to make it so that 20 to 35 million people lose that insurance. All to give the already wealthy another undeserved tax cut.
They could of, instead of sabotaging the law with over a hundred amendments, worked toward making it a good law, as it was based on a Heritage Foundation plan for the R's in the first place. Instead they chose to obstruct their own plan because they vowed
Re: (Score:2)
They could of
They could have
They could've
Re: (Score:2)
I think many of his voters are disappointed with Trump and will vote differently next time. The problem is: four years is not enough time for the next president to clear out the enormous mess Trump has made even in the six months he has now been in office. So the people will be disappointed in the next president too, and will vote for a new con man (if available) next.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. It _was_ obvious before though that they would be disappointed. It was just not obvious to them and that is the real problem here.
Re: LOL (Score:4, Interesting)
He is the only presidential candidate in the last 25 years to talk about the damage done to people's lives by globalisation and talk about reversing it.
If your life had been wrecked by transfer of jobs abroad, you'd probably feel a bit differently. Shouting "stupid" at these people might make you feel good but trying to understand them would be a better use of your time. It didn't help that the wife of the architect of their misery was the other candidate.
The trouble with the left these days is that the compassion for everyone in need has been replaced by virtue signalling on Twitter and judging everyone's needs by their physical characteristics. White = privilege even if you can barely afford to eat and so is it any wonder that poor white people don't buy into that political philosophy. Ask yourself why your message is so unpopular that people were willing to vote in great numbers for the most unsuitable candidate in history.
Re: (Score:2)
We do understand them. However, we also understand that a lazy narcistic lunatic con man is not fit for the presidency.
Re: LOL (Score:2)
It shows how broken the political system is that that terrible man was seen as the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as globalization is a historical change that is basically inevitable and all that can be done is participate a bit slower (to the detriment of the local economy), Trump has the distinction that he has no problems blatantly lying about being able to do something here. The truth is that he cannot (and he is either utterly incompetent as a businessman, or he _knows_ that). The other truth is that no US president ever had any significant influence on that process, because that goes far, far beyond the pow
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That is what appears to have happened. In actual reality, it was not those treaties, but the push for something in that direction that made it happen. And that push would have just found another outlet without these treaties.
Now the problem about worker protection is that it is infeasible. Sure, if possible, it would be the thing to do, but it is not. If you start protecting the workers, you lose on other fronts and in the end the workers and up worse. We are seeing this now at all fronts: The time of the w
Re: (Score:2)
That is what appears to have happened. In actual reality, it was not those treaties, but the push for something in that direction that made it happen. And that push would have just found another outlet without these treaties.
Do you have anything to back up that claim?
Now the problem about worker protection is that it is infeasible. Sure, if possible, it would be the thing to do, but it is not. If you start protecting the workers, you lose on other fronts and in the end the workers and up worse. We are seeing this now at all fronts: The time of the worker is over. They are less and less needed, globalization just shifted it for a while. We likely go towards a society were, in addition to the well-known 1%, we will also have the 10%, and that will those whose work is still needed because it cannot be automatized. The interesting question, and the one critical for survival as a society, is what to to with the remaining 89%.
Protection of workers is possible, and it does not cause workers to end up worse. Workers fought for and won rights and wealth in Denmark, and the result was rights and wealth for everyone, causing Denmark to become a rich, dynamic and egalitarian country.
Even if your prediction is accurate (and that is a huge if), it is unlikely to happen within the next few decades. And I don't see how it applies to the push for globalization in the 1970s and 1980s.
Re: (Score:2)
That is what appears to have happened. In actual reality, it was not those treaties, but the push for something in that direction that made it happen. And that push would have just found another outlet without these treaties.
Do you have anything to back up that claim?
This is not a scientific publication site. This is /. Asking for evidence is rude.
That said, if you cannot see this given the idea, then no amount of actual evidence will convince you as this is obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
I provided you with a short synopsis of why I thought you were wrong. You answered along the lines of "You are wrong" without providing any argument as to why I am wrong. And when I ask why you think I am wrong, your reply is "It is obvious that you are wrong". I had hoped you could at least point to your opinion on the dynamic behind the inevitable labor-hostile globalization.
Oh, well, have a nice day/evening/night/morning!
Re: (Score:1)
This is the history of voting. What I don't get is why people hold Democracy to be so sacrosanct when it's clear that it doesn't give you the outcomes you want. Voting is great when you win. When you lose you have to deal with whatever punishment the winner ascribed. Instead of blaming Trump or The People... perhaps you should be asking why we are begging permissions from Oompa Loompas? Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. And I'm hungry.
Re: LOL (Score:2)
In the real world, there are more sheep than wolves.
The Special Law of Betteridge (Score:1)
The Special Law of Betteridge says that any headline that matches the regex "/(will|can).*reduce privacy/i" can be answered with "yes".
Not in Seattle... (Score:5, Insightful)
New York's move "puts pressure on other U.S. cities to follow suit," the article also points out.
Does it? Of course, says the company pushing it. But not all cities will take the bait. Seattle citizens would probably have a fucking cow; when the city tried to install a mesh network downtown to enhance emergency response, the uproar resulted in all the installed equipment being taken out.
Re:Not in Seattle... (Score:4, Informative)
Well, another factor is - anyone with an attention span longer than ten minutes remembers that we've heard this song before. Numerous cities - including Seattle, as you know - talked a big game a decade or so ago about building out ubiquitous cheap/free wifi. Some cities, like Philadelphia, actually started to roll it out... but it went south pretty quickly.
I realize this new push has Google's backing - but they're no longer patient with throwing money at projects which don't turn a profit quickly. That also means that, if you see them sticking with this for more than a year or two, they're making money on it... which should scare any semi-intelligent New Yorker.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or we could try to do something about it. Technology can be broken and bent. We aren't slaves to it because we made it.
Tried them, they suck. (Score:3)
If you want to be useful, just install free wifi repeaters (starting from the goddamn airports, please), like any other civilized city in Asia do.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to be useful, just install free wifi repeaters (starting from the goddamn airports, please), like any other civilized city in Asia do.
Like in Singapore where to use the Wifi you are required use the internet access you don't have to log on and register at a web site, then click the link in the email they send. Genius!
Re: (Score:2)
Intersection, a Google-backed startup, has already installed 1,000 of the kiosks in New York
LinkNYC is already changing New York; two million people are now using the system
So 2000 people are using each kiosk. I assume that crowd control is required, and I hate to think what the response time is like.
City WiFi? (Score:2)
Has there ever been a city installed WiFi that didn't completely fail to work? I've tried a few. Not even airports can get it right. When a city, town, borough or municipality set out to provide public WiFi, they go on to demonstrate that they don't understand how to deploy RF services and that they don't understand how to maintain an internet service.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes plenty. Many cities in Norway and Sweden provide public WiFi that works flawlessly. I also never had any problems with implementations in Hong Kong or mainland China or those offered in many parts of central Europe.
Also I basically live at Airports including one of the largest hubs in Europe, and frankly airport WiFi also works quite flawlessly in most places. The last time I had an issue with airport WiFi was at Teeside and that issue was they only offered 15min free (but that was the least of my probl
Re: (Score:2)
In recent years, airports in Heathrow, Frankfurt, Barcelona, Belgium, Singapore, Tokyo and Penang all sucked for WiFi internet access. At least in Europe I can get a PAYG SIM that works Europe wide,
Re: (Score:2)
Greetings from Amsterdam's free WiFi. There's an option for premium as well, but as Youtube is currently having no problem I don't know why I would want to.
By the way Schipol Airport today is setting a new record for number of passengers processed. Good news is the WiFi is holding up, bad news is I had to get here 3 hours early due to the incredible strain on the checkin system. *sigh*.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no memory of Schipol's WiFi sucking, so it must be fine. I wish your packets swift passage.
Re: (Score:2)
More relevant will be next destination, Frankfurt. Hopefully my experience is better than yours :)
Re: (Score:2)
San Francisco, Chicago, Heathrow and Charles De Gaul are in my near future. In this instance, it's not a work trip so I may not care about WiFi.
Re: (Score:2)
Frankfurt was a bust. Frigging delayed flight. hahahahahaha WiFi is the least of that shithole's problems evidently. I remember having a positive opinion of Chicago, and Charles De Gaul. Heathrow on the other hand.... I actively avoid that airport when I can (also nothing to do with WiFi). Mind you WiFi does help too. I would tell you about the low opinion I have of Suvarnabhumi (Bangkok) where I am right now in an uncomfortable seat on the opposite side of the airport to my gate because they refuse to let
Re: (Score:2)
I could tell you about what it's like on corporate jets, but that might not make you feel better about your situation in Suvarnabhumi.
Re: (Score:2)
:-) Flying is such an incredible mixed bag.
It's all fun and games (Score:3)
Until the city's AI for whatever reason, classifies your future crime as imminent, or worse, decides your continued existence is no longer useful to it.
The good news, the city rewards it's faithful, it's worshipers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
its.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends who owns and runs the sensors etc. (Score:3)
It's also worth noting that sensor networks and infrastructures are, to some extent rivalrous, in the economics sense. That is, they compete for physical placement, for bandwidth and (probably) for standards and protocols.
There's questions of scope, governance and separation too. For example, I never go into Apple stores and that's a choice, but I may have to go into a hospital. I personally don't mind advertising beacons because I choose not to have a smart phone and don't receive their output. I don't want any of my data sold on, but have zero faith in GAFAM (Google, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft, as proxies for the usual suspects) not to do that.
I think 'we' can do really good things with city data and wrote about it somewhat in 2009 [hughbarnard.org] but that was on the basis of municipal control, public health and ecological objectives. The current picture looks a lot more invasive and murkier.
Re: (Score:1)
After a week the sensors will be "owned" by various multinationals in the Eastern Bloc.
Re: (Score:2)
"You have no privacy: get over it" (Score:2)
https://www.wired.com/1999/01/... [wired.com]
New angle... (Score:2)
... to "the city that never sleeps"
Will 'Smart Cities' Violate Our Privacy? (Score:2)
Yes
They already do,
They already do (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Cut him some slack and show some respect. "Rick Schumann" is obviously "Richard Stallman" mistyped.
Re: (Score:2)
If all anyone has to offer is base insults and no factual refutation of anything I wrote, then it's pretty clear you have nothing of value to add to the conversation and just shouldn't bother. Everything I said is based on well-known facts and news stories in numbers high enough that it'd take quite some time for me to source them all just for the sake of a bunch of strangers on the Internet. You don't like what I'm saying? You
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely sounds like Richard Stallman.
Hey, I was on your side. Nothing of value added though.
More than half a million people without a computer (Score:2)
In the past few years, I've found more and more people who no longer touch their desktop computer at home. With their smartphone, they have no need for a desktop computer anymore. I'm curious how many of the half a million people mentioned here have smartphones, and how many are old people who are not interested
Need laws, not physical restrictions. (Score:2)
I think its too late. There are so many forms of surveillance that adding another really won't change things. At this point I think its better to lobby for strong laws to protect how the data is *used*. Trying to control what is collected is a lost cause .
The exception to the rule... (Score:2)
Betteridge's Law of Headlines fails here.
If it's backed by Alphabet? (Score:2)
the answer is "of course" since you are the product.
The machine stops (Score:2)
http://archive.ncsa.illinois.e... [illinois.edu]