A Future Where Everything Becomes a Computer Is As Creepy As You Feared (nytimes.com) 144
schwit1 shares a report from The New York Times: More than 40 years ago, Bill Gates and Paul Allen founded Microsoft with a vision for putting a personal computer on every desk. [...] In recent years, the tech industry's largest powers set their sights on a new target for digital conquest. They promised wild conveniences and unimaginable benefits to our health and happiness. There's just one catch, which often goes unstated: If their novelties take off without any intervention or supervision from the government, we could be inviting a nightmarish set of security and privacy vulnerabilities into the world. And guess what. No one is really doing much to stop it. The industry's new goal? Not a computer on every desk nor a connection between every person, but something grander: a computer inside everything, connecting everyone.
Cars, door locks, contact lenses, clothes, toasters, refrigerators, industrial robots, fish tanks, sex toys, light bulbs, toothbrushes, motorcycle helmets -- these and other everyday objects are all on the menu for getting "smart." Hundreds of small start-ups are taking part in this trend -- known by the marketing catchphrase "the internet of things" -- but like everything else in tech, the movement is led by giants, among them Amazon, Apple and Samsung. [American cryptographer and computer security professional Bruce Schneier] argues that the economic and technical incentives of the internet-of-things industry do not align with security and privacy for society generally. Putting a computer in everything turns the whole world into a computer security threat. [...] Mr. Schneier says only government intervention can save us from such emerging calamities. "I can think of no industry in the past 100 years that has improved its safety and security without being compelled to do so by government."
Cars, door locks, contact lenses, clothes, toasters, refrigerators, industrial robots, fish tanks, sex toys, light bulbs, toothbrushes, motorcycle helmets -- these and other everyday objects are all on the menu for getting "smart." Hundreds of small start-ups are taking part in this trend -- known by the marketing catchphrase "the internet of things" -- but like everything else in tech, the movement is led by giants, among them Amazon, Apple and Samsung. [American cryptographer and computer security professional Bruce Schneier] argues that the economic and technical incentives of the internet-of-things industry do not align with security and privacy for society generally. Putting a computer in everything turns the whole world into a computer security threat. [...] Mr. Schneier says only government intervention can save us from such emerging calamities. "I can think of no industry in the past 100 years that has improved its safety and security without being compelled to do so by government."
We are the Borg... (Score:4, Insightful)
...we know you want fries with that.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Now that I'm older, I might not mind if they put a chip in my dick, so I can get a guaranteed boner, as long as no one hacks it - up down, up down...
Re: We are the Borg... (Score:1)
Of course will have RGB in the future.
But seriously they need UV tubes too.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, a software upgrade.
Re: (Score:2)
Now that I'm older, I might not mind if they put a chip in my dick, so I can get a guaranteed boner, as long as no one hacks it - up down, up down...
left, right, left, right, B, A, B, A, Start.
Then she came.
Re: We are the Borg... (Score:1)
Re: We are the Borg... (Score:1)
The original Konami code is up up down down left right left right b a start.
Re: (Score:2)
That's....select start. There ARE more than one of us here.
Re: (Score:1)
If it actually is select start you should go change the Konami code page of Wikipedia.
Personally I will accept their claim even though I have pressed select start too (but I'm pretty sure I've pressed BAAB (or possibly ABBA) as well.)
Re: (Score:2)
Only for multiplayer. Dropping that select in at the end moves the pip fro 1 to 2 players. :)
Re: (Score:1)
It's not select to switch number of players and start to start?
I still have my NES (at-least I should have, I don't know where right now though) but I'm not all that sure how it worked.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes that's right. If your playing alone, input the classic Kanomi code. If playing with your buddies, drop in a select right before the final start key of the classic code. A/I: .......B-A-Select-Start.
Bam. Contra for the whole room.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not an idiot.
Rather than trusting memory I googled it and used this as reference: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Seem like I must have added start myself / maybe the parent post to mine used it so I added it because of that. I was going to say that the English Wikipedia page said different: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
But it doesn't. Neither mention start or select whatsoever.
I'm fully aware I've used select start too but on the other hand it wasn't mentioned there so I assumed that was game spec
Re: (Score:2)
You get implantable loop recorders that record the signal of your heart:
https://www.gosh.nhs.uk/teenag... [gosh.nhs.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Just change "The Borg" with "government"
"We are the Government, Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to SERVICE US. Resistance is futile."
Futile indeed, because unlike Star Trek, there would be billions of humans that would welcome the Borg, and that is seriously not a joke! Consider that for a little peace of mind!
Microphone/Camera free is the new organic (Score:5, Interesting)
Just like we have the "Organic" label on electronics, we should have a new label for things like TVs and other internet connected things that says that that thing does not have a microphone or video camera. I can't bring myself to give my TV my wifi password or buy a new 4k roku box because they all have microphones and cameras now!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Microphone/Camera free is the new organic (Score:1)
Fast-dry epoxy or a knitting needle into the mic-hole, tape over the camera. Problems fixed.
I misread and now there's gore and screaming. Should I try the epoxy?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Microphone/Camera free is the new organic (Score:1)
Monitoring free monitor?
Re: (Score:2)
All those valves, capacitors and resistors of an analogue TV were replaced with digital signal processing. The overlays to display channel numbers, the menu options to adjust brightness, contrast, saturation, stereo sound modes are easier to do digitally than to have twiddly buttons, dials and levers. All the tuners are digital. As the IC's are memory-mapped, they have to have a CPU and software. Just the video buffer for an HD screen will take up megabytes of memory.
Only government? (Score:4, Insightful)
>"Mr. Schneier says only government intervention can save us from such emerging calamities. "I can think of no industry in the past 100 years that has improved its safety and security without being compelled to do so by government."
That seems a bit grandiose. Yes, government regulation can and does help with safety and security. It is a necessary part of the modern world. However, it also stifles freedom, the economy, and innovation. I can so no better example off the top of my head than the signs and labels on nearly everything in California that everything is "known to cause cancer". Saying that market forces have no impact on safety is just crazy. Companies are very wary of litigation and bad press; both are very powerful incentives to produce safe and desirable products.
We always need a balance- the question is, what is that balance? Freedom/privacy and safety/security are, generally, diametrically opposed. Just as important is an educated and informed population.
Re: (Score:2)
"I can think of no industry in the past 100 years that has improved its safety and security without being compelled to do so by government."
That seems a bit grandiose. [...] Saying that market forces have no impact on safety is just crazy. Companies are very wary of litigation and bad press; both are very powerful incentives to produce safe and desirable products.
That's a nice argument you've got there, shame if something happened to it. Like someone pointed out that if it's so easy to come up with counterexamples, you should be able to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Contrary Schneier, the normal pattern is for something to become industry standard, _then_ afterwards for the government to include it in a law or regulation, not the other way around. He knows a lot about computer security, but apparently very little about the history of regulations and safety.
Even to the point that child labor wasn't illegal in the U.S. until it was pretty much completely gone, except in two industries. Guess which two industries the child labor laws exempted from compliance? Yep, those s
Bruce is forgetting everything before the 1960s (Score:2, Informative)
"Bruce Schneier] argues that the economic and technical incentives of the internet-of-things industry do not align with security and privacy for society generally."
THAT part is an insight that might merit further thought. How can one arrange the system such that what is good for the company is good society? When you do that, it can work really well.
As far as the "I can think of no industry" but, Bruce is generally a smart guy, so I'm surprised to hear him start the interview with a statement that is so fl
Re: (Score:3)
Another for the automotive facts: Preston Tucker.
Re: Bruce is forgetting everything before the 1960 (Score:2)
I wonder how far fire and safety regulatory orgs would get without municipal code adoption of their standards?
You can read the history and find out (Score:3)
> I wonder how far fire and safety regulatory orgs would get without municipal code adoption of their standards?
You can read all about it, because that was the case for about 100 years. Still many building codes are only *legally* enforced by municipal ordinance - within city limits. Outside city limits, people build to code because no bank is going to issue a mortgage on a non-compiant building, insurance companies won't insure it, and far fewer people would want to buy it, thereby greatly reducing the
Re:Bruce is forgetting everything before the 1960s (Score:5, Interesting)
That's either a naive or a purposely misleading description of what has happened.
Insurance industry required those safety improvements from manufacturers because that reduces their risk exposure. That risk exposure exists because insurance is an industry heavily regulated by the government, and exposed to the legal system in the US, and as such must pay out valid claims. If government did not regulate insurance and courts did not compel it to pay, insurance industry would have no incentive to push other industries to improve their safety standards (as evidenced by many countries where legal system is weak or corrupt, to this day).
More directly, the US legal system gives an injured party greater ability to sue and recover damages, which in turn makes manufacturers more likely to implement safety features to protect themselves from potential liability. Again, that's part of the "government". And again we can see numerous examples of other countries with weak or corrupt legal systems, where manufacturers have no such incentives and safety is poor accordingly.
So, it would be quite correct to say that "there's no industry that's improved safety or security without governments forcing it to do so" (or, perhaps, in a wider sense "the people forcing it to do so" and "the government" being a tool of the people, which is, presumably, true in any democratic society.
You overstate government and forgot mortage compan (Score:2)
Many building codes are only *legally* enforced by municipal ordinance - within city limits. Outside city limits, people build to code because no bank is going to issue a mortgage on a non-compiant building, insurance companies won't insure it, and far fewer people would want to buy it, thereby greatly reducing the price the builder could sell it for. The codes are pretty well followed for construction in the county, where there is no legal requirement.
Re:Bruce is forgetting everything before the 1960s (Score:4, Interesting)
How about the National Fire Protection Association, which writes the fire codes? That's another safety organization started by insurance companies, and insurance companies wouldn't insure a building unless it met fire code.
But is the fire code truly optional, or does government use penalties to coerce you to follow them?
Because you know some people would be totally fine building uninsured buildings......
Call your mortgage company and find out (Score:2)
> But is the fire code truly optional
You can find out by calling your mortgage company and asking them if they'll loan you the $200,000 to build a building that ISN'T up to code. Ask your insurance company if they'll insure a building if you build it without following fire code. Ask your real estate agent how much money you'd lose track of to see it if it's not up to fire code. Or, let's try asking YOU -
If you were hiring me as the contractor to build for you, would you want me to:
A) build properly, to
Re: (Score:2)
These are two, but disconnected, statements. While "Underwriters" can mean insurance companies, it doesn't have to. And doesn't in this case. It was a non-profit that suggested standards. Oh, and later teh government gave it the ability to run legally binding tests on product safety.
And while car companies may advertise "it's safer", it does take a neutral third party observer to sa
If you're going to make stuff up ... (Score:2)
When someone tells you about a topic, including its history, that's a hint that they might know something about the topic. They are therefore unlikely to be fooled by you making up stuff out of thin air.
> While "Underwriters" can mean insurance companies, it doesn't have to. And doesn't in this case.
It was founded by the Western Insurance Union and Chicago Underwriters Association in 1893
https://www.ul.com/aboutul/his... [ul.com]
> Oh, and later teh government gave it the ability to run legally binding tests
Re: (Score:2)
It was founded in 1894 by William Merrill source [wikipedia.org] I followed your link, but it was hidden behind Javascript.
I don't know the statute (Typically the third-party rating advertised is the IIIHS ratingand don't care to look it up.) Check OSHA's list [osha.gov].
The IIHS is quoted for verbiage (top safety pick!). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is responsible for the 1-5 star ratings.
Insurance companies do tend to push
97% pf vehicles receive 4 or 5 stars (Score:2)
Yes, the NHTSA rates car safety, giving each car either four or five stars. Last year 97% of vehicles received one of the the top ratings.
One way to get a five star rating is to have the front wheels and most of the engine compartment end up in the front seats after a collision:
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.... [thetruthaboutcars.com]
IIHS, on the other hand, provides ratings which allow you to tell which cars are the safest and which aren't so safe. Not every car gets a trophy from IIHS because failing to distinguish safe cars fro
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, both are important. Insurance, regulated by government, wants to drive down costs. If they can be forced to do that by raising standards instead of getting out of obligations when things happen, it's a powerful force. Meanwhile, government regulations also can have a pretty powerful effect, especially when the benefits are less concentrated.
OT but amusing (Score:2)
I was watching an anime this week (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.I.C.O._-Incarnation-) and one of protagonists was infiltrating a building aided by his elite hacker colleague - who was bypassing all of the computer security and lock systems as the infiltration progressed. At the final stage the protagonist was blocked from entering his target room by the simple fact that it was sealed with a physical lock and key.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Libertarian fantasies (Score:5, Insightful)
Libertarianism is the opposite side of Socialism. Both are based on this premise:
"We'll trust and magically it will all work out."
You claim they're opposites, then claim they're the same. But socialism is explicitly the opposite of that idea. We know that wishing and hoping won't make things work, so we actually do something about it. Libertarianism is the willfully ignorant belief that anarchy does not lead to feudalism. (So is anarchism.) Libertarianism also includes the notion that pretending to have a government isn't anarchism.
Re:Libertarian fantasies (Score:4, Insightful)
In socialism, you trust that the leadership won't be self-serving.
Re: (Score:3)
In socialism, you trust that the leadership won't be self-serving.
That's why you (well, I) want democratic socialism. I don't know that I believe that the Democratic party is capable of delivering this, but perhaps they will get a clue and head leftward.
Re: (Score:1)
How is everyone voting for their own interests (democratic socialism) different than everyone acting in their own interests (libertarianism)?
The only way the end result would be different is if, in the democratic socialist system, a subset of the whole has more power than the rest and enforces their will.
Democratic socialism is tyranny of the majority/minority or libertarian with more steps.
Re: Libertarian fantasies (Score:1, Informative)
There are two flaws with your argument.
1) you don't know what you're talking about
2) everything else
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Nothing contradictory in what I said (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism is based on the idea that we'll trust the state on everything and it will magically work out.
"Everything" is a big word.
Hard capitalism fails because it fails to recognise that most markets can't be free markets.
Hard socialism fails because it prints money and moves towards authoritarianism.
If you want a country without a huge chunk of people dying from poverty, socialism is inevitable.
We can't replace most markets. Maybe one day when an AI can figure out how to connect the economy, but not today.
There doesn't seem to be a sweet spot. There's a large range between centre-right Britain and left-w
Re: (Score:1)
It is astounding that someone that got something so wrong it was modded to insightful.
Libertarianism is not based on trust, it is based on "responsibility" trust is not a factor, what is a factor is "distrust" of a "rich and elite Bourgeoisie" that will specifically be created by the "ruling class" that everyone ha ha ha "elects" into power. There is no socialist state that exists without the "Bourgeoisie"... a class the socialist claim to seek to destroy as they create and install them to power.
"Both the
I may be a luddite (Score:2)
I don't want a network connected car, television, refrigerator or implanted in my body.
I w0uld hope eventually cheap and easy would be the less preferred alternative to secure; But human nature being what it is will ignore security until it bites them in the ass.
When people's computer implants become more common than insulin pumps, pacemakers and cardiac monitors, it would behoove them to not skimp on security; This is probably the next great digital divide,,,
Mandatory five year warranty on soft- and hardware (Score:1)
10 years for items that cost more than $1000. All bug fixing costs covered, including disassembly and assembly where the product is a component. If a bug isn't fixed within a month, money back.
Linux everywhere (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Putting it another way, don't you mean that FOSS has become a threat to us all?
Re:Linux everywhere - No OS (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Linux everywhere - No OS (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want the $1 device to monitor your behavior and keep wireless contact with cloud servers, you'll probably want an OS to make things easier.
Re: (Score:2)
I know this will horrify some programmers but you can actually schedule multiple things to happen in a single program and create something that is simpler, easier to debug and easier to get to 99% working without an OS.
Want to horrify them even more? A lot of this stuff can be also done with purely analog electronics and electromechanical devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Linux everywhere (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought everyone was dumping Linux for Android/Fuchsia/Googleware.
Also Marshall Brain (Score:2)
The internet of shit! (Score:3)
There's a nice song about the subject of "smart" things. [youtube.com] ;)
ZigBee - Security (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe (Score:1)
But it'll be a race to see if that dystopia arrives before the planet melts. http://www.ipcc.ch/ [www.ipcc.ch]
Pass the popcorn.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
When you disable the etoilet's monitoring, you'll get a nice lawsuit for violating the DCMA
Yeah, okay. (Score:2)
Creeps (Score:1)
"Bill Gates and Paul Allen founded Microsoft with a vision for putting a personal computer on every desk."
No its more like Gates and Allen had a vision for pirating CP/M.
Its another gold rush, this time for telemetry data that marketing and espionage pays dollars for.
Gates said the Internet was "just a fad" (Score:1)
The government will regulate use, not collection (Score:2)
It's very rare that the government will prohibit the collection of data, they want it and can usually get it through defining it as third party information, rubber stamp warrants, national security letters and if not via legally sanctioned or unsanctioned spy programs. What they don't want is a public backlash were people refuse to provide data because it'll be abused, so they'll sometimes stop insurance companies and whatnot from using the data but only because it's good for them. I think anyone who believ
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. I have no sympathy for these big companies, but they are operating in a capitalist system trying to make money. If regulation and public demand let them do this stuff, then why wouldn't they?
The key area that doesn't get a lot of air-time - mentioned above - is how consumers can make *informed* decisions. If products were forced to declare what telemetry was going, what got collected and how it would be used, at least people could make an informed decision about it. Lots of users would be happy
You get what you pay for (Score:4, Interesting)
It isn't that a computer in every device is an issue, it's that these computers have to be free as in beer. We've squandered the massive decrease in network cost to the point of demanding no incremental increase in cost of smart devices vs traditional. I'm all for paying a little more for a smart thermostat that doesn't tell some ad server when I get home from work. And I'm happy to pay a little for firmware upgrades to my smart switch if it means my house isn't going to become part of a bot network. And no way do I see any value in bringing microphones into my home that offer "free" services in exchange for listening to keywords and embedded sub audible sounds in TV shows. But it seems like these Internet companies (and by extension IOT companies) have such little faith in their product that they feel it necessary to give it away for nothing and then try to survive by introducing third parties for their income. Until that changes (and it doesn't help the cause when the tech press howls about the $1000 iPhone vs the $200 Android phone with "free" OS), we're going to continue down the dystopian path.
The creepiest part IS the government (Score:1)
"If their novelties take off without any intervention or supervision from the government."
Seriously?? The government would LOVE to pool all these 'novelties' into a citizen control mechanism. From license plate readers to facial recognition, ALL this computing power will be used to control people BY the government. This is not OSHA we're talking about here. This is Homeland Security setting up shop inside your house n order to "save" us. I'm glad I'm old. I do not look forward to the jack boot government's
It has already been done. (Score:1)
I keep watching more and more video cameras being rolled out without vandalism. The citizenry and even the criminals are apathetic, unaware, or unwilling to do what is necessary to regain our freedom and anonymity.
Everyone is happy with their cell phones, everyone (even criminals!) is happy with their social networking account, everyone is happy giving over all their biometrics, and everyone is happy being videotaped and facially recognized everywhere they go. Enabling but not enforcing has given them tacit
The government is even scarier (Score:1)
And they won't stop anything because all the surveillance possibilities and data that they too want access to.
this is not a new phenomenon (Score:1)
I have lived with the nightmare of smart devices since the end of the ice box era. Yes, our first refrigerator was a modern miracle that put our ice man out of work. My parents were amazed at its ability to keep milk cold and fish frozen for days, weeks and months. I observed a dark side that older people never considered: the light inside. Oh, they said 'the light goes out when the door is closed', as if it were nothing; as if we could just trust Jesus that it was so. But how can we be sure? None of my eff
The government of all things? (Score:4, Informative)
You mean the creeps that want to backdoor everything and compromise all security in order to be able to listen to and record everything? Fat chance. These people will only make everything worse.
Bruce Schneier has an irrational trust in authority. He really should know better by now.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the creeps that want to backdoor everything and compromise all security in order to be able to listen to and record everything? Fat chance. These people will only make everything worse.
Bruce Schneier has an irrational trust in authority. He really should know better by now.
Everyones under the naive idea the government is not owned by the same people in the private sector promoting IoT. The reality is all governments are now at war with their respective publics because they are concerned about the global political awakening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
National Electrical Code (Score:2)
Mr. Schneier let me help you with you inability to understand about safety and industry. The National Electrical Code which fundamentally improved safety in the electrical industry is part of the National Fires Code, which fundamentally improved safety in the building industry is published by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) a private trade association. It was not imposed by the government.
Unlike what some people would like you to believe, it is not necessary or usually even advisable for gov
mindset (Score:2)
"I can think of no industry in the past 100 years that has improved its safety and security without being compelled to do so by government."
Not in the US, that's for sure.
There is a big culture issue here. In Europe, we like to play it safe and slow. Companies are founded by people not looking for an IPO and early retirement, but those hoping to create a legacy that future generations can continue. Many of our companies, including some of the biggest, are still earned by the family that founded them.
This creates a relatively risk-averse business culture in which opportunities are sometimes not taken. You americans call it "socialism".
The US has
If the government... (Score:1)
If their novelties take off without any intervention or supervision from the government, we could be inviting a nightmarish set of security and privacy vulnerabilities into the world.
And what makes anyone naive enough to assume that government "supervision" would somehow magically immunize us from said vulnerabilities? Or that government wouldn't misuse data gathering to commit human rights abuses?
Sigh...why is the default knee-jerk reaction to a potential crisis almost always "hey, let's find a way to depend on GOVERNMENT to fix this for us! Government is mighty, all knowing, all seeing, efficient, incorruptible, and always benevolent, right?"