Slashdot Mirror
Eric Schmidt: Our Perception of the Internet Will Fade
Esra Erimez writes: Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt on Thursday predicted a change in how we perceive the internet. Schmidt says, "There will be so many IP addresses, so many devices, sensors, things that you are wearing, things that you are interacting with that you won't even sense it. It will be part of your presence all the time. Imagine you walk into a room, and the room is dynamic. And with your permission and all of that, you are interacting with the things going on in the room."
Or, without your permission, they are interacting with you.
Imagine you walk into a room, and the room is dynamic. And with your permission and all of that, you are interacting with the things going on in the room.
Wow. Does he realize how completely out of touch with reality that sounds? He says *imagine* when in the future, with [my] technology, you will be able to "interact with the things going on in the room."
NEWS FLASH! I can now, Eric Schmidt. And anyone can. All you have to do it turn off your cell phone and begin interacting!
What happens when two people enter the room, and they have different preferences?
Spouses already fight about the thermostat; who's preference is "the house" going to pick?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
The advertising and government snoop won't really ASK for permission. It will be a Hobson's choice. Refuse to give permission and your devices stop working or you wind up on a watch list or worse.
"...with your permission..."?
As if. We aren't prompted to allow the various tracking/privacy violations NOW, how will that change for the better in the future?
Yawn, whatever there, Eric ... more bullshit futurism about how the wealthy will live.
I don't think people really want the internet of things, and every time someone says "ZOMG, look at teh future" I mostly think they're talking out of their ass.
It makes a great sales pitch, but generally futurists are snake oil salesman and marketers claiming their pet technology will change the world, but which would require zillions of dollars and some massive fundamental changes to everything around us.
And the rest of us will have plain old lamps and sofa which aren't telling everything to Google about our daily lives.
The petty ramblings of billionaire technologists really is mostly drivel.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
And with your permission and all of that
Because google is known for this approach, of course.
*cough*Glassholes*cough*
What happens when two people enter the room, and they have different preferences?
Spouses already fight about the thermostat; who's preference is "the house" going to pick?
Definitely not Dave's.
shouts, "STOP Singing Daisy you fucking retarded computer!"
You have to take everyone's perspective into account. He wants all the info he can get, for free.
...with your permission and all of that...
It does not appear that the internet providers are all that concerned about obtaining the users' permission to track them.
.
Coming from a google exec, the statement is laughable, and ominous.
To think of useless crap. Of course they pour money on it and make it their way. But still what a useless thought. The truth is most people have no awareness of those things and as time goes on they will have even fewer thoughts unless it goes down. Then they will respond with anger at the first person they expect to fix it. Its already that way, no need for more time to pass.
And with your permission and all of that
Could you be more of an asshole?
First off, when did Google start asking permission BEFORE it just did privacy invading shit?
Second, how many times have you (Schmidt) basically said you didn't give a fuck about peoples privacy or their wishes and that you were going to get your way eventually anyway?
Lets be realistic here Schmidt, you don't mean a word of what you just said. What you mean is that you want devices in every room analyzing everything everyone does in an attempt to figure out how to sell them to advertisers for a higher rate. THAT IS WHAT YOU MEAN.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Let's fix the basics first before going to these expensive and complicated cyberworldz additions. At the end of the day, most people would be happy if their landlord just adjusted the basic heating and ventilation to work properly.
I imagine it will be resolved the same way that fights over the TV and computer work. Either you compromise, or buy two.
Cue joke about two houses being kinda expensive...
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
And we will have all the data, he continued. People who read 1984 know that people WANTED the way it happened. They GAVE away their privacy to big brother.
Just as we are now giving it away to Google.
Unfortunately it is like giving away your virginity. You can't get it back. What is worse is that you don't have a real option. Others are giving it away in your name.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Two houses walk into a bar. Bartender says, "Aren't you guys kinda expensive?"
You didn't say it had to be a good joke.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Who asked for this?
The industry eagerness to bug and track everything is universal. Why? The first answer is always: money. The second, and most accurately stated: power. Knowing where everyone is, and what they are doing, is power. But that power is not for schmucks.
Pity we didn't have this universal eagerness to limit population growth, or control suburban land conversion, or to colonize free space with habitats. But power over others? No fucking limits.
Power, by the way, means Occupies are impossible to pull off. Protests. Contrary political movements, ultimately. Other words, any challenge to seated power is gonna be nearly impossible.
Hell, in England, they're already starting dossiers on kintergarteners. Just monitor what they read and do all their lives, and soon there won't be a population that even thinks of rebellion of any sort. Or could talk about it without systems monitoring and integrating the information for future suppression. And yes, I'm aware that that sounds "paranoid". But once again, I'm not predicting, I'm telling you what's already happened.
To take this back to the point of the article, there is no WAY that this eagerly sought supersaturated net of bugs - and that's what they are - will not be used for surveillance and control. I really don't need to know what is in my refrigerator that much.
I can already interact with things in the room. When I want the lamp to come on, I walk over and turn a little knob. When I want the TV to come on, I press a button on a remote. Behold! The future is now!
Proverbs 21:19
Soon you'll have to Google him.
I think the giveaway is this "all of that".
Please, Eric: tell us more about this "all of that". Also about the non-standard usage of "and", meaning "throw away the result of the first operator ("your permission" in this case) and use only the magic second operator "all of that".
I've been in the tech world since the 80s and I'm not finding this vision of the future enticing at all. Now fully in middle age, I'm starting to regret the days and years of my life that have been wasted staring into a monitor or playing with the next gadget. I'm not convinced that having the internet seamlessly integrated into my life would be a desirable thing. I'm discovering that there's more pleasure and contentment in the reality that exists outside of the world of pervasive connectivity. I don't want to be constantly "interacting" with devices, nor do I want Mr. Schmid's company to have more opportunities to analyze my behavior and target me with more marketing messages.
Embrace the analog world.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
Whenever someone tries to predict the direction technology will take, they always miss the not-as-obvious-at-the-time revolution in technology that makes society take a sharp turn. In the 70's, a prediction wouldn't have included personal computers in everyone's home. In the 80's, it wouldn't have predicted the Internet. The 90's wouldn't have predicted the rise of smartphones or social media. Of course, all of these developments seem obvious in hindsight.
My guess is that something will come out that will completely change how we think of computers/Internet and all of these predictions will appear as idiotic as the ones in the 50's that predicted we'd have personal atomic power plants powering our appliances.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Hill points out that one of the times we actually do notice technology is when it breaks. He also has a rather clever blog, Revealing Errors , in which he and other contributors "reveal errors that reveal technologies" so as to learn how they affect our lives.
And the future of humanity will be to be Borgs, always connected to the global network, without individuality and everything public, people is not resisting this change enough, and not is not futile. Not a nice future.
Because once you pass the half way point, you realize you need to start eliminating the trivial and the bullshit big time, as there is little time left.
Rooms full of stuff that yell "Eat Me!" and "Drink Me!".
But I doubt that you'll be shrinking from any of those.
And with your permission and all of that
Interesting attitude there.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
while that may sound a little bleak, it's true. It's also true when you're in your 20's, you just don't realize it yet.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
"Imagine you walk into a room, and the room is dynamic. And with your permission and all of that, you are interacting with the things going on in the room." Interacting with things going on in a room? It's hard to imagine.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
In the future you will die.
Be seeing you...
My kids range in age from 5 to 9. This is already how they see the world.
Their first hint that the internet is a thing that you have to think about was when they got wifi devices and tried to use them in the car as we drove away from the house.
Before they made that realization, it was just something that things did. Part of the expected infrastructure of existence.
The internet of things is getting to be scary crazy. Here's what worries me. Once you put things like your door locks into the internet of things, you're allowing some outside agency to decide whether or not you can enter your home, or worse, leave it. Fail to pay a parking ticket? Get confined to your home. Your ex accuses you of something nasty? Get confined to your home. Fail to make your Visa payment on time? Get confined to your home.
This is an article from 1998. Scott McNealy liked to show off his Java ring at that time and talk about how it would be used to allow someone to walk into a hotel room and have sensors detect the person and their wishes such as music and mood lighting and it would also store your crypto keys on it. It will be interesting to see if people are read to wear tech as new devices enter the market.
http://www.javaworld.com/artic...
picture
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi...
Let's not underestimate the real power of data. Look at targeted advertising. It was really creepy a few years ago, wasn't it? Back when Target notified a teenage girl's family that she was pregnant (with helpful "she might like this" emails) before she told them? Ever wonder why that stuff doesn't happen so much anymore? It's because the advertising agencies know that it's super creepy so now something like 90% of ads are intentionally random. But they still get the 10% right.
You suggest the thermostat temperature alone may pique the interest of various surveillance agencies. I know you think you're joking, but this may be the one point of data they need to make an otherwise suspicious individual statistically significant. And don't make the mistake of thinking human beings are the ones suggesting what data is suspicious in what ways. The key to the entire data mining explosion is that when you have enough data about everything, you can set up an algorithm to figure out the statistical connections. Maybe it's really only suspicious if the thermostat is set 2 higher on Tuesday from 3am-4:45am. And 99% of the time that happens, it's because of a specific crime in progress.
We live in an age where we have been mostly liberated from the tyranny of humans trying to make those kinds of connections. Finally, with enough data about an individual, the computer knows what you're doing. The danger, of course, is still that humans will use that knowledge toward the wrong ends. First and foremost is the likelihood that human agents will abuse their power. Second is the likelihood that they will willfully misinterpret the results. And third is that they will almost certainly use the data to enforce existing rules rather than to analyze the actual social impact.
We have good reason to fear the invasion of our privacy. We have better reason to fear that anything else will truly understand what we are doing and why. We have the greatest reason to fear that this power will belong not to robot overlords but to people still bound by our legacy of rules instituted before this power existed.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
"Spouses already fight about the thermostat; who's preference is "the house" going to pick?"
The one who named his dog "Sudo"
Control over our own residence, etc is to be given over to Google or whoever. Really? Could this be any more wrong. Wrong on so many levels and in so many ways that I need not explain them all. Common sense shows us what a CF this idea really is.
I don't want a smart home.
I don't want a smart car.
And with your permission and all of that,
What a joke...
As others have pointed out, "all of that" will be having this nonsense foisted on us without any real choice.
I don't want to have to pay for this, to monitor it, to have to constantly upgrade it, etc;
Look at the sad state of security with home routers, wifi, etc.
Do we want to have our oven, fridge and toilet be connected to the internet?
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Look Eric, the internet, like electricity, will fade into the back of people's minds and everyone takes it for granted. Until . . . it fails. When the electricity is out for only a couple of hours, you become keenly aware of how much you depend upon it.
Comcast pledges to keep the internet at the forefront of people's minds.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Marshall McLuhan was talking about this stuff in the late 60s when talking about how we lose perception of our context. “We don't know who discovered water, but we know it wasn't the fish.” I highly recommend "Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man"
People have a hard time understanding the methodology of the probe v.s. the argument but if you can wrap your head around it, it is a breathtaking vision.
It even talks about online news feeds like Slashdot..again in the 60s.
There is another book called "The Laws of Media" that explains that book.
http://www.dailydot.com/politi...
And all the things in the room start attacking you! Or spamming you with ads. Or demand a ransom in Bitcoins before they let you leave.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
It will display the temperature preferred by the woman, but control the air handler based on the man's preference. Because the man wrote the software for the thermostat.
At least that's how mine works.
See that "Preview" button?
It's really great that someone can get press for shooting rainbows out his behind (yes, you too, Elon).
The reality is that this is still science fiction-- and may forever be. If we were to make a genuine internet of things, the use amount of plastics, rare metals, and toxic batteries would need to be absolutely immense. Like, apocalyptically immense.
This fantasy world that Schmidt presents is one of extravagant waste and irrationally exuberant spending that it can only be done for one reason-- PR for new or continuing tech. He's probably just out pounding the drum for Android-based smartphones and their "potential" to be used as life-control devices.
you must be new here.
Hahaha, you can just hear the disdain and scorn in his voice. He might as well have just said "and all of that other privacy bullshit"
Paint it all white and use no decoration at all and wear augmented reality glasses which put whatever you want everywhere obviously.
and taking quite some bullshit. Oh well, news at 11.
Good one, Google.
Pervasive Networking will become like electricity and only be noticed when it is absent.
A lot of the things they are proposing I don't really need. I don't need my dishwasher or laundry machine to tweet me when they are done. Why? Because I run them in the middle of the night when the electricity is cheaper. I don't care when they finish. Besides if I did care they have this feature called a beep or chime. The Nest had a bit of attraction to me until I found out that all of the information was being sent to a central server. Surely processors are powerful enough that the predictions could be calculated on the thermostat itself. It's bad enough that I'm stuck with a smart meter. I don't need my habits being tracked by another organization. Besides my non-connected programmable thermostat is more than good enough.
I could see a smoke detector with some sort of thermal scanner that would only detect fires that would contact the fire department in emergencies being quite handy. But for the most part I see the Internet of things as doing stuff because we can do them and not because we need them.
All those devices requiring updates, acting flaky (bugs), and hackable. Nice - yeah, that's the future that I want. NOT.
It should pick whoever prefers the cooler temperature, because the other person can button up and then both are comfortable.
In practice it will pick the woman's, even though that makes the guy less comfortable most of the time, because of the way interpersonal dynamics play out between most couples.
I'm glad to see that Google is taking the issue seriously.
I am continually amazed that every time Schmidt talks about the internet, he says something that is simultaneously very creepy and very scary.
Sorry, Schmidt, there is literally no way in hell that I'm going to allow all these devices in my home to talk to the internet. The risks are simply far too high, from corporate and governmental surveillance all the way through the risk of being hacked, and there is almost no benefit in exchange.
" you are interacting with the things going on in the room." In Socialist America the room interacts with YOU comrade.