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.
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
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
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.
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
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....
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.
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.
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"