Slashdot Mirror


Walt Mossberg's Last Column Calls For Privacy and Security Laws (recode.net)

70-year-old Walt Mossberg wrote his last weekly column Thursday, looking back on how "we've all had a hell of a ride for the last few decades" and revisiting his famous 1991 pronouncement that "Personal computers are just too hard to use, and it isn't your fault." Not only were the interfaces confusing, but most tech products demanded frequent tweaking and fixing of a type that required more technical skill than most people had, or cared to acquire. The whole field was new, and engineers weren't designing products for normal people who had other talents and interests. But, over time, the products have gotten more reliable and easier to use, and the users more sophisticated... So, now, I'd say: "Personal technology is usually pretty easy to use, and, if it's not, it's not your fault." The devices we've come to rely on, like PCs and phones, aren't new anymore. They're refined, built with regular users in mind, and they get better each year. Anything really new is still too close to the engineers to be simple or reliable.
He argues we're now in a strange lull before entering an unrecognizable world where major new breakthroughs in areas like A.I., robotics, smart homes, and augmented reality lead to "ambient computing", where technology itself fades into the background. And he uses his final weekly column to warn that "if we are really going to turn over our homes, our cars, our health and more to private tech companies, on a scale never imagined, we need much, much stronger standards for security and privacy than now exist. Especially in the U.S., it's time to stop dancing around the privacy and security issues and pass real, binding laws."

42 of 96 comments (clear)

  1. Dude's 70? by Snotnose · · Score: 2

    Followed him for years, always thought he was my age (58). He was right more than he was wrong, but he was always interesting.

    1. Re:Dude's 70? by Snotnose · · Score: 1

      Gonna take a while to get used to calling myself drynose.

      Jeez, I've used this nick since the 90s. It was supposed to be a throwaway but somehow stuck.

  2. "ambient computing" is a great term by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    These days most kids are used to apps tracking them all of the time. Just look at Waze that now requires you do enable location services all of the time instead of just when you're using that app. Young people just don't care about privacy since they've never really had it.

    1. Re: "ambient computing" is a great term by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      This. I love being able to track my two kids that drive, but it is a little scary to think that someone else could too. I hate that Waze added the requirement to track all of the time. That really kills your battery.

      On iOS you can at least choose to not let Waze run in the background. Given how I use Waze, doing so doesn't really affect the usefulness of the app (for me). I haven't found Waze's notifications (e.g. "You should leave early cuz traffic is bad") useful anyway, and as you noted it does tend to kill your battery.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re: "ambient computing" is a great term by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 2

      And when they do care about their privacy, they think Snap Chat and WhatsApp will do the trick. WhatsApp is owned by Facebook. The argument is that it uses open source code from the same people that make Signal. Ok, then why not just use Signal? Why are some countries allowing WhatsApp and not Telegram or vice versa? I'd just use a Tox client; it's like OpenVPN, but for messaging and most Tox clients do everything Skype does. Even when I'm watching a live stream (usually via streamlink and mpv to save RAM), I use IRC with SSL to join the chat.

      I think that just because we see a generation of young people born with a computer in their laps, we assume that they are also responsible enough with it to stay informed and more proactive with its use; that's a big no. You've got a bunch of Hipsters too busy falsely fulfilling the fantasy of being a lumberjack with a man-bun and thousands of dollars of "comfortable" technology to entice women that want to be a Penny/Amy mash-up from The Big Bang Theory. The reality is, rich parents and barely qualified to work at Spencer Gifts because they are shocked that their major in civil rights studies with a minor in art didn't work out, on top of which you have 35 year-olds going through a midlife crises, doing the same crap. As long as they got weed and an over-the-top BS Facebook/Tumblr profile to attract women when they need them, they're okay.

    3. Re: "ambient computing" is a great term by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      Waze is an interesting one, because it uses the location data that you're constantly collecting to monitor traffic patterns. Even when you're not using it for navigation, you're providing real-time data for people who are. If everyone turns it off as you've done, then it becomes less useful for everyone else, yet the incentives are to turn it off to preserve battery: it's a classic example of the tragedy of the commons. The question then becomes whether it's possible to collect this data in a privacy-preserving way.

      It's obviously possible for the server to simply discard the sender part of the data when collecting it, but can you somehow ensure that the server never receives this, but does get information about traffic density and speed?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re: "ambient computing" is a great term by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I'd just use a Tox client; it's like OpenVPN, but for messaging and most Tox clients do everything Skype does.

      With one big and important exception: It doesn't yet handle multiple devices. Skype can be installed on your computer and your phone and used from either with the same set of contacts and with handoff between them.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re: "ambient computing" is a great term by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Waze is an interesting one, because it uses the location data that you're constantly collecting to monitor traffic patterns. Even when you're not using it for navigation, you're providing real-time data for people who are.

      It's not providing useful data while you're not in traffic, so the solution is to provide some incentive to the user to activate it even when they're not navigating. While you're in your car, you can be plugged in and charging, so the additional power consumption of the GPS is unimportant.

      I for one would have thought that traffic alerts would have been sufficient incentive, but... eh

      If it would just start tracking (and if I have a connection, reporting traffic alerts) whenever Android Auto was launched, that would really be something. And heck, maybe it already has an option like this.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re: "ambient computing" is a great term by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

      Not true: https://tox.chat/clients.html. All you got to do is email the tox profile to yourself for your phone. That's why I said it was like OpenVPN. I've used Antidote on iPhone with people using qTox on their laptop and it works very well.

    7. Re: "ambient computing" is a great term by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, the wiki still lists it as a to-do feature. Does it support transparent handoff between clients (i.e. I start on my computer, finish on my phone and the other contact doesn't notice) and is there a mechanism for syncing message histories between multiple clients?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re: "ambient computing" is a great term by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Waze is an interesting one, because it uses the location data that you're constantly collecting to monitor traffic patterns. Even when you're not using it for navigation, you're providing real-time data for people who are. If everyone turns it off as you've done, then it becomes less useful for everyone else, ...

      I can't speak to the general case, but specific to me - I'm just not in a car that much, so this part is overstated. I ride a train to and from work, so that's not a useful situation for Waze to collect data. You could certainly argue that my not enabling Waze for the short trips to the grocery or hardware store are making it less useful for others.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    9. Re: "ambient computing" is a great term by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1
      A profile (literally an encrypted file with settings) is stored locally on your computer and the tox servers that act as an operator keep just enough info to connect calls (kind of like DNSCrypt) using the information inside of the profile. However, that does mean that you have to trust the Tox server, but it's no different than having to trust servers with your public PGP keys for encrypted email. Once a successful "handoff" is made, it's encrypted P2P the entire time. That's how I understand it anyway.

      That profile works with every Tox client because those clients use open source to build around the same tox core. Example, a qTox profile you use on your laptop can be emailed to your phone and opened with Antidote and have the same setup, including contacts. As far as actual histories go, I'm not sure if the profile stores those too because I never keep them. You could probably use a trusted cloud storage service to keep the profile in sync with other devices instead of using Micro$oft to do it for you like it does for Skype users. And because everything is open source, I'm not as worried about backdoors, and I know for a fact that people actually look at the code for the various clients because I've helped out a little bit with the Mac version of qTox and Antidote as a tester.

      If you do a quick Google search of "Skype hack," it's terrifying how many results you get. Screw that. As far as how decentralized Tox really is, there are some good arguments made here you may want to look at: https://github.com/irungentoo/..., but that argument is almost two years old and it's gotten better since then. I'm not saying Tox is perfect, but it's definitely still one of the better choices out there that not too many people know about, so it may actually have that going for it too. My top 3 in order: 1) Tox because it is cross-platform and haven't had any issues with it, 2) Signal because it's also open source and made by Whisper Systems, and then 3) Wickr because it has good reviews, a bug bounty, and interesting legal process guidelines if it ever came to it. Never use the version of a client (such as Signal or Telegram) that utilizes a web browser such as a "Chrome app" because well it's Google for one, but also because it's only as secure as your browser is and the more add-ons you have, the more iffy things get.

    10. Re: "ambient computing" is a great term by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

      Another thing I like about Tox is that no one has bothered to create spam or bots for it yet, though they still have a method of preventing being spammed with friend requests, ergo you can almost guarantee that if you leave your Tox "number" as a method of contact rather than an email or phone number, the caller is going to be human. I hate how Signal and most other encrypted messenger use phone numbers to "find contacts." Not sure if that's what they are actually do as a "free app."

      Update on chat history: There is an option for the client to store chat history in qTox in the Privacy tab, so maybe.

  3. Privacy is a rich man's problem by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, I know that's not a nice thing to say, but you're not going to get anywhere with privacy laws while 76% of the country lives paycheck to paycheck. You just won't be able to get the kinds of people in office that'll bother. The crooks will actively oppose it and anyone decent will be too busy with more pressing matters.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Privacy is a rich man's problem by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't matter anyway. There is just no possible way to enforce it. The only thing we can do is tell the authorities, *No privacy for me, no privacy for thee*

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Privacy is a rich man's problem by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Privacy is also a Western concern. In Asian and African countries people have very different expectations. I lived in China for several years, and I don't remember anyone ever knocking before entering a room. At the hospital I saw a nurse interrogating a patient about his impotence problem while other patients were queued directly behind him. Restrooms often had a row of toilets with no stall doors between them, although this did make it easier to ask someone to pass the toilet paper.

    3. Re:Privacy is a rich man's problem by TheOuterLinux · · Score: 1

      Bernie Madoff could of used better privacy laws. Problem is, the people with the most money are too damn old to learn anything about computers; that's what they have secretaries for. If I had my way, you must pass a short exam before voting on a Bill just to be sure you read it or at least bothered to look at a cheat sheet. If there's no printout of proof, you don't get to go in and you can't vote on behalf of others. If you fail the exam, you get to take it again because at least hopefully you'd of learned something by the time you do pass. You'd have up to a week before the vote that way you can spend the rest of the time discussing it with other members.

    4. Re: Privacy is a rich man's problem by Jesus+H+Rolle · · Score: 2

      You're saying that the generation that invented pretty much everything to do with computers is too old to learn anything about them.

      This is also the generation whose VCRs always flashed 12:00.

    5. Re:Privacy is a rich man's problem by mjtaylor24601 · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the guy who can't get insurance because he Googled one too many medical conditions

      Does such a person actually exist or are you just making up hypotheticals?

      or the guy who lost his job because his employer snooped his facebook password from the "free" wifi in the employee lounge, and objected to his political "likes".

      Again, assuming this actually happened, that sounds like an egregious privacy violation on the part of the employer (not to mention a flagrant violation of labor law), but I can't see how it's particularly a problem with Facebook. Unless you're argument is that people shouldn't be allowed to share their political views on line because unscrupulous employers might misuse that information.

      --
      I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
    6. Re: Privacy is a rich man's problem by donak · · Score: 1

      This is also the generation whose VCRs always flashed 00:00.

      FTFY

      --
      Don't blame me, it's usually 2 in the morning when I post ...
  4. paradoxical effects? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Personal computers are just too hard to use

    Here's the thing though. Since computers were harder to use in the 1970's and 80's, you had two kinds of people: those with no involvement whatsoever with technology, and those who more or less were technically literate.

    Now, they have become easier to perform some common "canned" tasks, but that means there are two kinds of people: and both are now computer users: technically literate people, and technically illiterate. Whereas before the technically illiterate had no impact on the evolution of technology, they now dominate the story because they are the vast majority and it is it their purchasing choices and user choices that determine where things go.

    When they insist on things being "simpler than they are", or when they decide in mass to give all their data to sad companies like Google and Facebook, that harms everyone in the end.

    I'm not so certain that making computers too easy to use has been for the better. Sure, it has allowed more people to have access, but most of them are making terrible choices.

    1. Re:paradoxical effects? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      I was lucky enough to have been deeply into computers before the Eternal September. I miss those days....

  5. Walt picked a good time to retire by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    He was still being paid a living wage to write... that's getting to be a difficult gig to find.

    So long, Walt, and thanks for all the fish^W columns. I always enjoyed your work.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  6. Walt Who? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

    Never heard of the guy and never heard of his supposedly famous pronouncement.

    1. Re:Walt Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Never heard of the guy and never heard of his supposedly famous pronouncement.

      Probably it was filtered out from your Facebook news stream...

    2. Re:Walt Who? by InfiniteZero · · Score: 1

      He will go down history as the man who brought together Gates and Jobs:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      (It's an interesting video to watch even though I've posted this before.)

    3. Re:Walt Who? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      I'm with the original poster. I only read Steve Ciarcia and don't have a facebook account.

  7. Re:What privacy? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    People willing turn over their data to these companies for use of "free" products.

    As long as the terms of the transaction are clear, there is nothing wrong with that. I use Google search, Google Docs, etc. They mine the data I give them, and I occasionally get ads for stuff I am actually interested in. If I don't want them to know about something, I use an incognito window or a different computer.

  8. You enforce it with fines by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    just like we do spam. Spam fines are so massive that only criminals still do it. The criminals who get big enough get caught and get jail time. Privacy violating is easier to enforce since it's only profitable to do when you've got a legit business backing it up. Either that or the government, but you can keep the gov't from violating privacy by banning people who commit violations from public office and lobbying roles.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  9. Society is ruined by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As far as I care, society, or my life, is ruined.

    The police state is already here I am sure of it, which is why I call it the "looming police state". It seems so obvious that what by naive or tools like technologists are called "survaillance state" is just the police state.

    Also, if society ultimately isn't run by civilians, you can forget about democracy I think. I have nothing against democracy, but this doesn't seem to work, wars everywhere so to speak, nations just doing what they want.

    Having past 40, I am now entertaining the idea that USA is simply evil, or the government/state that is. Ofc, I am not religious, so I think of "evil" as meaning pretty much the same thing as "vile".

  10. The key phrase by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    "...giant companies that make up today’s tech oligopoly — Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google and Microsoft. But, as tectonic shifts like this occur in technology, oligopolies get shaken up. For instance: today, Apple is the biggest of the group. By all reports, it’s working seriously on AR, self-driving cars and health initiatives. But its strict and admirable privacy policies make it harder for it to gather the vast amounts of data required for the best machine learning...."

    In otherwords, we all want what apple is selling-- high tech with respect for privacy and restraint from exploiting the consumer. But were not willing to pay for it so we sell our souls to the dark encroaching shadow of google and facebook.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  11. Re:What privacy? by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    yes there is something wrong with it. It's a creeping ivy that climbs the healthy trees and kills them. By getting more and more people to surrender to their "free" offerings that cost of residing outside the google sphere or facebook toxic beach become prohibitive. Already there's dozens of sites I can't fully use because it takes a facebook login to us. Same with google+ registrations on many sites. Thus even though I'm willing to pay for my privacy (by using Apple products and services) I can't reach the whole internet anymore. And the only reason they can get away with this is because millions of you have surrendered to this instead of fighting against it. It doesn't matter if you felt you had nothing to lose, it matters to the whole internet what you did.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  12. Re:What privacy? by dcollins · · Score: 3

    "I occasionally get ads for stuff I am actually interested in."

    I have seriously never understood this apology for ad-based services. You honestly like ads intruding on your workflow while you're trying to do something else? Instead of a push-messaging model, wouldn't it be better to have a pull-messaging model where, on the day you want or need X, you search for "product X" and you get a fair and objective listing of available X's on the market from which to compare?

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  13. Re:What privacy? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

    You honestly like ads intruding on your workflow while you're trying to do something else?

    The ads are going to be there anyway. I don't see more ads, just different ads.

    on the day you want or need X, you search for "product X"

    What about stuff you don't know you want or need?
    20 years ago, how many people wanted an iPhone?

  14. Re:What privacy? by __aadota8673 · · Score: 1

    You don't understand how each ad showing being more profitable is going to result in you being subjected to more ads? Really? How do you cross a street? I mean if you can only see what's 3ft in front of you, what if there is a car coming? Do you Always just wait for the walk signal? I was picking up some nice fatty cottage cheese for lunch and I crossed on a walk signal. I car floored it on yellow and ran the intersection. If I was you, I would be dead. Thankfully I'm a bit smarter than that.

  15. Re:What privacy? by Antiocheian · · Score: 1

    As long as the terms of the transaction are clear

    They are not clear. Nowhere does Google and the rest give you a full list of what they're tracking you on. Even on their privacy terms, they only provide "examples".

    If I don't want them to know about something, I use an incognito window or a different computer.

    An incognito window means nothing since they can easily create a unique fingerprint for both normal and incognito windows. A different computer with a different IP address, different preferences etc would work but they can still demand that you give them a phone number to create an account. And phone numbers are legally attached to your person. And they can still monitor browsing habits, keystroke timings, types of documents etc to create fingerprints. At some point you need to learn to just say no to Google.

  16. Last Column by PPH · · Score: 1

    What did they mean by 'last'?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  17. Re:What privacy? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    As long as the terms of the transaction are clear, there is nothing wrong with that

    They never are. Even when, like Google, they're open about what they collect (as long as you bother to go and look), they're not open about the kind of inferences that they can run. For example, the Google Ads and Facebook tracking cookies let these companies know exactly which news articles you read online. If you use GMail or Facebook, they can infer which topics are important to you and likely to influence your vote. They can also infer which of the people in your social network are influenced by the opinions of other and which are the ones of influence. They can target ads to persuade the opinion formers that a particular political party or candidate cares about the issues that they care about. They can correlate this with your address to find which of you are in swing constituencies and which are undecided voters and target those more aggressively (Facebook will even sell this information: a list of undecided voters and the most important issues to them).

    Do you think most consumers who use Google and Facebook think about this and say to themselves 'yes, that's totally fine, and definitely worth the service that I'm receiving?'

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  18. Stronger standards? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    ... we need much, much stronger standards for security and privacy than now exist.

    Yes we do - but standards are meaningless without consistent, effective, swift, and powerful enforcement. We now live in an era where it's increasingly difficult for the average citizen to persuade authorities to enforce even laws when it comes to offenses committed by corporations. In that kind of climate, the only useful standard is "take your 'ambient computing' and shove it up your ass". Unfortunately, as a species we seem hopelessly addicted to convenience and shininess, even at the cost of various yokes around our necks - so here we go yet again, surrendering autonomy for comfort.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  19. Re:What privacy? by mjtaylor24601 · · Score: 1

    As long as the terms of the transaction are clear

    They are not clear. Nowhere does Google and the rest give you a full list of what they're tracking you on. Even on their privacy terms, they only provide "examples".

    https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity

    --
    I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
  20. Re:What privacy? by ChatHuant · · Score: 1

    Have no doubt, the data you think they're collecting is only a tiny fraction of the data they have on you. We found out recently they're also collecting data from credit card companies, and be sure they're matching them against all your documents, shopping lists, calendar items, all those apparently innocuous snippets of data you're letting them see.
     
    In reality you're part of the problem. Google can point to you and others like you and say "see, most people are OK with our terms of service". They can use this to argue whatever way they come up with to destroy our privacy even further is acceptable under "community standards", and shouldn't be regulated or legislated against. The ones of us who do care about our privacy are left with no options.

  21. Re:What privacy? by Antiocheian · · Score: 1

    Which in my case reports: "No activity. Some activity may not appear yet." I've been actively using Google services while being registered for several years.