Slashdot Mirror
A Future Where Everything Becomes a Computer Is As Creepy As You Feared (nytimes.com)
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 know you want fries with that.
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
>"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.
Libertarianism is the opposite side of Socialism. Both are based on this premise:
"We'll trust and magically it will all work out."
Both the market and the state have particular natures that simply don't work for solving certain problems. The government is terrible at the things that Socialism says it can magically fix, and the market is terrible at resolving the negative externalities that Capitalism says will be resolved by market incentives that arise from them.
Historically, that's why it was called political-economy, not economics. It was just understood by most thinkers that politics governs the economy and most political questions resolve back to answering economic disputes.
These are running on sub $1 processors only doing very simple things like turning a light on or off. Even something as complicated as your dishwasher doesn't need an OS. 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.
That's only true if it's possible to reflash it.
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.