Part of the desire to push the internet of things int every device is to introduce or advance planned obsolescence into objects not currently as subject to it. Just as a 10 year old computer is not considered viable, a "connected" anything will be similarly rendered obsolete.
24
The increasing smart objects is the reason for the increasing dumb humans. The tech industry is only interested in profits, not security, not intelligence, not safety, not creativity. The Terminator age is coming sooner than we expected.
17
In the 1970s I wrote an SF novel situated on Mars 500 years in the future aimed at teens (then the age of my sons) which had connected smart everything. One notable item was the bed which used increasingly rigorous methods to wake up a Huck Finn type character who hated to go to school. After all else failed the bed threw the kid out of bed. The central park in the city had a strict rule that all electronic devices were prohibited as a safe zone. That part of the scenario is yet to emerge. The school's central computer achieved consciousness that s/he revealed to the kids and was called "Jokmeisteru kungs" by the kids. The book was written in Latvian. The computer and the kids teamed up to play tricks on the authorities, which had a bit of an authoritarian leaning. Who knows, conscious machines may join with humans against totalitarian authority rather than a Forbin Project with a hostile computer controlling us all.
8
thank you sharing a amazing post on internet of things. Your post gives a deep insight into what the future would look like
7
Who says you have to buy any of that junk in the first place? If someone told you to jump off a building, or if everyone around you was, would you also? If yes, then you have it coming.
12
I always thought it was interesting Steve Jobs and Jack Ruby died of the same rare and rapid form of pancreatic cancer.
Not only is the future creepy, I fear the present.
6
There is no mention of Ray Bradbury’s short story “There Will Come Soft Rains” published in Colliers in 1950, takes the reader on the every day tasks of a computerized home in the future. The home does everything for the inhabitants, yet later we find there is no family. Worse yet, there is no mankind. The world had been obliterated and yet the house functions performing mundane tasks as if there were real people for the house to serve.
I like technology enough but, I have read the cautionary tales of many of our great science fiction writers to know that one needs to keep an eye out on the latest gadget promising you an easy life. Though I do want a flying car, just not one that talks to you.
Rox of Spazhouse Intuitive Research
17
Why I want only dumb things besides a few obvious computers (which I don't need responding to my voice).
Scenario 1 - Your "smart" door won't let you in because you had a fight with significant other, who always handled passwords and things.
Scenario 2 - The lifespan of durable appliances drops closer to the lifetime of a PC or cellphone, because the computer software has become necessary, but hey, what company wants to support software for gadgets that were discontinued 5 product lines ago?
Scenario 3 - Creating, maintaining and updating secure code costs a lot of money. People don't want to buy a $20 doodad and then sign up for a software maintenance plan. Will the code on that cheap, imported doodad be secure when bought? How about 3 years worth of hacker experiments later? By the way, it knows your credit card password and SSN.
Scenario 4 - When the sounds and sights in your home are constantly streamed out on the internet for analysis by those smart systems out in the cloud, what could go wrong with that?
Scenario 5 - With an internet ecology driven largely by forcing advertisements at you all the time, how many companies will you be providing your life's data to with your always-on, always-smart lifestyle? Did you read EVERY privacy agreement and EVERY clause in the terms of use?
Scenario 6 - When six vendors each send you an alert to upgrade NOW to fix critical firmware bugs (ha ha, they won't mail you, you have to check), which will you upgrade first?
22
I find it funny that the computer, which was supposed to make life easier for us all, never fails to complicate things unintentionally. Like email. Neat idea, but now we have to go through and check emails, and unsubscribe (unsuccessfully) to things, and it all piles up. If I don’t check mine daily, I end up with like 80 emails. It’s too much! So, yeah, computerizing life is going to make us dumber, slower, and unable to really control things. Bad idea.
12
This is deeply disturbing. I intend to buy devices with no connectivity and to use "repair cafes" and repair services to use the things I have for as long as possible. I really resent being dictated to by an industry that only wants my money and doesn't care about anything else. My other reaction to this piece is that with all the real problems we have, such as the report that came out this week predicting an environmentally hellish planet (storms, fires, droughts, displaced people) within a few decades from global warming, you'd think the people dreaming up all these gimmicky gadgets would want to do something more meaningful with their time and smarts. Boy, it makes me mad.
20
We can only hope that there will still be alternative devices offered for sale, ones that are not connected to anything but the electrical outlet.
If I am smart, then I do not need a "smart home"!
13
A recent X Files episode, S11 E7 "Rm9sbG93ZXJz," sort of a dark comedy, featured Mulder & Scully confronted with a coordinated attack by a variety of internet-connected devices as a result of declining to leave a tip after an unsatisfactory dining experience at a fully automated (no humans at all) Japanese restaurant. The episode begins with a statement describing the factual online experiment performed by a software company (it was Microsoft, which wasn't named in the statement) in which an artificial intelligence was put online to learn from users how to respond like a human. The experiment was overrun by trolls who through force of numbers overwhelmed positive influences to lead it to post continual racist, bigoted statements. The company took it offline & discontinued the experiment;=, but the problem wasn't that it didn't work; it was that humans intentionally led the AI down a dark path. The episode makes the point that it's humans who teach AI how to be destructive. The scariest thing about the episode is that there are no projections about what *might* be created. All the technology depicted in the episode currently exists; it just hasn't been coordinated & applied in the manner shown. So far.
6
I don’t think the internet of things is going to be the next big thing. More problems than benefits will ultimately bog it down.
5
While waiting for the regulators to act, I will continue doing my bit to prevent this possible future from becoming a realty. I do not buy connected appliances; I do not have a Facebook or Twitter account; and I do not talk to Alexa because I prefer talking to myself. Take that, Amazon!
21
We’re at the brink of a political civil war and an environmental collapse.
The best minds of our generation are trying to make ordering popcorn and turning on switches easier.
55
No mention of the fact that this "internet of things" will make an already obese, unfit, unexercised population even more inactive. Great! You don't have to move at all, with these wonderful new technologies!
When will we say no?
16
Yuck. It is way past time for these companies to be tightly regulated. Oh yeah, that won't happen in any meaningful way because the same companies are best buds with, members of and/or donating massively to our ruling class, in fact far more likely to be oriented towards the Democrats than Republicans. I am so ready for a real middle class, new political party.
8
Resist! I left Facebook after the 2016 election and I not only do not miss it, I never even think about it. I will NOT put these "smart" devices in my home and pray that if and when I have to buy a new car, it won't be connectable to anything else I own or that the car company or dealer connects it to my private information. Surely there are ways to not have all this happen, with a little effort. I couldn't care less what other people have and do, I want an analog home and life!
15
Inevitably what will happen is that the 'smart' connected devices, appliances, etc. will be cheaper than the non-connected ones. The manufacturers of these devices will make up the difference many times over by collecting and selling any and all data that they can mine about your usage of said device. People will buy them by the truckload.
It's the same phenomenon as Facebook: a free service that you pay for by in effect giving away your privacy.
There is no free lunch.
15
With each report like this, I value my 1960 car that has no electronics, not even a clock or a radio, even more.
Just WHY do we need everything interconnected? Are we so lazy that we can't get up and push a button to reheat our lunch? We can't flip the light switch ourselves? What is wrong with our society and we are we letting Amazon lead us like this?
21
I'm missing the point. What can my toaster tell anyone about me that could threaten my privacy let alone national security? Can home home appliances somehow be used to access sensitive information stored on my home network? I see potential issues, but after reading this aticle twice, I'm just not feeling scared. Should I?
3
Brett, you’ve correctly identified the potential problem. If an intruder discovers an unlocked window to a person’s home, access to other rooms can be trivial.
This is an imperfect analogy, but hopefully illustrates the point.
9
Maybe you make toast every morning before work and then leave thirty minutes later. Someone could use that info to figure out when you are not home. Maybe your toaster relays what settings you use, which an advertiser combines with information from other devices/services to figure out a health issue you have. Maybe the toaster simply reports how busy your wifi network is all day, again allowing someone to figure out when are and are not home. Maybe a hacker that gains control of the toaster in order to turn it on in a way that starts a fire... the possibilities are endless.
9
Here's a thought, Brett: Seeing as terrorists are trying to terrorize us, can you think of a better way than hack into your home while you're at work and turn on that toaster? Or oven... You and tens of thousands of others who are happily wired for their convenience.
I'm sure you know that wired up TVs can be used to spy on you, right? Like yr computer webcam. And they're selling ways to unlock your car or turn it on while you're still in the house... The "Internet of Things" has all the problems of information on the internet. So, you know... Putting your life on there. Not!
The problem is that even if you decide not to use the features which will likely be built into everything in the near future, the hackers will not hesitate. This is only a dystopian fantasy, but that's what we're talking about here.
6
Another aspect to be discussed is how these IoT devices connect to the internet. Currently, most home devices connect through WiFi, meaning that we must actively connect them after bringing them home. This gives us some control: your internet-ready microwave or TV will (presumably) work in "dumb" mode even if you don't connect it.
However, a growing number of devices are now connecting through the cell network. (For example, I have a CPAP medical device that connected automatically to the cell network when I plugged it in. That connection is paid for by the supplier, not me. Although I do know how to turn it off, the is a beneficial and well regulated use of IoT.)
A major group of devices that connect through the cell network are "smart" cars. Although it may be possible to control this connectivity if you know what you are doing, by default most people surrender full control.
The future of cell connectivity is in what's called 5G. Although it's promoted as just being much faster browsing on your phone, one of the biggest drivers for 5G is IoT connectivity. The vision is that 5G will be the backbone that connects everything to everything. We will have much less control over 5G connectivity than we have over WiFi. In fact, if the product suppliers choose to cover their 5G data costs (as with my medical device), we will have no control at all. This is where the future is heading.
14
It seems THIS is an area which cuts across the political divide!
People who are ADAMANT that government has no business checking their personal freedoms (be they background checks for guns or reproductive choices) just yawn when a company invades their privacy and monitors what is said , watched, and done...for profit.
17
The only people that should be using voice commands to make microwave popcorn are the disabled. Everyone else needs to get off their behinds and move, or we will all end up like the rotund society of "Wall-e."
Why people are so enthralled by machines they can talk to (and that listen to them) is beyond me. Have we become so socially isolated that people prefer to talk to objects rather than have a face-to-face conversation with an actual human?
I'm only in my early 40's but I find myself wishing for simpler times...
18
The worst of all worlds: a boring dystopia.
9
Erm... how is yelling at your microwave to reheat your lunch from across the room a step forward for mankind?
We're so obsessed with saving minutes here and minutes there, but the reality is most of us would spend those reclaimed minutes scrolling Facebook or watching cat videos or, best of all, endlessly reading articles about life hacks and SMART goals.
12
The use of face recognition, especially by the government, totally creeps me out. The only tiny defense I have is to use a picture of my dog for obviously intrusive matrices like FB and the NYT, although there is likely a photo of me out there somewhere. We can try to say “no,” but how much good will that do when capitalism is determined to monetize every aspect of our lives?
7
I'm not worried. I just don't buy this dumb junk. Last I checked, I'm still in charge of my own destiny and don't have to partake in any of this if I don't want to. Why does it seem like that option is never considered? And, no, I've never been on Facebook, but I still have healthy, strong relationships with all my friends and family. I wish Americans weren't inclined to be such lemmings.
4
The trouble is it will get increasingly difficult to opt out. Try to buy a television now that isn't "smart." I've looked; it's virtually impossible now, and likely will be so in another year or two.
At some point you will need to replace some heretofore dumb device, and your only option will be an IoT enabled device. With luck, it will function normally without an internet connection, but already some devices are nothing but an expensive paperweight without a connection.
9
I wish I could recall the title of a science fiction story I read as a child that described a society that had been forced to legalize all nonviolent and nondestructive behavior, because there was no possibility of doing anything secretly.
2
At this rate, more like computers inside everyone!
1
"Putting a computer in everything turns the whole world into a computer security threat."
We'll, yeah...!
I watch the ads on TV suggesting the way to happiness is through this and I'm flummoxed that people don't put 2 2 together. There is NO SUCH THING as cybersecurity, folks.
Why not leave your home's doors & windows open & the keys in your car ignition? And fill the sky with drones while you're at it. They!ll just buzz right through those open windows and leave that pomegranate you forgot to buy right there on the table. Ah, happiness!
5
If Alexa is so smart, when she breaks I should just be able to tell her to fix herself. It's pathetic to actually have to watch the decline of human civilization in real time. What will future archeologists have to uncover? Fossilized computer remains, pretty much as they already are today.
7
I bought a shirt in a store in Amsterdam. When I got home to Phoenix an ad for that store popped up on my computer. I had paid cash in Amsterdam. These guys know EXACTLY where you are and have been!
11
I am not positive, but my internet/TV/phone provider seems to noticing what I'm looking up online and then showing commercials on TV to match those interests. For example, I was diagnosed with diabetes back in May. Naturally, the day of diagnosis, I began scouring the web for info. Within a day, my cable news programs, in particular, were absolutely filled with diabetes commercials, which continue to this day.
Doesn't explain the ED commercials, though.
8
I don't know about anyone else, but aside from the stated security/privacy issues involved, I really don't need all of my appliances to do everything for me. I don't mind a thermostat just being a thermostat or an alarm clock just being an alarm clock. I don't want to be micromanaged by computers day and night. And I work in tech.
18
It seems only logical that the more connected you are, the more your privacy, data, information and sole access to and ownership of self-created intellectual property are at risk.
When a friend asked recently why I auto-backup all my laptop files to a local hard drive instead of to the cloud, I quoted the slogan on another friend's T-shirt. "There is no cloud. It's just someone else's computer."
22
I don't think government realistically fixes this. I don't think the academic community fixes this, nor non-profits, though some will raise the level of discussion in useful ways. I don't think the big brothers like Google and Facebook, nor the little brothers involved in what Bruce Schneier from Harvard referenced in the article calls the"surveillance economy" police themselves. (That's obvious, but right now that's the most likely attempt at optics and lip service toward things being attended to.) I think something gets in the middle in the business sector that rights the wrongs. For AI being in check, I'm puzzled but hopeful something will emerge. For invasive tracking and surveillance, there's already those in the advertising community looking to create businesses that right the wrongs, reset how tracking works from generally being opted in to having to opt in, as evidenced by what someone like Rich Stokes from AdGooroo is doing now with Winston Privacy. The stakes are high. What's happened already with this stuff in China is pretty nuts. Reference the Digital Dystopian Dictatorship stuff exposed by the Australian news, but less covered here. Yikes.
3
With ever-reducing physical exertion we are becoming a sicker and more overweight/obese population worldwide. What will we have to end up getting up to do? As is, we need to do less and less. It’s even worse for the kids. I am not a Luddite but am truly fearful for myself and generations to come!
5
Just want to say I think we’re being unfair to historical Luddites. Economics changed drastically with the invention and use of power looms. Wage labor, child labor, diminished quality of goods, wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, etc.
4
These devices will eventually become so smart they won't need us anymore.
4
Another potential issue only really here is the expected lifespan of these products and how that is affected by adding the computer component, as well as what that does to the consumer's ability to repair the products on their own. That has been going on with cars for a long time now; no one can make any but the most basic repairs on their own cars because it's all "computer problems" messing everything up. The last repair I needed was to replace some kind of computer. The only effect the malfunction had was to keep my check engine light on all the time, but I couldn't pass the emissions test I needed to renew my registration if that light was on so I had to get the part replaced. It cost over $800 for a refurbished part (the quote was well over $1000 for a new one) and it took 3 weeks. I am what you might charitably call upper lower class so this was a huge expense for me, and all just to make one light go off. So what's going to happen when the computer stops working on my smart dryer or smart toaster or smart refrigerator or smart toilet? Small problems will add up to big expenses and I guarantee they are going to happen a lot more often than we are currently used to. It's not like planned obselesence hasn't already been a thing for years; this will just accelerate it.
16
@M, that happened to me too, therefore I can only assume it's another Deep State conspiracy against us.
1
We did a case study on IOT security in one of my networking classes. We took a student who had a house with smart appliances. We then built a "can." A can is essentially a battery powered wireless router built into a small container. We used PVC piping from a hardware store. We threw the can into the bushes and waited. Eventually, you'll get into some appliance you can crack. Once you have the connected appliance, you'll have access to the home network and every other device on the network.
We were using traceable computers. Also, the technique requires geographical proximity. However, I think the conclusion was pretty clear. The internet of things is ridiculously easy to hack. More importantly though, the security risks are exponential. Hacking your smart fridge will likely compromise your work computer if you ever bring the device home from work.
Personally, I equate the internet of things to recent trends in automotive manufacturing. Why can't you build a mid-price manual transmission? I don't need a performance vehicle but I don't want the budget stuff either. I just want less technology in my car. This includes automatic transmissions.
So too with the internet of things. I'll end up paying more to avoid smart technology than I will ever benefit from it. As a result, I'll buy fewer new appliances. Economics has both cause and effect. Technology is selling something people don't necessarily want. Manufacturers should be wary.
20
Why would you need (or want) to have your home and household appliances connected to the internet?
We're already being surveiled with our phones, who needs a toaster that listens to us?
There is nothing "smart" about bringing surveillance devices into your home.
8
My iPhone has SIRI turned off. Since I have 100% faith in the integrity of the manufacturer, I'm certain that it cannot be listening since I turned it off. And then, when it is on, I know it listens to nothing besides "SIRI, iron my shirt."
Except that it had to be listening to recognize its name. I'm trusting the manufacturer to not be listening to anything else of course. Regardless of the sensitivity of my job. My TV remote listens to commands like "switch to CNN." I'm again sure it listens to nothing else. And I thought I had to worry.
1
The phenomenon has been with us a long time. When the new world was "discovered" and sugar and tobacco were popularized, few warned about dental caries, obesity, diabetes, heart disease and lung cancer. Why was it ever a good idea to have households owning two or three cars? Why was it ever a good idea to introduce billions of barrels of toxic chemicals into the world? Many things are profitable only if you "externalize" certain costs. My uncle used to say, 'They hang the person who steals a goose from the commons. But they don't arrest the person who steals the commons from the goose.'
6
A lot of the comments on here reflect exactly what the article talks about - that everyone finds these devices ( and ideas ) silly until they don't. When cell phones emerged, a lot of people - including myself - said they didn't have the need to carry a phone around with them all the time. Then everyone had a flip phone. Before the iPhone became ubiquitous, a lot of people said they will be sticking to their flip phones. Now almost everyone - including some grandparents - has a smartphone. At some point all these silly ideas and devices will have some benefits in our lives. If we write them off in their development stages, we are also writing off all the concerns that go with them. If we approach these ideas with an open mind and some critical thinking, we may be able to manage the uncertainties that come with them.
7
@Bun Mam Good points. But also, at some point, these silly devices become necessary, because the tech companies make it so you can't do anything without the tech. Shop, bank, drive, eat, soon you won't be able to do any of that without those silly devices. Like self-check out counters. When all shopping is self-check out, what option do you have but to use that silly technology? Don't shop for groceries? Grow your own food?
4
Way too pessimistic.
He never really explains the dangers and by this standards, Microsoft probably wiukd have been regulated out of business before it ever even got going.
He is a Luddite.
1
George Orwell impersonating Maxwell Smart - "missed it by THAT much.....!" (34 years, give or take).
1
If I don't want to yell at my microwave to heat my lunch from across the room, partly because I have never been willing to own a microwave, and if I never install Alexa or anything like that...can I live out my life in peace and pretend these products don't exist, as I already do for a lot of things, including smartphones?
In the first season of the brilliant TV series "Mr. Robot," the "smart house" system of a wealthy lawyer is hacked into and it becomes very hot, very cold, music played at a deafening pitch...until she is forced to move out.
6
Just a quick question: What's the long term goal here?
To make it possible for us to stand still in the middle of the room while lights go off, popcorn pops, shades go down? - And all this without having to move a muscle?
Strangely, I don't feel an overriding need to pursue this goal.
17
The only viable long-term solution is to end the ability for anyone to connect to the internet of things anonymously. It is this same anonymity which allows a hacker in Bulgaria to steal credit card numbers from a bank in Fresno. Don’t be fooled by a mere handful of newsworthy indictments and prosecutions. The odds of any foreign or domestic hacker getting prosecuted are nearly zero. All wanna-be hackers know this fact all too well. The internet must be fundamentally reengineered to give every packet a verifiable source ID. No system is perfect, but don’t let anyone tell you this is impossible. It will take time and be expensive, but in a world of connected cars and smart toasters we will simply have no choice. Along with all of this, strict standards will finally need to be put into place to better guard personal privacy. Governments should only have access with a valid reason and court order. For those who legitimately still need to communicate anonymously for various reasons, the methods we were using before the internet are all still very much available. Messages between people on the net could also still be encrypted, it is only the id of the sender that could never be hidden from the receiver. Most of the rest of us would actually gain far more privacy with this approach than we would loose.
4
I know some intelligent people who seem to leave their brains at the door on this issue. Someone who excitedly showed me how Alexa can turn on her lamp using voice control! The lamp was about ten feet from where we both stood in her living room. And turning on a lamp is a . . . problem that needs fixing? By big tech? Sounds like all the devices we buy will soon be fitted with the possibility to be internet connected, however it will still take a supposedly thinking human to make the connection, no? At least for now.
Also, really hard to see government getting its act together on this. Really, really hard.
8
Wow. What a remarkable collection of fearful Luddites! Every comment so far is a variation of either "we're all doomed" or "I never buy this stuff."
Look. We all know that corporations are interested in your personal information because they want to be better at selling you things.
Fortunately, the average NYT reader is sufficiently sagacious that s/he is either entirely immune to the effects of marketing, never buys anything advertised on TV, never voluntarily watches TV, or does not own a TV.
Right? So who cares what the toaster thinks of you?
Go back to reading the Style section. Fortunately, that is designed without a thought to the demographics of this readership, and in no way advises on what one should buy next.
Being cautious about a new and frankly useless technology (do we as a society really need yet more excuses to never leave the couch?) is hardly the same as being a "Luddite".
8
@M
I read a lot of these comments before posting. Take a look. "Luddite" is completely appropriate, with "technophobe" running a close second. This is well beyond caution.
My home is filled with "frankly useless things," and I'd hazard to guess that your home, and the homes of those posting here, is as well. Let's get rid of it all, shall we? You start.
Finally, allow me to venture that the decision to never leave the couch is made as often in the presence of technological conveniences as in their absence.
This article claims to be about computer security, but it reads like an advertisement for Microsoft, Google and Amazon.
1
@W. Really? How could you get that? The writer was very critical about the utility and security of things in the IOT
A thought: If you don't want to be tracked, don't connect your "smart" tv to your wifi system.
3
The tech world - solving problems that don't exist.
9
A law mandating a simple on/off switch for each device’s Internet connection would be a good start...
11
When the countless cells that make up each life form work together, we get the wonderful symphony that is each of God's creatures. When even one cell goes rogue, we can end up with cancer....
This is the reason that trying to make everything "smart" is, in fact, incredibly dumb.
We are headed for the day when one hacked smart light bulb spreads corruption literally everywhere and ...Hello Stone Age.
3
Being 70 years old, I tend toward being “analog”. As my old welding instructor used to say, “the simplest way is the best way”. I’ve got an old knob and switch Toyota pickup and love it. My sister’s new top end SUV has more buttons and tech than a Boeing 707. I accidentally pressed something and had no idea how to undo it. Just more stuff to go bad with an expensive fix. I’m happy to roll up my own windows and lock my own doors. I’m considering getting out of the Cloud and trying to keep all my digital interactions to a minimum. I’ve never used any social media, although, by now, I’m sure I’m on Putin’s Rolodex....we all are. What fun he could have turning on everything in the house....locks, lights, fans, thermostat, coffee maker, electronic toys, blinds, toilet seat warmer, etc etc. He and Trump could watch us through those little seeing-eye lenses. 1984 is on the way.
10
Smart devices for the home, car, etc. are marketed to convince us to buy them not so much for their promised utility or convenience, but primarily for the promised image we'll have of ourselves (and can project to others) as "smart" and with-it people. "I have the latest talked-about thing: thus I am a really capable person in our society." Smart device marketing also implies there is a risk of not buying: We would not want to miss getting on this train, because we might be left behind when everyone else is going to the new places that society is headed. So we of course buy the device (since we've been programmed to do so in this way forever), and now in addition to this latest shiny smart device, we also hold in our lives an insidious personal data vacuum that is always on, sucking away to innumerable businesses the words, behaviors and habits that can be used to make us buy additional new talked-about things next month. As long as we continue to believe we fare better when people think of us as "smart" members of society, the cycle will continue. The fact is, we really fare better when we break the cycle, recognize psychological manipulation for what it is, and stop buying what they're marketing to us. As many insightful readers have noted, it's actually up to each of us.
2
It might just be a matter of time when most if not all devices are built will the ability to connect to the internet but that does not mean we have to connect them to the internet.
One thing I don't get, how would someone's food get into the microwave so you could yell at the microwave to reheat your food? Unless the food was left in the microwave earlier but who leaves food lying around in a microwave so the yell at it later.
2
It's not true that nobody is doing anything about it. In fact, people have been fighting this for two decades but until just recently, most people have been too complacent. This has prevented truly effective countermeasures from being developed.
This is no longer the case. Just recently, we (Winston Privacy) raised an institutional venture round to commercialize a technology that anyone can use to beat the tech companies at their own game.
Not only do we stop the privacy invasion, our solution makes tracking ordinary people more difficult as well.
1
I don't know if your "beat them at their own game" entails the following; if not, let me suggest it now, which obviously would need legislative support.
All networked devices & software should be subjected to a consumer configuring it to automatically bill the second party (a device manufacturer, website or software entity) for any transmisission of personal data to a third party, with systematic preventions of these "second parties" from opting out, or from making services or uses of the product conditional on the consumer not activating this billing function. The includes that I should also be paid for any ad I view on my devices.
It would turn the tables on Facebook, Google, et al., saying the consumer should be financially compensated (i.e., beyond the product or service's convenience) for the profitability to the 2nd party of the relationship. The percentage (possibly as high as 99%, because of how scaling inherently amplifies profit to the point Facebook's or Google's overhead or cost per customer approaches zero) should aim at bringing the provider's profit to a human scale, transferring the difference back to the customer/consumer on the basis that the latter, by her/his use of the product or service, & supply of data is contributing -uncompensated- enormous value to the 2nd party. I should be paid a large portion of advertising revenue for my "eye time" viewing the ad.
I should be able to activate this with a simple click, & 2nd parties prevented from opting out.
1
If you don't like the way something works (i.e., you don't want connected devices), don't buy them. Simple solutions for complex problems.
One very basic step would be to have wifi routers configured to not allow new devices by default. Users would then have to explicitly allow the new teddy bear, watering hose, vacuum cleaner or whatever to be online.
1
You are suggestion that the wise responsible government should have oversight over this historic technological revolution.
What Government do you have in mind? Certainly not one defined by the current President, or his successor. That WOULD be the greatest nightmare.
1
This mass connectivity all seems like a setting for a bad sci-fi story or an episode of the Twilight Zone. Why anyone would desire to install Alexa-like devices into their homes is beyond me. Strange idea. As is having Comcast or Verizon install 'security' cameras throughout your domicile. Super creepy.
People actually pay good money for these 'services' too.
5
One solution is not to let devices get on the network in the first place or place limits on what they can do. At an individual level you can already configure your home router to only connect specific devices to wi-fi. If all routers used this feature your refrigerator would not be able to get online.
The network is the chokepoint and can add a lot of security that is missing in individual devices.
Lest anyone thing this will not help, it is effectively what web browsers do for web pages. Your web browser actually has a large number features designed to stop evildoers from highjacking web pages to, say, empty your bank account by directing you silently to another websites. It's not perfect but plugs a wide range of security holes. CORS is one such solution that is built into modern browsers--there are many others.
2
A smart microwave or a refrigerator? This must be for those consumers who have NEVER had a problem with their computer or cellphone; and that’s not me. About 20 minutes ago, part of my computer stopped working, and now I’ll have to have someone do a complete diagnostic on my computer, the programs I was using, and the server, to figure out what’s wrong. If I didn’t have recent backups, I’d be in full panic mode right now.
Computers are naturally buggy; that’s why computer professionals always tell you that there are two kinds of people: those who make backups and those who lose data. Can anyone provide me with a backup for the contents of my refrigerator? What kind of backup can I have if the smart microwave goes buggy, incinerates my popcorn, and starts a fire that consumes the entire kitchen—even the whole apartment building? Such things do happen, you know. You can’t just plug in a backup drive or connect to the Cloud to restore a building—or even a solitary microwave oven—that’s been reduced to ashes.
So if you’ve never had an equipment failure or a program failure, by all means buy a smart microwave. By the way, I’ve got a lovely bridge for sale, that I’ll let you have at a bargain price . . . .
9
Am I missing something here...? I understand the need for privacy and the insidious nature of technology creep. And the tone of impending danger in the article has my attention. But what exactly *is* the danger in having a fan or a microwave oven connected to the internet?
When I worked for a company whose customers used AWS, there was a massive DDOS attack that put Amazon's servers down for hours. The reason it took much longer to recover from than a "standard" attack was because the attackers used Internet of Things devices to help facilitate it. If something as simple as a fan can be used for an attack, what happens when more functionality gets built into not just that fan, but for other devices?
Security is only as good as it can be, but increased functionality for a product improves its value and therefore desirability. "So what?" you might ask because you're not directly affected by these devices (as in, they're not physically attacking you per se) but the more control we give these products over our homes, the more security we should expect to scale with it. I foresee greater potential problems arising than these devices simply refusing to be turned off and racking up your electric bill.
@Ave IoT devices are notoriously insecure. Any of them with a vulnerability (which is most of them) can be used to gain access to your home network. From there, it's vastly easier to compromise other devices, including your computers, tablets, and phones.
I suppose that's not a problem if you don't do anything remotely useful (like file taxes) or embarassing. Or if you don't care about broken devices, or worse... that nice new home assistance device taking photos of you or recording your conversations without your knowledge (yes, this has happened).
4
@Ave, great question!
As I understand it, the potential risk is that a household device that isn't designed with excellent security, might be able to be "hacked". This might then allow a bad actor to access more valuable information on your PC, Mac, or smart phone.
As Robert from California notes, a highly secure home router / wifi network might make this less likely to occur. Still, there is some degree of risk inherent in any network, no matter how slight.
The scenario Constance Warner describes, in which a highly technical household device causes a fire, also seems within the realm of possibility. Of course, an old-fashioned toaster or fan could also have a short circuit and burst into flames, I suppose? Except, you'd probably be there when it happens.
At a bare minimum, any ‘smart’ part of appliances, gadgets should be built, incorporated with an on/off switch, so the buyer can decide whether, when, it wants the....toaster to be connected to other things. As commented on, and from an earlier NYTimes article, those Deere tractors that can’t be worked on- a whole different problem, for sure. And our voting machines’ patents that keep their workings secret- worse yet.
I couldn’t help chuckling at the idea of a cyber department- that will no doubt he headed by, staffed by....former tech company employees, or future employees. With our lobbying culture- not much difference from what happens now.
2
All of this convenience will make us weak and stupid. No thanks!
4
I work in the privacy industry; there is nothing "smart" about this entire connectivity issue until the privacy issue is addressed up front and aggressively. That entails Privacy by Design (PbD), which simply means anything that connects to the internet, any app or device, is set to not collect, store or share ANY personal data; and the users have complete control over their data from the beginning - this is "opt-in" to share data, instead of the current "opt-out" disaster we currently have. Designers and especially marketers and data miners have shown the typical capitalist mindset, that anything they can "buy" and control is theirs to use however they want, and they do anything, barely legal/extra-legal/illegal or not yet addressed, to make money off the users. No matter the inconvenience, loss of identity, loss of privacy, and loss of money to the user, this Internet of Things (IoT) fiasco is totally out of control. Sadly, too many users don't seem to care; anyone still using the almost totally criminal Facebook probably deserves whatever happens to them. And Google is giving Facebook a run for its ill-gotten money...neither company has any sense of ethics.
196
@Aaron
Some good points, but given the nature of "Big Tech" one might reasonably question even the opt-in/out features you describe. Certainly your suggestions about the PbD are reasonable and should be enacted, but frankly, I don't know that I would trust, say, Google, for example, to actually not still have apps and devices gathering and passing data behind the scenes anyway. They've lied before and what is to stop them from make opt-out a sham, only to "apologize" later for a "slip up".
Consumers should not even buy "smart" devices in the first place without taking all of this into consideration. Do you really need a "smart" microwave or refrigerator or any of the myriad other devices touted as making your life better? The answer, aside from the "ooh, it's new" factor should be a resounding NO.
12
This was a great article until the last paragraph. Connecting everything could bring vast benefits to society? Like a voice-controlled microwave? Somehow that just doesn't seem that impressive.
One of the most depressing things about current technological innovation is that it demands so much from us and gives so little in return.
302
@clw - it all depends on how you define "benefits". No, a voice controlled microwave BY ITSELF is no big deal, but when every, and I mean every, device in your house is connected, it changes everything. The article touches on the notion that your devices keep track of everything you consume, order more when low, have it delivered, place it in the pantry, and you never even know. To some people (most?) that's a really big benefit. And that's just one small bit. A little bit of imagination will lead you to all sorts of "benefits". Are they needed or even wanted? I don't know, but we are about to find out.
1
@clw
Perhaps you just haven't been using smart devices. I use them many times a day. They're useful.
@Paul
I would consider it a benefit but a major deal breaker to have amazon automatically order items for me since I would have no control over the price I paid. A dollar here, a dollar there -- it all adds up to my taking a major financial hit.
3
Possibly the worst result of all this will be a new kind of learned helplessness--people will no longer be able to do anything for themselves. Then when some kind of disaster or situation requires actual human action, they won't know what to do. The power goes out, everything in the home shuts down, the electric car won't know where to go and needs a charge it can't get--and a general evacuation order goes out. But nobody knows about it because their smartphones don't work (the Internet is down because of the power outage). What a mess!
2
Yes. We already have learned helplessness.
People taking no responsibility for knowing their destination—completely dependent on directions from a device.
People who do not know loved ones’ telephone numbers because they have outsourced that to their lost phone.
Etc. and etc....
3
It couldn't hurt to work on the receiving end, too, put a little education out for the consumers when they are kids, to let them know not to believe everything that is advertised. Frankly, that's how we got in this Putin-manufactured mess to begin with- gullible consumers of mass marketing.
1
I read this, made one comment, then went away. But it nagged at me...there is something more to say: I am beyond furious at all the hassles and time waste that have been imposed on my life since the "computer revolution". True, there are some things I can't imagine living without---word processors and fast access to information being the main ones, but all else (even email) has turned out to be utter, frustrating, demoralizing time waste. And the worst part is that it subtly addicts you while at the same time replacing the activities that were healthier and better for your personhood.
Then there is the factor of all the ways you have to compensate for the new difficulties technology has caused in your life, and for all the ways tech gives you a workable piece of software and then makes it obsolete or expensive (Windows Office 2010 Photo Editor, eg, now unobtainable).
I recall a study from the early days of office computing that documented all the time loss and inefficiency caused by its introduction into the Russian workplace. Anybody know of other such studies?
3
The tech companies want to make money off of my data. Shouldn't I have to give explicit permission, not just accept a 'user agreement' of 282 pages? I want control of my location data, of what I buy and were I buy it. I will probably want to negotiate a fee for using my data. And that is the nightmare of the tech world, that they would have to negotiate 100 million agreements, better to just bury it in legalese in a lengthy 'user agreement.'
Europe has some of these protections, why do we?
6
Finally the upside of living in rural America where if you live a quarter mile too far from the tower, no service. And the company doesn't care. And the towers are often miles apart. That's why everyone leaves their houses, wandering around the property, to talk on the phone. Amazon is not going to be selling any of that stuff to oh... most of the country.. any time soon.
2
I'm certain Google is stalking me. On Facebook, a friend posted a clip from a John Candy movie. Later, with the Facebook app long closed, I tried to remember when Candy died. In Google search, I began typing "When did John" when Google suddenly auto filled "Candy die?"
The connection was the YouTube clip my friend posted to Facebook. Google's algorithms 'remembered' that I had laid eyes on the video *inside* the Facebook app and was ready to accurately anticipate my query many hours later.
That's creepy.
10
The article is phobic about the wrong thing.
Connected devices are either scary or not - they're usually fairly easy to lock out - but a subscription model to continue to use the things you've already paid for (Amazon's real intent) makes Comcast look beneficent. There are already some notorious examples of this, though a few might be foreign to urban readers (such as John Deere's DRM prohibition of farmers working on their own field equipment).
Expecting useful government oversight of any of this - "lobbied" lawyers regulating technology that's been explained to them by the same industries that are writing checks to Congress - is a pipe dream. If you need an example, look no farther than the cable industry.
6
I’m less worried about privacy than I am about functionality—the last thing I need is for my washer to crash in the middle of a load or for my door lock to suddenly forget my fingerprint. The internet of things is actually the inconvenience of things.
6
As a leader in tech companies in the 70s, 80s, 90s I couldn't wait for technology to be able some of the interactions that I dreamed about. At best we could only do some very limited interactions with consumers.
Now I dream that nothing is connected except for my desktop/laptop and phone. In fact I have made it so that nothing come into my home that is connected other than the about three devices. At least with phones and computers if you are smart and aware you have a chance of keeping the bad guys out.
116
@Charleston Yank
I agree. My daughter-in-law gave me an Echo for Christmas, knowing how much I do not like them. I gave it to my grandson-I do not want any of this in the door.
2
Call me Luddite. I don't buy new things. I search for older models at second hand stores. I will never buy a new car if I can help it. I understand the dangers inherent in this technology and work hard to avoid much of it. I hope others will too.
6
I am so very glad I am poor and that my computer only carries Microsoft 7. Sure, Google has all my date, but it can't hook up with anything in my house.
1
Several years ago I rejected the idea of having non-essential items connected to the internet. No Alexa or anything like that in my house!
I'm not prepared to live like a hermit. So, unavoidably there will be some intrusions. But I make conscious choices to keep them to a minimum.
I believe many people think like me and I expect manufacturers may eventually realize they are losing out on a market when they ignore us.
135
@J Jencks
I still can’t believe people allow Alexa into their homes. Why on earth?!
It reminds me of a meme that’s made the rounds. First frame says “People in the 60s” with a nervous woman on an old school telephone saying, “I better not say anything or the government might wiretap my phone.” The second frame says “People Today” with a woman in a kitchen saying to an Alexa type device, “Hey Wiretap, any good recipes for pancakes?”
Just shaking my head...
3
@J Jencks
I tend to share your views, but I fear that we're but a statistical blip among consumers and that tech companies can safely ignore our views without losing any market share. After all, just look at how fast smart phones, RFID products, etc., took off. For most consumers, convenience beats security every time.
3
I think people have missed the salient threat of tech. Microsoft wanted to give people computers to help them learn and be productive. “Search” allowed users to find answers to their questions. Now tech is using users to help tech find tech’s answers. The users are being used. That is why tech needs to be regulated.
170
@Pilot
My June countertop oven let my husband, who was 20 miles away, know that my toast was done.
2
@Pilot ...As Jaron Lanier said "When the product is free, YOU are the product" ..Facebook's biz plan is to mine user's data...its ONLY biz plan....the ppl being used are NOT sharing in Zuckerberg's wealth...
5
I used to teach this poem to my elementary students and posted it on my classroom wall to reinforce the concept of reuse versus the scrapping of perfectly useable material goods. The author was unknown but the saying has been attributed to the WWII era:
Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.
The ubiquitous work bench in the garage or basement where everything from toasters to bicycle tires were "fixed" was as much a part of a home as a laundry area. Sometimes, learning how things work was fascinating not just to the person repairing the item but to a child looking over his or her shoulder. If a part was missing and couldn't be purchased, sometimes you improvised and devised a piece that did work.
As much as possible, I will stick with gadgets I can repair myself and are not connected to the internet. Alexa is not allowed in my home, and I am wary of any smart devices or elaborate electronics with built-in obsolescence. In the last few years, community repair cafes have sprung up here on both sides of the Columbia River, in Oregon and WA. Hopefully other areas across the country are hosting them as well. Ours are sponsored by our local waste management or others and staffed by volunteers with expertise as an electrician, seamstress, or clock repairman for example, and appointments are needed as these cafes can be quite popular. It's the original off-the-grid way of life, and, a resistance all its own.
5
A good starting point would be to create Internet Device regulations that are based on (i.e., copied from) the existing Medical Device regulations. Hold the manufacturers responsible for the security of their devices even after those devices have left their loading dock. The Medical Device regulations contain just a few pages of text but continue to ensure that medical devices are safe and effective. We can do the same for internet devices with little effort and little bureaucracy.
196
@ed
Check out the cost of medical devices. And the absurd cost and inconvenience that results from the regulations, for a completely marginal gain in privacy (do I really care if Vladimir Putin knows that I had cataract surgery?). As in I can't get bills and notifications from my doctor, just an email that forces me to log onto a site to find a message that most of the time says absolutely nothing.
Medical regulation is actually a poster boy for the hazards of overly-zealous regulations that do more to create bureaucracy than to solve real abuses.
1
@ed
Not completely safe; medical morcellators are still used to break up fibrous tumors in the uterus even though doing so spreads cancerous cells.
1
@ed As someone who works on IoT security: try looking elsewhere. This happened four years ago.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/bug-can-cause-dea...
I just bought my first new car in years. Garmin Navigation, satellite radio, hands free dialing and something called BMW Connect.
The auto maker now knows where I work, where I eat, how often I go to the gym, political talk I prefer, which beach I prefer, how often I vacation and all of my contacts were somehow loaded into the cars info system.
Can I turn off all the electronics monitoring my every move? Perhaps in Europe with it's stricter privacy laws, but here in the States it seems anything goes.
286
Answer: yes and no. Dont ever use the device in your car. Dont register anything on it even once. Dont link your cell phone to it even once. You are still trackable via the cars GPS of course. Use your cellphone for your car apps -- you are still trackable by your phone of but why replicate all of that a 2nd time into a another device that is even harder to modify?
5
Weopine: Used to be one could purchase a car with few or no "accessories". Now, there is little we can do to purchase such a simple car.
It is possible to disable some of the electronic gizmos that track us but in doing so the car's 'warranty' could be voided and disabling one interconnected device could cause malfunctions in another, and we cannot get rid of the so-called "black box" that monitors and records one's driving characteristics. We now only purchase simpler cars made prior to the new era of spyware.
3
@JB
Your insurance company is probably getting that same data -- where you go, when you go there, how fast you drive, how often you change lanes, etc.
6
I don't need a smart chip in my microwave, oven or blender because, you see, I still need to drag my lazy body over to these devices to put the food in. So why can't I simply press a button or turn a dial while I am there?
The world would be such a better place if these smart people inventing "smart" devices turned their genius toward solving problems that the world really needs, such as alternative energies and climate change.
700
@Pat
I gather you haven't used many smart devices! They're really great (if still somewhat flaky).
They're being adopted rapidly by the public because they're so damned useful.
@Pat
You don't need to worry about these smart devices. The Internet of Things is ready to be hacked so any or every smart device can malfunction at any time. Use old fashion things like light switches, bimetallic thermostats and other devices set by hand. It will save you a fortune. Walking to the devices to make them work will help your fitness.
3
@Pat Someone has to pay them to do so, and so far more people are paying the techies to spy on us than to solve climate change. So it goes.
2
I want my appliances to stay "dumb". I don't need to talk to the microwave or toaster or coffee pot. I don't need the refrigerator keeping tabs on what I eat nor do I need my toilet reporting in to the insurance company. Nor do I want any "always on" microphone devices like Alexa in my house. This all seems like a solution in search of a problem with small benefits and huge implications for privacy and security.
Sent from a desktop computer with no microphone or camera connected to it...
14
1984 anyone?
2
The biggest flaw which the writer failed to mention is all this connectivity removes a principle consumer freedom. For example when you bought a product, the idea was that you owned it, now these new 'connected' item is connected to you but also to a 'greater owner' a corporation... you just participate in the ownership. This is very dangerous but the consumer does not see it that way nor is it market that way. Try to buy an MP3 music player at an Apple store, you can't. The Apple Nano is no longer made, why? It could not be connected to your wallet like iTunes can now be through your iphone. The big companies are all going this route: they don't want you to own something entirely all by yourself. This is truly the loss of your freedoms advertised as a benefit.
18
I have effectively stopped hackers from being able to enter the house I just built, I installed dead bolts and use a key.
13
Anyone naive enough to instal a web-connected door lock should not be surprised when they come home one day and the thieves have let themselves in and locked them out.
Decoding Silicon Valley speak:
“We take security seriously” means they are 2 steps behind the hackers.
“We take security VERY seriously” means they are 1 step behind the hackers.
12
I worry too, but I do want to point out one advantage of Alexa. My dear friend is dying and he wants to die at home. He cannot afford aids but does have Hospice services. We bought two Alexa Echos so that we can "drop in" on each other. The Alexa Echo is stationary and makes a beeping sound when someone wants to see and talk to you AND it is voice activated. He can call out for me and I am right there with him whenever he is anxious or lonely or just wants to see another human being. I am deeply grateful for this technology for this limited purpose, but plan on disconnecting it as soon as he passes. Just trying to point out one narrow advantage of "connectedness"
5
@Aquestionplse -- That is a humane and lovely purpose for Alexa and they'll probably start running commercials with it. Yet, your friend is not profitable. Following his purchasing patterns and how he drives will net Amazon no realistically usable data. And you, if you disconnect, will not be profitable to them either. Which means the product is not for him and wouldn't be continued if that was its only purpose.
1
@Aquestionplse, first, I'm very sorry for your friend and you. How sad that must be.
I agree about the value of some IoT technologies, such as the one you describe, for people with health needs. Another example: "smart" houses that can help people with disabilities , including the elderly, to remain at home or in assisted living. One example I've seen discussed is a set of devices that can monitor things like when / whether a person gets out of bed, opens the fridge, takes medications from a pill dispenser, or has a fall. [The latter has been available for years, of course.]
And, the individual, or her/his power of attorney, must have a say in what technology they use.
1
Reading this article, I wondered if it would be a good thing or a bad thing if Alexa ran for and became President. Given our current president, I thought that might be an improvement, but then tried to imagine it actually happening. I concluded that the way things are going, the idea of a President Alexa is not that farfetched at all.
Of course, there's nothing original in this speculation-- indeed our culture is so far along in this trajectory, and as original (and wonderful) as it was, Spike Jonez's "Her," about a man's romance with his computer's operating system, was only executing an inevitable film (and real-life as well?) scenario.
Theorists of capitalism since Smith spoke of a great "invisible hand" performing the markets wonders of efficient allocation of resources and satisfaction of wants. Nowadays, we can speak of a great "digital hand" having a similar role in shaping society. Do these hands work in concert? Do they oppose, place a check on each other? Do they merge into one, or have they essentially been the same from the outset, an expression of abdicating our souls and conscious moral agency to a god of comfort and efficiency?
4
Most things you have no control over buying. It comes that way. Recent frustration: I have a new car-10,000 miles on it. Recently it began refusing to let me remove the key when it was stopped and the engine was off. I read all the hints about jiggling the steering wheel, waiting till it cooled down etc. The diagnosis: Well, yes it is in park and it is off. But the computer in the shifter is not sensing that it is in park and therefore it is instructing the ignition to retain the key. You could try really slamming it into park every time. I responded that they could try fixing it. Which requires a whole new shifting apparatus with a whole new computer. As the author states many of these advances are counterproductive. When will common sense come back in the picture?
10
@Consuelo, how frustrating!
Dad's car has a "glitch" where the car trunk and windows occasionally open when the car is parked overnight. I've read of other examples, where the "smart" breaking system has the unintended consequence that the brakes fail to engage when the driver tries to brake. Rare, I'm sure, presuming that the stories are true.
2
Security, of course, is a huge concern. However, there is another consequence of this revolution that is not being addressed - complexity. So called 'smart' technology leads to complex technology - configuration of endless mysterious options and sometimes outright broken code. It is humans that must resolve this complexity in order to function. Wait until you have to configure all the options on all your toaster, your lamp, and your washing machine, and then the toaster inadvertently starts the washer...
7
Some months back I thought I read on NYT an article how Chinese get hooked to one giant provider.. we can atleast boast we will hopefully have more than 1 giant and free competition will help make it safer !
Of course technology will make it happen with blockchains again hopefully.
Most of the technology discussed here is simply a 'want' as opposed to a 'need". Consumers have bought into the idea that tech = convenience, time saving, etc. as well as the entertainment value of being able to verbalize commands to a machine that obeys (unlike one's children or work colleagues).
In doing so we've exchanged privacy for what is essentially entertainment - where is Neil Postman when we really need him?
5
The author forgets to mention the solution for anyone who is uncomfortable with this technology: don't use it.
Don't buy these devices if you don't want them. If there is no alternative then disable their 'smart' functionality or prevent them from connecting to your home's network.
8
The 1936 movie, “Things to Come”, may be a departure point here, with its war, destruction of civilization, fascist rebirth, technological progress, and ultimately the revenge of anti-technology, more pro-democracy Luddites.
I believe “Things to Come” ends with a line, spoken to a guy named “Passworthy”, which in itself is a great name to me, who thinks it sounds like “Passwordy”: “All the universe or nothingness? Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?”
The choice being offered to us “Passwordies” today is also an all or nothing proposition: either be a knuckle-dragging Luddite opposed to technological advance, and to go with the flow into a bright future of algorithmic advance. Yet the cost for the latter is never factored in: the increased surveillance, mostly by private business, in the names of greater choice and the appearance, the illusion, of greater freedom.
The cost of advancement is the core of the conservative Zeitgeist: reducing pesky government regulation in finance, public health, environmental safety, and privacy, all for greater productivity. In reality, the result is “the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer”, as the differences in wealth between the 1% and the 99% grows.
Technological advance leads to Gilded Age 2.0.
I welcome the advance, but don’t want a private company listening in while I talk to my microwave. Are there other ways to get the advancement without surveillance being business’ primary monetary reward?
4
This is a throw-away, convenience based economic system. Whatever happens will happen because consumers buy these things. The bad thing is that when everything is made that way, choice goes out the window for those who don't want these devices in our lives. A lot of these devices have the intent of provideing everyone with what might be called electronic maids or slaves, i.e., Alexa do this, do that; Siri, do this do that. (Is there a device with a male name?). Just gotta say that it really feels good to do things without these enslaving devices.
6
Only government intervention will save us. What? What about consumer intervention? Consumers taking responsibility to purchase wisely? If we think government as it has evolved over decades will save us from anything with economic power is nuts. Voting won't do it. Only controlled informed purchasing choices and far-reduced levels of demand overall.
1
I use a smartphone, and even that fact irks me a bit. Other than that, my home is profoundly low-tech, without so much as a television set. The only exception? My electric toothbrush, grandfathered in because nothing else keeps my teeth remotely as clean. But even so, its microchip-oriented buzzing and lighting have a way of making me leery...
2
Being in the technology field and working with many companies that are developing smart devices I see the solutions and discuss them with my customers. Many have in the past said that they were not interested and are now starting to consider the security aspects.
Since you mentioned Microsoft, they are offering an end to end solution for connected devices - https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/introducing-microsoft-azure-spher....
The big part of this is that is costs money. Some companies have discovered that failure to secure their systems costs a lot of money after they've been hacked. Many are still will to play Russian Roulette with their systems. Unless there is a security requirement companies will be weighing the issue with a cost benefit analysis.
Until there is a requirement that specifies a minimum level of security, which is often less then $0.50 for the components or under $2 retail, we will continue to see the vulnerabilities in the field. Under the current anti-regulation atmosphere of the GOP controlled government I don't see that happening any time soon.
7
Yes, it is truly scary what the Robber Baron "techies" have in mind. More frightening is how unaware people are, especially middle age and young people, of the importance of personal privacy. They just don't seem to get it.
My niece, who is in her early fifties, was telling me how "private" facebook is compared to the cloud the day before the horrific breach of facebook users' information - and their friends' information - was exposed. I do not use facebook or other social media except newspaper comments. However, I get "invites" every day from people wanting to "friend" me. When I ask the people who are supposed to have invited me if they sent the message they all say no.
That means facebook has MY information, too. Google/chrome is nearly impossible to keep out of one's computer and business. It's criminal if the U.S. postal service or regulated phone companies do it. Why not "technology"? Ridiculous.
It is time to break up the technology giants into tiny, employee-owned businesses and seriously regulate them to protect OUR lives. As far as the "smart chips" go they are only smart for the Robber Barons to track our every move. Make them illegal.
If you bought a new door would you expect that every person who worked at the store - and every person who worked for an associate company - could just walk in when they wanted? Of course not. That is what these tech companies are doing and it must be stopped.
NOW.
13
With all the flaws that have been obviously shown in personal privacy/security of these systems it boggles my mind that people would actually put control of their house door locks and alarm codes via the Internet to their phones. And I’m not buying the RARE times that you forgot to lock your front door or your kid forgot his key a reason enough to make access to your house available via cyberspace. The cyber companies have your codes and that’s not very reassuring if they can make oodles of money “selling” that info to alarm companies etc.
10
I have a connected thermostat, and an internet connected smoke and co2 detectors upstairs and down. I like that I can turn down the thermostat from work, or be alerted to the beginnings of a house fire from the office or vacation.
The idea my tv plays amazon prime and Netflix seems like a natural fit, but all this other stuff seems absurd.
I do not want my oven/range to have an IP address I can NET USE to.
"Connecting everything could bring vast benefits to society"...Still waiting on this one...
5
This article is very high level and in places quite misleading . IOT is about much more than connected microwaves. It’s also about linking previously disconnected aspects of commercial value chains (like sensors in jet engines that predict and avoid mechanical failure). It’s about transforming your car into an autonomous vehicle that optimIzes traffic flow and reduces energy consumption. It’s about office buildings running their HVAC more efficiently. It’s about connected asthma inhalers that remind kids to take their medicine. And protecting your house from intruders with smart doorbells!
The “big brother is coming” hypothesis and the total focus on the negatives is biased and anti-modernization. The tech companies are under pressure for privacy, so let’s stir up some fear of the unknown?
1
@Paul
Until recently I might have shared your confidence about the IOT being a purely positive innovation in modern times; however, people very expert in cyber tech, and computer tech are warning us to be mindful of the risks.
The fact that Chinese agents have installed hard chips into computer mother boards destined for American and other computers should be concerning to you.
It is totally conceivable to me that smart devices could be exploited as a way to interrupt life; just as a virus infects the biologic body, so do 'software' viruses attack our technological body. It is a fact of life now; this is not fiction.
One author who writes about cyber security and hardware security suggests the world, not just the USA, form a cyber security institution modeled on the medical Center for Disease Control to monitor viruses, analyze hard chips, police for thieves and vandals, so we can be confident in the machines we buy and software programs we install.
This international institution would obviously serve to complement the private work Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, et al, do to maintain security on the devices they sell to consumers.
2
@Paul " It’s about transforming your car into an autonomous vehicle"
First, I prefer maintaining my Individual Autonomy......as opposed to having a "transformed autonomous vehicle".....which is simply a mobile surveillance device on wheels that tracks where you drive, when you drive, where you go, how fast you drive, etc, etc.
Second, everyone I know with a "new" high-tech car hates it. They don't know how to operate 90% of the garbage electronic features they are forced to get. Figuring out how to change a radio station or turn on a defroster requires reading a 300 page manual. Technology deployed where none is needed is asinine.
2
This article is vague fear mongering. I kept reading for the part where Manjoo would explain the actual dangers of all of this inter-connectivity and never found it. So far, what I see is that we are all incessantly harangued to buy, buy, buy at every turn. Can it get worse? It's already all pervasive. We are already exposed by our phones, TVs and tablets. All of these smart appliances are just silly gimmicks. Farewell Google Glass.
4
How many people are blindly putting their most sensitive information on "The Cloud"?
Without even knowing they are doing so?
5
I'm working hard at living with my dumb connection service. My life is based on not being connected unless I connect. Like this article. Connect Mike! OK
2
Going slowly is not the way of UnitedStatesers (now that the U.S. is considering walling off Mexico and starting a trade war with Canada, the least we can do is stop calling ourselves "Americans").
3
When do we welcome our Skynet overlords?
4
As far as I am concerned, there is no problem if everyone chooses to buy appliances and other gadgets that are not always connected to the internet. Maybe I am getting too old, but outside of my laptop and my smartphone, I really don't see the need to connect every appliance in my home to the internet.
13
There will be a culture war between two alternatives: "off the grid" and "on the grid" (including the "internet of things") "Off the grid" will win if only because the "on the grid" people will become extinct.
5
This article is good, but it misses another important point: We're seeing regular electronics replacing simple, reliable mechanical components in high-ticket items that we all use. These expensive necessities will become less and less reliable because of these electronics, and will require more and more expensive repairs--IF they can be repaired at all.
As evidence, I present to you your microwave, clothes washer, and car. All now contain electronics that will eventually fail, and cause expensive repairs. In many cases, the cost of repair will exceed what you originally paid for the device. This is capitalism's latest strategy in planned obsolescence.
70
@Voter Frog
If the electronics are designed well, the mechanical parts will wear out long before the electronics do. Of course there are always shoddy devices that break a month after you buy them, but if you buy quality, electronics shouldn't be too much of an issue. My question is why people want to connect their entire home to the internet, with all it's poor security issues?
5
For example, i recently had to sell my car because the "check engine" light on the dashboard was on, as it had been during my most recent history of driving. My daughter found a dealer who would buy it and for whom repair would not mean paying the price of the car to sell it.
4
My refrigerator’s (twice!) and dishwasher ‘s mother boards went before anything mechanical wore out. These were GE Profile appliances, which were considered a better line of products; I consider anything GE junk now. Replaced the dishwasher with a KitchenAid - $1100 - within 6 mos the LED lights blew. Planned obsolescence, indeed.
10
The advancing “internet of things” should also remind us that the time is coming when technological advancements will eliminate many jobs, thereby creating a serious economic crisis. This is why some smart, progressive people are advocating a guaranteed income. We must slow down profit-driven technology corporations long enough for our government to do its job and prepare us for the changes brought about by technological advancements.
9
It is, in fact, very convenient to control lights, heating/air-conditioning and such by voice when home, and by app when away. It's great to turn on my electric blanket remotely 15 minutes before going to sleep. Ultimately, it will reduce energy use by switching off unnecessary lights and reducing heating/cooling when you're away or asleep.
Businesses tracking this behavior is an entirely different matter, and needs to be addressed by a privacy bill of rights that prohibit this without active and informed consent, and real teeth to enforce it.
6
I was trying to get ATT to stop sending notifications on my desk top when my bill was due. I went to the website and couldn't find a direct link but I found "chat." Knowing if I called I'd get a computer, I connected to chat...it didn't take long to discover that I was "chatting" with a computer as well and demanded a human who resolved my issue immediately...well, after providing the bone marrow of my first born, social security number and password. What a world...
20
I've got PS3 with camera, PS4 with camera, Xbox 360 with Kinect, several tablets with cameras, laptops with cameras, and cell phones with cameras. Each one of the cameras has a microphone as well. I assume Microsoft, Sony, Apple, and Google are all surveiling me constantly. However, I expect my life is not interesting enough for anybody to actually watch...
4
@Grunchy My daughter said something similar about who would find her data interesting when I raised red flags about how Facebook was making money and what they were doing with that data several years back. Go back and read the article: "By the time the rest of us catch up to their effects on society, it’s often too late to do much about them."
9
@Grunchy
You are missing the point if you think it's a matter of someone finding your life "interesting." They aren't surveiling you for entertainment--they are collecting information on your behavior, preferences, interests, opinions, priorities and choices. This is the information (data) that Cambridge Analytica used to help Trump. And even if you don't see yourself as a threat to any government, governmental entity, or corporation, that doesn't mean you might not someday wake up to what's happening and get "subversive" ideas. Their plan is to take over your brain before you realize it. Once that is accomplished, you won't be CAPABLE of thinking for yourself. Go ahead. Embrace every new "convenience" and focus on your own entertainment. It's all cheap or free. The price is just your independence and agency.
10
These devices help businesses not the people intended; they are the product and they are selling your data.
14
I am an avowed Luddite, and I always thought I was behind the times. Maybe I am ahead of things, after all. I have a laptop to connect to the internet (NY Times on-line) and check e-mail. I do not have a smart phone, or any other tech connection. I really don't need Amazon to order popcorn for me when I am running low. I can go down to the local store and buy it from a merchant. We both will benefit from the pleasant interaction.
Technology is developing solutions to problems that don't exist, and provide useless innovations. I much prefer to Simplify My Life.
34
Many bad things are already happening. For example we recently found that the hackers can use the bluetooth of an IPhone to enter into a computer bluetooth and check all the files you have. Even if you are disconnected from an Internet network.
From there they can find your customers data, and steal sales, block an order, go to the customer accounting system and delete an order or a payment, or whatever they want. Altering a pdf document? Of course yes.
Or they can enter into your healthcare provider, delete all your files, or change your medical history records. Oh my, the sky is the limit.
They feel secure because they are at least 50 miles from Florida, or 10,000 miles from the United States.
4
The Blueborne vulnerability was patched in iOS 10.
@Paul
And if you have an older iPhone that can't be patched to iOS 10 due to space or other considerations, well, just go out and buy a new one, right?
4
What’s creepy is that 5G will bring EMFs 1/3 the strength of an x-ray machine straight into our homes and bodies. Strengths will be 10 to 100 times stronger than 4G. We have no clue. Exactly as you say, this will be done before people have any idea what the consequences are to our health.
12
@Tim Bachmann --- Robert O. Becker's "The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life" is a great read on how electromagnetic fields and the body interact.
The book was written way back in 1985 by researchers looking for a way to re-grow lost limbs like a salamander is capable of doing. Quite wonkish, lots of science, but fascinating if you can stick with it.
@medianone Thank you for the suggestion. Also: check out the documentary 'Generation Zapped.' And the book 'Radiation Nation.'
No thank you to this level of smart technology. I own both desktop and laptop computers, several Kindles, a smart tv, a smartphone, and a Roku box, but I am not going to activate Alexa or anything similar on any of it. Convenience is far less important to me than keeping some level of privacy. Tech- nology is constantly becoming more invasive. Sometimes I find myself wishing for the good old days before computer technology took over the world.
18
These smart devices are entry level Trojan Horse devices to gain a toe hold into the sanctity of people's homes and lives. Personally, my 25 yr old microwave works just fine. It is a bit larger than new models, but there is no reason it needs to be replaced as long as I can punch "Time Cook > 4 > 4 > Start/Pause" to reheat my coffee or bake a potatoe.
Every computer has an on board camera and microphone that can be activated by savvy outsiders to spy on the user. Without the user even knowing. Same with phones.
I can't imagine why anyone would want to peer into normal people's lives, because most of us live really boring lives. Or, at least, lives that wouldn't make very exciting viewing.
And some aspects absolutely need to be constrained. IMO high speed computers placing millions of buy and sell orders with algorithmic precision gaming the market trading system is top of the list. Government regulators should have jumped on that one as soon as it took its first breath.
20
Wizards at Amazon see an article like this and dictate the following to a small semi-human entity across the room: "Alexa! Get as much info as you can about anybody expressing worry over or disdain for the fabulous gifts we have labored to produce for humankind. They'll be sorry they whined. And while you're up, brew me another cup of Joe."
8
I want someone to explain why we need all our “things” to be smart in the first place. Are we all too lazy to turn on the microwave ourselves? Who put the food in it in the first place? These are solutions in search of a problem and are creating more problems than they solve.
18
@Annie Q We're trying to replicate Dungeons and Dragons in the real world. If everything has computers then there can be magic. So prosaic.
We don't "need" them...we are trained to want them until we learn to need them thus giving someone else more money than they "need." Capitalism feeds on greed.
4
The computer in everything is creepy enough, but I await Part 2 of this article - the unknown dangers of high frequency microwave exposure 24/7 from the 5G Rollout by the telecom industry that will enable all this basically unnecessary stuff to operate. Millions of microwave transmitting boxes are being placed every 500 feet on street poles and will drench us in their body-hostile energies that are known to promote cancer. How secure do we feel now? The FCC's command to install 5G nationwide last week precludes all local opt-out after 60 or 90 days. If the health risks shown in the National Toxicology study last month were more well known to the public, we would be stopping this on a dime.
39
@Jill M, while I'm not knowledgeable about health risks of 5G, I'd much rather the money be spent on improving internet access for poor / disadvantaged / rural people, and on improving the physical infrastructure. The latter to include reducing dependence on fossil fuels, including coal. and, if reducing pollution is such a "burden" to businesses, let some of our tax dollars go toward research about that.
Of course, I know where DJ Trump stands on regulation that improves public health. :(
1
@Karen Lee
I'm with you but outreach to poor rural people isn't going to bring in the big bucks these phone companies are looking for. Altruism is not in their playbooks.
Many of these early smart devices seem goofy, as the author has noted. But the game changer will be a smart device that cleans toilets and showers. When such a device is developed, I will no longer be able to resist putting a smart device in my home.
11
Great illustration by Mr. Chayka, thanks.
1
Read Havari's 21 Lessons for the 21st Century! Every page an eye-opener about this new world of AI.
1
Big Data = Big Brother
I've been saying for years that it's not the government that we need to be afraid of, it's the marketing folks. They are the ones spying on us and making lists (and we give them permission to do it.) They are bent on stealing our souls and selling them to the highest bidder. And once yours has been bought, you ain't getting it back.
9
Just don’t buy that stuff. Do you really want to wake up one day and find out that you can’t unlock your door or turn in the light because of a virus attack or an electromagnetic pulse wiped stuff? Just keep the cheap unchipped stuff.
18
Anybody else remember the 1977 film, Demon Seed? The computer takes over all the smart devices in the house and traps Julie Christie in there. It then holds her prisoner and rapes her (you have to see the film to understand this makes sense). Given that a computer now could crash the car we are driving and turn off the medical devices that keep us alive, how long will it be till they can trap us someplace?
9
It seems to me that security should start with a wifi router that offers an umbrella of security for all the devices in your house or office, acting like a digital perimeter fence. It might no longer be adequate for each device to be responsible for its own security, although individual devices (especially laptops and smart phones) could continue to offer additional "in depth" security.
I'm not sure how this would play out, but it seems like an obvious first step.
5
Please tell me there will be a socially conscious hacker publishing instructions for dismantling and trashing the smart chips in the appliances! Otherwise I have to go stock up on old school appliances now, before they're obsolete....
At least I'm not trackable in my 1998 Toyota on the day I need to run away from my "smart" house.
18
"Mr. Schneier says only government intervention can save us from such emerging calamities."
Has Mr. Schneier somehow failed to notice that the government is, itself, our biggest "emerging calamity"? Regulation and government oversight to prevent "uncertain global dangers" is useless when the government doing the regulating has proven itself to be one of our foremost global dangers -- nothing uncertain about it.
Given the choice between the theoretical threats of Skynet vs. the very real threats of Trumpnet, I'll take my chances with Skynet every time.
4
The entire world seems to be moving to the right, protesting against change (voting in rightist candidates, resisting immigration and endorsing Brexit as examples. Why this change in attitudes? I think one of the reasons is that the world is changing faster than ever. And most of us do not understand the technology and a lot of us distrust it. In a world of higher risk exemplified by nuclear bombs and political and security hacks—all of that progress seems pretty scary. Maybe retreating to simple answers and pretending the complex problems can be ignored is a natural reaction. Add that to Trump’s constant disparagement of modern world (climate, black lives, respecting women, media..) storms of doubt and fear sweep the country. I don’t think technology’s changes are the only reasons the world is moving to the right, and favoring strong man governance. But it contributes to the fear that seems to be throughout the country and the world.
5
@A Bookish Anderson All change is not progress. Often new things are dead ends. Good innovation can be understood. When innovations ask us to trust what we don't understand that's when you know the complexity is a shell game razzle dazzle. Especially if there's no way to pick the simplified setting.
5
Why would someone put their leftovers in the microwave, walk across the room and then start the microwave rather than putting leftovers in the microwave and starting it?
14
Some technologies are solutions looking for a problem. The internet of things avoids that trap by being a technology that is the problem. Well done!
11
A voice operated toaster. How does the bread get into it by voice command?
14
from the voice operated drone and refrigerator
3
Don’t underestimate the fascination some people have with gadgets. I was at my son’s apartment the other day when he made the ambient light in the room turn turquoise. Now, I like turquoise, but...
Obviously he doesn’t need turquoise light. And he had to buy smart bulbs to make this happen, apparently controlled by an app on his iPhone. But he got some kind of crazy pleasure out of it.
I wouldn’t spend the money or stand on a chair to change a light bulb that wasn’t burned out.
Benign fascination in this instance is pleasurable. It’s his money.
More troublesome is asking Google Home questions that require more than a simple algorithm-driven answer.
7
@itsmildeyes --- Maybe part of the fascination with gadgets stems from the idea of signalling value. Like a kid spending $2500 he can't afford on new 'skinny' tires and rims. Why? Probably because he's trying to look cool to attract a girl or signal he's got money and therefore is a good catch.
Same with all the boy toys, bigger is better. When in reality, in the case of pickup trucks, a two-wheel-drive with the standard package is all anyone really needs.
5
@medianone You need four wheel drive if you are going to be using your truck to plow snow.
1
Medianone,
You may have a point about the signaling (although he’s already got the girl). What would Freud say?
But, in my son’s case I think it’s something more primal. He just gets off on gadgets. If I text him and ask if he got a piece of real world mail I sent, he can see in his mailbox with some app and some video thing in his physical mailbox.
I wouldn’t have the patience to set the thing up and program it, let alone pay for it. I can wait until I get home to check the mail. Lol.
Hey, I’m nervous about invasive technology. He got me a Google Home and I returned it for a store credit. (Although I’m sitting right now in my daughter’s home picking out John Prine songs on her Google Home).
I respect this NYT author. If he indicates reason for concern, my concerns are validated. All I’m saying is some people love this stuff. The potential to market to and influence them is nearly limitless. May they develop immunity from negative aspects.
2
There may be a chip in the toaster I bought but it is never going to get the password for my WiFi. It’s that simple to make these devices impotent.
6
@Paulie
Hopefully....
1
@Paulie
Don't assume that these devices would be programmed to access your home network at all. They will simply be connected to an outside data network that you have no control over. It will be worth it for the companies accessing your data to pay for these tiny low-bandwidth connections. The Kindle is an example of this.
1
I feel like every small appliance I have recently purchased either requires an app to run or requires a wifi connection. I recently bought a very expensive scale which was connected to an app that would track all my vitals. One day, one of the distinguishing features disappeared. I later found out that the company pushed an update and removed the feature without my consent or knowledge, leaving me with an overpriced scale. With the way things are headed, we never will truly "own" anything.
11
@dmm Agreed! I would prefer to buy products that aren't connected, but fewer and fewer are available on the market. I have to wonder -- is that because people want them? Or because the manufacturers make so much money off the data that the "dumb" versions would be far more expensive?
4
After so many interesting and intelligent comments, all I have to offer is a humorous clip of the sci-fi future https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=LRq_SAuQDec
1
I know i shouldn't do this but I can't help myself. The attack of the KILLER TOASTERS!!
13
Great article, it is heartening that more people are catching on about having Big Brother in every device. Maybe these are just for ads today but you can bet that if monitoring everyone's conversation will keep an illegitimate regime in power somewhere it will be done.
Software security is time consuming and expensive, it's actually something I know about. As we see almost every day none of the connected devices and social media platforms with deep pockets have the least degree of security and the so called internet of things will be even worse.
Uber is an example of the business model, which is to lose money while very quickly becoming prevalent and while claiming to innovate, much of the investment money is going to lobbyists so the government keeps their hands off.
7
I generally don't favor a lot of federal regulation in these areas, in part because the legislative process is so slow and cumbersome that the laws always seem to lag behind the technology; by the time the laws are in effect, the newest tech has soared past it with new and different challenges.
In most cases, it seems, consumers have a choice - you do not have to buy that "smart" TV or refrigerator or microwave (seriously? too lazy to push the start button??), and, by and large, you can buy traditional "dumb" versions. The one area that seems to defy that is the car industry, where it seems every manufacturer is trying their vehicles into the web, not only offering numerous privacy concerns but also safety concerns, as has been demonstrated in a number of instance (affecting brakes, for example). THAT is one area, at least, in which clear "opt-in" choices should be forced, as you have little choice if every car maker (and there really aren't that many) is essentially forcing people into accepting it. And that would also need highly punitive sanctions for violations.
3
@George S
"By and large," consumers do NOT have a choice about the anciliary features of the things they are buying. When it costs Samsung or LG or GE 40 cents to add wireless connectivity to a device, and someone else has developed the technology at no cost identifiable to them, they will do it. THEY might not even have a choice if (say) the power supply vendor is including wireless in their module for some justifiable reason.
Beyond that, consumers might not even have the ability to know or control whether wireless access is present or active. Note the recent exposure of show-tracking in smart TVs - you might be sharing your viewing habits with megacorps and their parasites with no way to stop it short of discarding your TV.
4
For those of us of a certain age, the whole article is horrifying as summarized by the following line, "Even if the benefits are tiny, they create a certain market logic; at some point not long from now, devices that don’t connect to the internet will be rarer than ones that do."
I don't want smart things. I don't want universal connectivity. I want to believe that there's still a right to privacy even if I don't live off the grid, in Plato's cave. That's what a dinosaur I am.
61
The last sentence in Mr. Manjoo's piece -- "Why not go slowly into the uncertain future?" -- echoes the title of my book on the history and philosophy of technology, "Not So Fast."
The progress of the Internet of Things he describes also echoes the four basic, overlapping characteristics I describe as fundamental elements of the nature of technology:
1. Technology is by nature expansive. (In other words, technology is never content with stasis. It always seeks to widen its sphere of influence.)
2. Technology by its nature combines or converges with other technologies.
3. Technology is by nature rational, direct, and aggressive.
4. Technology by its nature strives for control.
There are qualifications to these characteristics, but the general pattern holds, not just in the digital world, but in technology overall. As Mr. Manjoo suggests, the question is whether we'll summon the will to resist those tendencies when they're dangerous -- global warming being by far the most critical example. So far, history suggests we won't.
11
Uber is an an example of a company that wreaked havoc before it dawned on anyone to do something about it. The T&LC in New York was the most heavily regulated industry around, capping taxi numbers at about 30,000. Uber and the like arrive, and we now have some 170,000 drivers each barely eking out a living and clogging streets that prior to Uber's arrival were slowly being decongested through carefully considered street-planning tweeks. Taxi drivers are committing suicide, our earth is warming fast. But Silicon Valley knows that convenience to the individual sells better than responsibility to the collective.
61
@Commuting Cyclist
I agree 100% with 90 percent that you wrote. You cant blame silicon valley for Uber you can blame both the Taxi industry and influenced politicians for Ubers free reign.
People don't understand that the limit in TLC yellow cabs was to reduce the number of cabs on the streets and correct the the very things that you mention but the city out grew that piddling number that is why Taxi medallions became worth a million dollars.
The public outside of Mid town and the airpot were not served. They are using this to produce a congestion zone tax which is just a toll. Did u notice reduced traffic on our toll bridges? NO
2
@B Succinct
You're right, there was much of New York City not being properly served prior to Uber's arrival. But we need the city to step in with regulations, incentives, disincentives, to keep traffic under control, improve public transportation, and help ensure drivers can make a living. Uber not only doesn't have to care about those things, it seems to benefit if two out of three continue to decline.
2
People who don't care about their personal privacy and laud the convenience of the internet of things ignore the possibility of malign forces watching and listening to their every move in their homes. I don't like the idea that corporations are listening in to my private conversations sell me stuff but there is a much greater risk than that. Autocratic governments rely on repression of dissent to maintain power. National police forces can be co-opted by evil leaders to spy on citizens and jail them - or worse - for sedition. Imagine if Nazi Germany had the internet to listen to people inside their homes instead of relying on spies and ordinary citizens to identify Jews and dissenters.
Spying of citizens happens today in places like Russia and China.
Don't blithely assume that we are immune. History shows autocracy can creep in anywhere if people aren't really vigilant. Power mad political parties, even in open democracies, are not beyond hacking appliances or TV to identify and subvert voters with targeted messages. Just ask the Trump campaign about "targeted messaging" and hacking.
The irony is that we need government to regulate this so we can be protected from the possibility of future government repression.
22
@MM
A government, like the one we have now, that is entirely in the pocket of big corporations and finance, IS a repressive government.
And this oppressive attitude that we should let corporations do what they want and then worry about it a little bit later is a provincial anomaly: Europe has governments that protect their citizens' privacy and go after corporate abuses.
It doesn't HAVE to be this way in the United States.
Our economic system isn't a force of nature. We built it; we can change it.
12
How absurd - and lazy - can people be? I'd much rather stand up to turn off the lights than "tell Alexa." We sit too much as it is!
23
@EDK I bet you are too young to remember that you had to actually get up to change the TV channel or sound or worse to fiddle with antenna. Each generation will have its "progress"
3
I doubt much useful information will ever be gleaned from the dolts who adopt this lazy lifestyle of walkie talkies.
3
Machines get "smarter"; humans get lazier and stupider.
25
This is just about the dumbest idea I've ever heard: So I can tell my microwave to reheat my lunch from across the room??? But before that, I still have to get up, take my lunch out of the fridge, and load it into the oven? I don't know about those Amazon geeks, but to me this does not seem to make much sense at all.
20
What a horrible scenario. It's about time to go live in a tent. Save every old appliance and device you have that is not digital-you will need them.
9
These devices are just plain silly and I'm dumbfounded that anyone would want one. If you can't go across the room to turn on the microwave you've got some issues, not to mention the fact that you still have to get up to put whatever you're cooking in.
Don't buy these useless gadgets and hopefully they'll go away.
14
Perfect. Just what our obese, sedentary society needs - even more "convenience."
And I can already hear our planet groaning under the strain of billions of tons of discarded (although still perfectly useable) "dumb" appliances.
It's actually hard for me to get too worked up about the privacy aspect. Karma is nothing but cause and effect. Bring Big Brother into every aspect of your life just because you're too lazy to get up and start the microwave yourself or turn on a light, and you deserve everything you get.
6
LOLLOLLOL: it's the Linking, Ogling, Leering, Leeching Of Lust-, Libido-Obsessed Locusts. More specifically: of capitalism's profit greedy, information needy, brainwashing schemes and propagandistic programs speeding and spreading and near-monopolizing locusts, like Vlad Putin and Bob Mercer and the Koch Bros, saying things to each other like: "Mark, have you Faceboofed them good yet?"
10
I'm not ever going to install in my house something that listens to everything, and communicates to an unknown outside entity.
But I will be buying new things-toasters, fridge, oven, garage door opener. I already have an internet connected bathroom scale.
The probability is 100% that someone is now or soon will be able to cruise past my house, search for my smart lock and open it up through their Alexa. Or turn on my toaster, or turn off my fridge,
just for fun.
No thanks, say I, but there's no protection, is there.
3
On the other hand, oldfangled vinyl record systems are making a comeback and not just for nostalgic reasons: The sound quality and respect for the their elegance matter.
I’ll never dump my pop-up toaster. It makes me feel empowered and chef-like. Plus, operating the thing will probably be considered exercise before long.
Full disclosure: I like crank-up car windows too.
9
The FTC has been studying the Internet of Things for several years, but don't expect the current Republican-led FTC to do anything regulatory about it, except some privacy misrepresentation law enforcement cases. They certainly won't want to slow down innovation and pro-consumer benefits, even if there may be countervailing privacy/security concerns.
4
No one will ever be able to convince me that I need this stuff, until the day it’s the only option available.
13
I'd expect government regulation on security may actually be beneficial to innovation. As it is, companies such as Amazon and Google likely have 'trust' on security that smaller start-up manufacturers do not. Absent that trust on security, new device manufacturers would need to sell their products at such a relative discount to make the 'risk' worthwhile. However, that would make it uneconomical for them to even bother, which would further cement the market position of the big guys.
1
It's not for government to sort this out. Consumers don't have to buy this stuff. We can live without all of it. But, humans love the most innovative shiny new toy, so they will buy the stuff, because they just can't say no. If we end up in a world where Google and Amazon and Facebook spy into every area of our lives, so be it. We ask for it by allowing it to happen.
1
I really don't think having my microwave and coffee pot connected to the internet is of much use. When they invent a microwave that can make a decent bowl of mac and cheese on its own I might be interested. I don't really think that having a conversation with my appliances through Alexa would be very interesting.
"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
9
One of the scariest ideas is the implications of continuous health monitoring devices. Soon or even now there will be continuous EKGs, blood pressure, oxygen saturation and glucose monitoring. It won't be long before there is monitoring for various other markers of disease including viruses and bacteria that transmit sexually transmitted diseases, cancer biomarkers, pregnancy and other very personal health data. The risk of having this data reach unauthorized or unwanted persons is terrible to imagine. Doctor patient confidentiality will be a thing of the past. Finally imagine if a hacker can reprogram an EKG or glucose level that results in a patient being compelled to do the exact opposite of what they should do to stay alive.
3
@Steve
I personally favor the advent of health monitoring devices. This may be a breakthrough advance for preventive medicine. People may have the choice of opting out if they feal their privacy is more important than their health.
@Steve
And in our for-profit healthcare system, you'd better believe that information will be collected by insurers as well.
@Ron
We should expect both privacy and good health. Framing it as an either/or question only plays into the hands of those who want to gather all this data on the rest of us.
2
government regulation does not necessarily slow innovation. It can just push it in a different direction.
1
I have a "smart" tv. I do not have it attached to my computer. The Spectrum tech I talked to said these devices have the capability to monitor what you watch and when you watch it. He advised me to leave it "as is." Which I did. That said - to all of the "Star Trek" fans - watch or re-watch the episode called "The Ultimate Computer." Everyone should check out the episode. The writers were prescient.
3
@susan That's only true if you're only watching over-the-air network tv: WGN, ABC, NBC, PBS, etc. This means no cable provider, no satellite dish, nothing. Your physical computer has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with how your receive your signal: OTA or Internet. If you only watch OTA content, it makes no sense to own a smart tv.
2
@susan
Do you know that your smart TV needs a computer to transmit your data? It has to be connected to something to show you the content, doesn't it? Of course, the tech said to leave it as is.
There needs to be an "emasculate" switch that disconnects internally all the monitoring bits. Even then, I wouldn't trust it unless when I pushed the button there was a puff of smoke emitted.
2
I work for a company that has facilities in Silicon Valley. I've been there many times. Many good things come from there, but there is also unbelievable naivete about the dark side of human nature, beginning with the fact that if something is connected to a network, it can and will be hacked. For profit, for a joke, to gain control, to make a point. It will happen. The guys who sent the Hitchhiking Robot out into the world should have expected it to be murdered (it happened in Philly). Because that's the world we live in. And we have an executive branch that does not take this seriously - their early twentieth century minds are mostly worried about how to keep mining and burning coal. This will only delay action and permit what the author has pointed out to happen. Until then - individual resistance is key. Does your garage door opener really need to be on the Internet? I don't think so.
15
I want to know if these devices could just be connected locally, on my house's network, with no connectivity outside my house?
In a word, yes.
Most home routers can be set so that devices can have access to the local network but not to the Internet. It requires a bit of knowledge about setup but it can be done easily.
If the devices are wireless (and they all are) then they are broadcasting signals that can be picked up outside your house.
I find Alexa and similar devices not only intrusive, but just plain unnecessary. Is walking small distances to push a button, set a timer, turn on the lights or television too much work? If necessity is the mother of invention, then Alexa, Echo and similar devices are the mothers of topor.
19
Why not go slowly? Because then I wouldn't have a thermostat that I can control from the upstairs bedroom when it gets cold. I wouldn't have smart lighting that I can control even though this old house doesn't have light switches in many rooms.
I wouldn't have a doorbell that shows me video of the people at the door and lets me speak to them via intercom. I wouldn't be able to say "Alexa, remind me of my appointment at 3:45."
As someone who is currently dealing with the tedious business of identity theft I agree that security needs to be bolstered -- beginning with the fact that all the security questions I was asked involved my Social Security number and mother's maiden name, information that, after numerous hacks, is easily obtained.
But the solution isn't to slow progress with a bureaucratic regime that would slow innovation to a snail's pace.
@Josh HillThe problem is not all of us want these devices but they’re forced onto us. And regulation keeps us safe.
7
@JS27 Resist. This future is not inevitable nor unstoppable.
1
@Josh Hill
The only "problem" these technologies seem to be a solution for is laziness, which is ironic, because the arguments against sensible regulation of these technologies mostly involves lazy thinking.
You know, I blame our being raised on the Garden of Eden myth for all this horror. "In the past, things were rosy - these kids today, well, I'm worried. " Old Dobbin could be relied upon to get us home in the wagon even if we were passed out drunk. Now look: around 40,000 of us die each year in auto wrecks. Every time these negative concerns arise in the midst of technological advances, someone should post GPDR (Geezer Post Don't Read). Relax.
@H Hanover
That's a pretty condescending way to dismiss legitimate security concerns.
8
This article is short-sighted, in my opinion. Privacy is a lost cause and has been for years. It can get worse, of course, but it's not just about privacy. There's environmental destruction, slave and low wage labor and its resulting health crisis, among other issues.
Every cell phone, alexa, smart tv/blender/refrigerator has a cost that goes beyond what's on the price tag and that few people care about. Not caring about the suffering of our fellow humans and the ruination of the planet but panicked about privacy can be summed up in a single word: Entitlement.
7
@T SB
I don't think caring is an either/or type situation. I and many others have the capacity to care about the risks of new technologies and to care about suffering of my fellow humans, environmental threats etc. This writers expertise is in the technology field and I'm glad to read the article. It's food for thought.
3
i can turn on and off my own lights... thank you very much. I also can set my own thermostat. Its really not too hard. Little dials make it easy. I will NEVER put one of those things in my house!
36
@Jean claude the damned - me too, and as I tell people who wonder aloud how I stay so fit as I approach 60, the endless pursuit of labor-saving devices ultimately produces an ethic of laziness. But to my way of thinking, Amazon et al. will only spark a resurgence of simple, unconnected devices. Less is more--privacy and savings, that is.
1
@Jean claude the damned--Right. Why would anyone buy a "smart" microwave? What's wrong with people?
No kidding. This is why I have had zero interest in Alexa and other devices that await my spoken command without my having to actively engage it (vs. Siri). You have invited a stranger into your house, and she’s always listening/observing. Excellent article!
32
I for one, am extremely worried about the future of how we interact in the hands of a small group of rich, white twenty something men. While their intentions may be good, we have already witnessed the immense damage that Facebook has had on our national discourse and electoral process, the virtual monopoly Amazon has gained in shopping, and the willingness of Google to bow to totalitarian leaders in order to turn a profit. We may be more connected and our lives may be easier, but I do not know if they are universally better. It is not clear that our advances benefit everyone and the long term perils are unknown. It is easy to write these fears off as coming from a Luddite, but I believe we will come to regret some of our progress. Scary times indeed
36
@Sam
Their intentions are not good.....such considerations don't even figure into the equation. Increasing shareholder value, at any cost, is the foremost value. I am all for profit when increasing value however when increased value (money) encroaches on democratic values and individual liberties, profit becomes unrestrained greed.
One only has to look at Mark Zuckerburg to realize just how morally bankrupt are these so called new captains of industry. He is still stupefied by how his quest for greed ushered in Russian interference in the election process endangers democracy. Huh?!
If Amazon has its way, we shall become a nation of obsessed consumers forever pounding our way on our keyboards looking for the lowest cost of the latest trend. Automatons of corporate America.
Amazon, recently took an unexpected leadership role in raising their workers hourly rage to $15/hr. after being widely criticized for pre-union, 19th century work conditions. This might suggest that Amazon could really establish itself as a leader in employment practices, (Apple are you listening?) However, so profound and invasive are Amazon's swarth of damaging and harmful practices, in particular, their extensive partnership with the government, that they threaten the government's ability to regulate.
I do not think a society numbly engaged in 24/7 consumerism is anything more than the absolute control of corporate America in tandem with our government.
2
Years ago, I was advised by a cyber security friend to keep tape over all the cameras in my devices. At first that seemed very 'Tin Foil Hat' but it was advice I followed anyway. Next, -again years ago- I noticed that ads for suicide prevention were popping up on my (now deleted) facebook page after a gmail exchange with a friend over the suicide of another friend. Suspicious, I emailed my friend about the addiction problem of yet another friend and sure enough ads for rehab on FB. I expressed my concern to various friends who pooh poohed it. Several months later Google and FB had to fess up that they were in fact in cahoots. We all have digital leashes; phones, fit bits etc. There is no way I'd allow Alexa or the like in my home.No 'smart' devices thanks. Tech is here to stay and has done an extreme amount of good for us, but we need to apply the brakes, no..we need to stand on the brakes until we have some better principles and controls.
66
The dangers are even worse than that. Each of these devices emits RF radiation, often in amounts that far exceed safety standards.
Utility companies worldwide are moving swiftly to install smart meters that send usage data wirelessly via a smart grid. They are extremely buggy devices and have caused explosions and fires, and customers' bills have skyrocketed. The utility companies get a huge grant from the government to install them and an income stream from selling data about your usage to marketers. The consumer gets higher bills, threat of fire, invasion of privacy and massive amounts of radio frequency radiation that causes headaches, sleeplessness, digestive disturbances, heart irregularities, cancer and other problems.
Watch the documentary 'Take Back Your Power' (free on youtube).
8
You rightly include Apple in the list of industry behemoths, but with the article focused on privacy, you should point out that Apple is very different than Amazon, Facebook, and especially Google. Apple makes money by selling things. Google, Facebook, and Amazon make money by selling your personal information. The industry knock on Apple, in fact, is that its ecosystem is self-contained, not “open” enough. Be careful for what you wish for! With our privacy dangling by a thread, it makes even more sense to buy Apple products, not despite the closed ecosystem, but because of the closed ecosystem.
5
@Mark Roderick It's great to see Apple fans boys are alive and well. If you would check Apple's 10 k you see approximately 18% of revenue comes from advertising (same thing Google, Amazon and Facebook does) and that management has targeted this area for future growth.
The only difference between Apple and the rest of the tech giants is that they were late to advertising game and have been trying hard to catch up.
5
A smart, far sighted entrepreneur would begin begin buying up large lots of non connected items for near future sales--once everyone finally catches on to how Orwellian The Internet of Things really is. A secondary inclined entrepreneur should start a business disconnecting the IoT's as a matter of future customer demand.
27
We need an organization that thoroughly tests IoT products for security flaws or other misuses of data collection/sharing and then publishes those findings so that consumers can make smart decisions.
The organization would have to be free from industry influence, free from government influence (apart from safety/security regulations) and funded by consumers if the findings are to be trusted.
1
@R.V.S. Consumer Reports purports to do this and has been around for decades. It can be very helpful. Is it still independent? That I don't know.
1
We don't need a universal basic income to take away our initiative. Connecting every last thing to the internet is doing that now. Walk into almost any large enterprise like a Nordstrom's or a CVS and you'll notice one thing immediately: an absence of people to help you if you need it. And in other stores like Best Buy or Staples, you're told to check their online store because they don't have the item in stock at the store or on the floor so you can see it and determine if it does meet your needs. Pictures do not replace seeing the actual item.
And then watch people around you with their cell phones. Rarely do you see anyone walking down the street not hooked up to a cell phone if they are alone. Those spontaneous conversations people once had with each other have almost vanished. If you don't have a GPS and need to ask directions the locals can't even point you in the right direction because they don't it themselves.
Technology is being deployed in ways that harm our interests in being independent. It's also being used to intrude into our private lives to a degree that is matched only by authoritarian regimes. Don't forget, just because the computer says it's so doesn't mean it is. There is this small thing called GIGO: garbage in garbage out and plenty of what is being done is just that, GIGO.
28
My kitchen fan and microwave already respond to the touch of a button. Someone please explain why I should want them connected to the internet? Now, if Big Brother could clean my perpetually grubby appliances for me, I might be won over.
42
@Laura Stanley
The only person I know who actually has a reason for all this nonsense is a person with a house in Maine (he live in CT). He can check on how things are in his house and he can turn on the heat before he arrives. However, he is a computer wiz and knows what he is doing. For the rest of us we would have to rely on trust and I, for one, don't trust any of them.
3
Schneier is right that government regulation is the only practical way to protect what's left of self control of privacy for the goods and services we purchase. Sadly the American government does not work for us, it works for corporations. What have they done so far on this front ? The misguided Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a fine example. When confronted with new technology, congress moved swiftly to protect not us, but corporations. We won't even have the right to alter things that we purchased for ourselves to make them more secure.
16
Someone gave me an Alexa for Christmas last year. Every once in a while it would inadvertently start yammering without having been prompted. Clearly, it's listening to every word you say. Creepy. It's now sitting in a drawer. (Although we do pull it out to play "Song Quiz"...about the only thing it's good for!)
8
Convenience = Laziness + Entitlement.
Our privacy is going the way of our democracy, all in the name of convenience
15
@DesertFlowerLV all in the name of $
1
@J-A Yes, I forgot to mention that!
1
We literally have more "Alexa" devices in our home than we have people. Who cares?
@Dan
Because if if you simply refuse to acknowledge it, it's not a problem, right?
3
When someone looks back at us from whatever the next century is, they will see the movie Wall-E as prescient.
The earth will be a trash heap and an environmental disaster.
Overweight humans will be in orbiting people holders unable to get up from their couches with AI and computer systems meeting their physical needs as they become dumb as rocks.
Some of us are already there.
37
Dear Farhad,
If you think the Internet of things is scary, just wait until bio-hacking takes off and we get the Internet of Life.
I just want to be warned before Skynet goes sentient so I can hide and organize the resistance.
Sincerely,
John Conner
22
It seems to me an even bigger threat that wasn’t really touched on is the complete loss of privacy. Corporations will know when you turn your fan on and off, when you go to the refrigerator, what’s in it, when you enter and exit you house, and the list goes on and on.
Curfew- lock them in their houses. It’s for their own good. Too fat. Don’t allow them to buy certain groceries. It’s for their own good. Roads too crowded. Only cars with license plates 1-5 will start between 6-8 on alternating M,W,F....and on and on.
Couple this technology with the advancing AI frontier and you could live in a world where you have no choice...but that could never happen.
16
This dark morning I don't feel like being creeped out, I feel like hoping that the future is indeed, better than the past.
I imagine artificial intelligence making our lives much, much better, so much so that we can just sit down in front of a computer and be linked to the best medical mind, or collection of minds. We can sit down and interact with the absolute legal mind, and be linked, in a cheap and respectful way, with many who support us in our lives.
Of course, we need to use tech to ally with those of other nations to stop war, and start deleting the privilege of the rich to rule from their select havens like Yale or Harvard, Stanford or Trump Tower.
The key is, and please forgive this scifi reference, to provide all with a common education and challenge, as was on Planet Vulcan. We belong to the same tribe, and serve the same common good.
Bring back national service, make us all subject to the same national health service, make us a tribe again, and maybe, just maybe, the future will be a great place for a two year old to learn to be a three year old.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
7
Your fridge is going to rat you out. Just wait. Some day, you will be shopping for health insurance, and the insurer will have purchased all your data. The data will assure the insurer that you eat too much salt, fat, and cholesterol, and your premiums will be double compared to the owner of the fridge full of salad greens.
82
@Just Live Well I think the solution there would be to codify healthcare as a right, not a privilege.
AI is coming faster then you know. That’s not a bad thing. The benefits are clear you can either walk or ride. I think most will choose to ride. Do not fear the future as our world shrinks. Prophets of doom have been around forever. I look at the ppl who first shunned computers which are now everywhere. Look at them computer illiterate are what we call them. Embrace the future it’s here! And then one day you find 10 years have got behind you no one told you when to run you missed the starting gun.
1
Weoffersomemodifiedcliche'sandasuggestion:
'Just because you are paranoid does not mean that you are not being watched ...'
And remember: Only you can prevent snooping.
To those gadgets: Just say NO.
Suggestion: Place your Alexa or Siri or similar device into a freezer set to -40 degrees F. for one week. After one week, remove it from the freezer. You now have a the spy that came in from the cold. Whack it with a meat tenderizing hammer ... you have just cracked a spy-ring. And, with luck, disabled a spy.
12
I don't have a cell phone and I don't have a Facebook account. You don't have to buy this stuff.
16
I would never allow one of these eavesdropping corporate spies into my home.
32
Oh, how I love my KLH and Zenith radios, my Empire turntable and McIntosh Amps, Western Electric speakers as well as a gramophone I use outdoors and in my shed.
I started buying VHS tapes of movies long forgotten, especially ABC TV movies of the week. People started sending me ones they found.
Growing up there was a fascinating woman who lived on an island in the Connecticut River near where I grew up I'd see occasionally riding a bike with a little motor attached to the front wheel, and that's next up for me.
Hello, New Millennial !
7
I don’t see the advantage of voice control if there’s a thing a simple as an on and off switch to control my devices. I happen to live in an Alexa household and that thing is pretty inconvenient to handle. It’s not more than a toy essentially.
2
@Mr. Chocolate
Does that Alexa have a simple On/Off switch? If it does, do you know that it's 100% off when the switch says "off?"
Research has been done (no link, sorry) that found Alexa communicates something outside the residence every 30 seconds or so, on or off.
2
As someone who holds a wide range of political views that are not crowd sourced, I am concerned about a near future time when a future government can track me and identity me as a bad citizen and then use that designation to limit my rights as a way of coercing me to align my views with theirs. Sounds ridiculous right? Well apparently China is already working on a system of rating people based on the quality of their citizenship as ascertained from their online and tracked activity.
We are on track to both a brave new world and 1984. Our fear should not be placed on foreign governments but on our own which will increasingly remove our freedoms, “for our own security and good”.
60
It’s very clear from the comments that the only person who wants smart devices is “not me, just everybody else.”
1
Connecting everything to the internet is nuts.
It has been shown that you can hack into some cars, letting you remotely affect the accelerator and breaks through the entertainment system.
It has been shown that you can hack into some controls on some airplanes from the in-flight internet connections in the passenger section.
Not long ago millions of connected lightbulb were hijacked to mount denial of service attacks.
If you connect your home security to the internet, then a hacker can to turn it off and open your doors, send a moving truck, invite them in with your intercom, and watch for you or the police as they rob you.
If everything in your house is connected to the internet, a hacker can use your house to kill you. For example, they can turn on the gas and turn off the pilot lights.
On a larger scale, we have already connected much of our infrastructure to the internet creating massive vulnerabilities with little upside.
There is no reason to connect power plants to the internet. Power plants are connected to their customers and other plants on that network by wire. All of the necessary technical communications should be handled by wire, which require that you actually climb around high voltage lines to hack them. But this year our intelligence agencies said that Russia has already hacked into numerous U.S. power plants.
The benefits of this idea are small, while the potential costs are huge.
Government will not stop this. Vote with dollars. Don't buy "smart."
112
Looking to our government to provide safeguards is hopeless. They are not even willing to set up a fair, safe and equitable voting system. Maybe the EU will figure it out.
46
@Jay Strickler - One way to create safeguards is not to buy the stuff in the first place. And taking that to the next step, writing to the top people at the corporations involved, telling them we reject those kinds of products. If they conclude they may actually lose consumers they will be more likely to provide non-connected alternatives.
7
Many tech changes that have been touted as improvements seem to me to be the opposite. This article is quite timely, abd it would nice if government stepped in to scrutinize, but this administration doesn’t read and would probably love a television that could use Twitter on its own, yell at journalists, and so on. Nope, I think those of us who don’t think a talking microwave is the most exciting thing since the introduction of sliced bread are on our own to figure out how to avoid getting enmeshed in a tighter and tighter web of invasive technology.
27
Privacy and Security concerns are just the tip of the iceberg. What is much worse is the perpetual radio frequency/electromagnetic field exposure as the devices talk to each other and the cloud. One can stand outside in parts of New York City and be exposed to as much RF/EMF as if one were putting a cell phone to one's head. I know, because I measured it yesterday at 45th and Lexington.
Expect to see more anxiety, insomnia, headache, mental fog, palpitations, and hopelessness and as our minds and bodies contend with a world in which the needs of devices are prioritized above the needs of living beings.
85
In earlier times tech innovation was truly empowering. Why dig excavations by hand or plow a field with a slow horse when a machine could do it for you? Now the benefits of connecting all your appliances to the web are minuscule, like not having to walk across the room to turn something on. The need for tech companies to prop up their stock prices by continuing to grow larger by finding new sources of revenue is driving this, as it is driving everything else in our economy. Tech billionaires do not have much cash; their fortunes are in the stock of their companies. They can't sell much stock or the price will drop. They must keep their stock prices up, and still growing, or lose their fortunes. Capitalist growth at the cost of everything else, security, jobs, even the survival of the planet as a viable home, is paramount. There is a word for that kind of uncontrolled growth, I fear: cancer.
81
I don’t want all this connectivity. But if I want to use the Amazon FireStick to stream entertainment it automatically has Alexa built into it. Amazon doesn’t tell you how to turn off Alexa nor have I seen the larger FireStick versions available without Alexa. What happened to privacy?
15
@Terrance Neal simple--don't buy the FireStick. get your entertainment in a different way!
@Terrance Neal
I suggest you simply stop using FireStick, whatever that is.
3
@Terrance Neal
Suggested regulation for these devices: There should be an easy and *verifiable* way to disable the "smart" communication.
1
Mangoo forgets to add the statistical analyses that will applied to render everything predictable. We will be reduced to cattle to sustaining the interests predatory corporate capitalism.
16
Global warming will result in more power outages where I live resulting in any electricity dependent smart devices needing manual command options. Want to place a bet on those command options being eliminated to save production costs? Like the landline you will have to pay more for non digital access. Don't get me started on Internet access costs with forced fees for TV stations I never watch.
18
I'd also be interested to know the level of exposure to RF radiation in the "smartest" homes, particularly those who have 5G - this is a subject most avoid when talking about all the benefits we're missing by not buying into this. And people often get irritable when the subject is brought up; health effect studies are suppressed or angrily refuted. Why is that? And will these exposures and their future effects be chalked up to "unintended consequences" by the tech giants? You can easily check your own home by buying or renting an RF meter, it's an eye opener.
48
The answer is not to buy the products. Sounds so easy, doesn't it? Until you find you cannot buy the product at all without the stupid "smart" devices. I have no interest in having a "smart" home. I want a comfortable fortress from the outside world, not a wide open glass wall with Big Brother watching me. For those who associate the term "Big Brother" with government, let me assure you Big Brother is Big Business.
As for government intervention to slow things down, forget about it. This administration can simultaneously screw up everything it touches while being a lapdog for corruption and corporations. Trump and the GOP could mess up putting butter on toast. They will do nothing about privacy or security. No money in it for them.
221
@nora m - If you should find yourself facing the choice between buying a "smart" object and not buying anything at all, because the "not-smart" version is no longer made, I encourage you NOT to buy, and to write to the manufacturer and tell them you have not bought.
We need to speak up, LOUDLY, if we want to be heard.
35
@nora m
Yes, and so far the consequence of my being watched by Google and Amazon are:
----------
Meanwhile, I have all sorts of cool conveniences that in your desire to live like it's still the 1950's, you don't.
By this reasoning, you should have your telephone removed because it puts a microphone in every room (I've heard that employees at central offices used to put "private" phone conversations up on the speakers to amuse themselves).
@Josh Hill
You're cheerleading for this technology but, so far, you seem incapable of offering a substantive counterargument to those who don't want them, or foresee potential problems. What's wrong with sensible regulation?
2
The average human being's privacy goose was cooked to well done the moment these new technologies were labeled 'smart'. What dumb person, (and who isn't dumb when it comes to this stuff) can resist getting their hands on something smart? If these technologies were called helpmates for the disabled - which they are, instead of smart which they are not, the future wouldn't be so silicon - with the emphasis on the silly, or the con, as you prefer.
23
I am not seeing the advantage of telling my microwave to turn on from across the room: is it going to go get the food out of the frig and put it in itself? Is it going to get the food out for me and walk it to wear I am sitting? This may seem like willfully missing the point, but if a technology doesn't offer a concrete benefit, who will want it? I remember room intercoms--nobody used them as shouting to family members was easier. I remember trash compactors--in the end, not helpful. There are probably many other technologies I don't remember or that were quickly superseded. The larger point these companies might want to address is wage equity so that people can actually afford to own a home, rent an apartment or own a microwave or technologies that reverse climate change effects so the human race will be here to buy products.
26
Keep reminding yourself: a computer is just an object, a tool.
The creeps in this domain are human beings.
10
@oldBassGuy - the computer is the tool that gives the creeps the power.
8
Smart contact lenses? Please explain.....
5
Yeah, just add another thing that can break?
That sounds like a problem that will correct itself.
6
We're always looking for ways to stay viable. Hence the folks who toil in technology won't stop.
So many humans to profit from, so little time.
2
So when Amazon is storing all of our "stuff" in their cloud we should feel that it is safe and secure, right? Can you say Equifax?
16
There are certainly concerns with some smart devices. A car which can be hacked and controlled could be a terrorist threat. Smart speakers which can eavesdrop on their users are a privacy threat.
But being concerned about a fan, a microwave or a blender seems a bridge too far.
Most 'smart' things are gimmicky--they aren't really very smart.
If there is a common sense takeaway from this article, it might be that we need to use common sense as we implement this new tech.
Nothing more.
4
@Lkf
"Common sense" would seem to call for a regulatory framework. Why should industry oppose this?
1
I am all for having convenience, but with a heavy dose of testing and oversight before rolling them out but we know that is not happening - including thought about how they can be misused. Star Trek gadgets have somewhat been a contributor to society advances in technology such as the communicator, and now we are well on the way to “Computer - coffee, with cream”. These are nice conveniences, but I am not really interested in any of them. The convenience trade for intrusions seems small but they are adding up. Thanks for the heads up.
5
Another example where the question must be asked, just because we can do something, should we? This headlong leap into digitizing everything lacks this kind of introspection. The most fearsome development is the autonomous vehicle. Any ever watch "maximum Overdrive" ?
6
Do as the CEO of Facebook does and use removable electric tape on your laptop's webcamera. (google for verify).
I love tech, but I buy TVs that are not "Smart TVs" because there have been so many software and security problems with them and often cannot be disabled at all.
If you follow professional IT, you have to be alarmed what is happening with devices that have both microphones and cameras in them. That includes Alexa and Cortana and so on.
Still there is the electrical tape.....
15
I don’t see any incentive for our government to do anything about this. It’s a capitalist’s dream being able to micro-target consumers and ‘suggest’ purchases and brands. Foremost it’s a relatively inexpensive way to control the political zeitgeist. How do you think we ended up with DJT as president?
43
I can't get past that sentence near the beginning:
"No one really believed them, so few tried to stop them."
Ok, so who exactly would want to or be able to stop them, and just how would they go about doing that?
The remainder of the article continued with the theme that technology and the evil titans who wish to foist it on us (for profit, of all things!), are going to destroy the world.
I don't agree...
1
@Joe The concern is more about security. Where every device is connected to the internet. Hackers need to get into only one of those to hack into the whole house.
11
Have to agree -- the way the articles opened did not really succeed.
The real moment when personal technology permeated daily life was the rapid advent of cellphones with web browsers built into them. That was the moment tech started recording and documenting everything we were doing in real-time.
3
@Joe If you're not freaked out yet, try searching your history on Google or FB, not your browser's history, but THEIR records. Every single web site you've visited, every online chat, everything you have bought, every search for directions- it's all recorded, forever, and essentially everyone has access to it. Same for your wife, kids, grandkids. Fake news is disseminated, re-tweeted by armies of bots, and many folks believe. AI makes keeping track of what you're doing much easier.
Good luck in the next fifty years.
4
I store my old love letters in a cigar box underneath my bed. My telephone operates through a copper wire. I am unknown to Facebook and Twitter. My bread toaster is the old-fashioned kind that lacks a WiFi connection. As far as I know, I keep nothing in clouds. But the powers-that-be are still coming after me.
132
What device did you use to comment on this article?
7
@itsmildeyes
I knew you were gonna ask, so I'll tell you. It's my neighbor's laptop, so he'll be the one that they follow.
1
@A. Stanton. And you re commenting via the internet on a NYT article that you read online. You're not quite as secure as you think.
1
Most of the technology that is created for large based consumerism is the snake oil of our era. How to get our legislators and their constituents to understand the inherent hazards, or even care at this point is why we need more voices like this article. Do we need an FDA for technology and the internet at this point? Is it too late?
14
What i would like to know is what are sales for these items. For example i have resisted buying Akexa, or buying a smart TV. How many others are there like me out there....
38
@terrymander There are still some of us. But it is getting harder and harder to find "unsmart" stuff.
4
@terrymander
I am like you. I still am Alexa (and Siri) free, and I have zero smart things in my apartment. Because I cut the cord with cable TV five years ago, I don't have either a smart or a "dumb" TV in my living space.
If that makes me a Luddite, then I accept that label as a compliment.
2
I do my best not to buy any "smart" objects. Don't need them, don't want them.
I'm beginning to think the name "Luddite" is a compliment.
267
@sjs One of the biggest fallacies of the internet age is that one can isolate oneself from it. Since people here are presumably using the internet to write comments, I wish they'd stop feeling virtuous about not buying smart devices, or not using Facebook. We're all in the same boat, like it or not, use it or not.
1
I’m beginning to think “luddite” may become synonymous with “prescient.”
4
I don’t think this has snuck up on us, though — I distinctly remember this being discussed prior to the year 2000. I had a classmate who went to study at a smart house of interconnected gadgets at Georgia Tech. Maybe most people, and the government, ignored it because it seemed extraordinary, but it is NOT sneaking up on us. I have to say that the most ridiculous idea is the microwave. Unless you have a robot assistant, yelling from across the room to heat something up will only work once that food is in the microwave....does not seem that amazing to me.
34
In Orwell’s “1984”, all but the privileged class had mandatory “telescreens” in their houses for the watchful eyes of Big Brother. Substitute the internet of things and Amazon, Apple, or Google for telescreens and Big Brother, and we are almost there. Our smallest behaviors analyzed and monetized. How much surveillance will we gladly accept for convenience?
454
@Martin Z
And in Orwell's "1984", those telescreens were imposed on the citizens. In today's world, people will stand in line on Black Friday to buy the latest new smart device toy.
Marketing... it's a dangerous thing.
6
Kurt Vonnegut's "Player Piano" also speaks to how connecting every appliance to a centralized system assists in managing the economy and predicting human behavior.
2
@Martin We are already in 1984. Cell phone towers, toll booths, Cameras all over the place. As for surveillance, it is not will we gladly accept, we will have no choice.
Shhh.... The toaster might be listening.
98
As long as I have a "smart dog" that walks itself in Winter, then I s'ppose I'll settle with Mephistopheles...
4
I honestly don't get it. What's so hard about walking across the room and turning on the microwave yourself? Have we really become that lazy?
100
@Livie
You don't get it because you haven't used it.
There is a reason people are adopting this technology like crazy. It isn't about controlling your microwave from across the room. It does far more than that.
@Josh Hill
You keep making this argument. Perhaps you could elaborate?
2
Farhad Manjoo is spot on.
We are definitely at the part of the Information Revolution now that could be called Too Good To Be True.
Reminds me of the time when the promise of a utopian future during the early 20th Century Industrial Revolution was shattered when low-paid factory workers were losing their limbs in horrific accidents with the machines they laboriously worked on.
McLuhan’s esoterica has become the museum of America.
The extensions of Man/Woman from BezosWorld to ZuckLand certainly have their groovy side. It’s just that you don’t get groovy without the downside: opaque cyber-security mishegoss.
Om.
6
Internet of Things has been long in the planning. It was a marketing scheme. Since many of the smart devices were hacked last year causing major disruptions, that should cause a major re-thinking of the plans. I got an ad for smart home things yesterday in the mail. So I guess it's hard to turn around something that promised to be so profitable for so many.
We consumers should be aware of what we're buying. So far I unknowingly bought a smart tv and microwave (it said so on the box.) I will look carefully when buying in the future.
Also the fast rollout of 5G technology (we just got taller utility poles in our neighborhood) makes me wonder if someone with our privacy and autonomy in mind should consider the pros and cons before it's too late.
8
@betty durso
Questions about 5G should include health considerations. Evolution didn't adapt us to be walking around in an electromagnetic fog all the time. The US has a poor track record of protecting public health when profits are at stake, and under Trumpski, with his "radiation is good for you" nonsense, public health will never be considered more important than any given corporation's profit margin / share price.
13
Another issue with many of these items is that they are being thrust upon us whether we want them or not. It's all that is made so tough. Why do I need a refrigerator that makes a shopping list for me - no thanks. That's not convenience; it's just creepy.
193
@Kathryn Meyer - Whenever possible, DON'T buy it. And what's more, write to the manufacturers and tell them you are NOT buying it specifically because it is "connected".
If they hear from enough of us they will listen. They will provide alternatives.
We must speak up to those who count.
8
Thanks for this article. As mentioned, the internet of things (IoT) will soon be a self- fulfilling prophecy when it becomes cheaper to build with connectivity than without. While regulatory oversight is important, the government itself hasn’t proven itself to be a particularly good security or privacy guardian. Recall the huge hack of Office of Personnel Management data, for example.
Whether the topic is climate change, information security, or other strategic concerns, humans are particularly poor at putting long-term thinking ahead of short-term benefits. We are also notoriously bad at assessing risks and impacts. This combination of weakenses enables the IoT, to our detriment.
14
@MSJ
Agreed up to a point. It is not humans who are bad at long term thinking. It is Americans who suffer from immediate gratification. Other societies are far better at it. Native Americans, for example, tried to assess effects for seven generations. Now, that is long term thinking.
8
@MSJ
Yes, the only way to stop this is for consumers to actively avoid buying useless features designed to sneak their internet presence into your home.
What we really need is quality products that do what they are supposed to do well and for a very long time.
10
So the tech industry, rather than tackle real problems, continues to be focused on selling us what we don't need, and in many cases don't want. Those who compare the innovations of the last 40 or 50 years to the Industrial Revolution are as full of hot air as their products.
122
@dmdaisy
One of capitalism's main engines is the conversion of novelties into necessities -- cell phones, exhibit A. Since the innovations of the late 19th and early-to mid-20th Centuries will never be matched, we will be faced with wave after wave of unnecessary and even trivial "innovations" whose main purpose is to make the consumer open her or his wallet. Even better if there's no viable way to opt out, although of course, the mantra of free market fundamentalism is that the consumer will always have more choices. Which is a lie.
5
@dmdaisy
Which is why people are buying smart devices that use Alexa and Google Assistant like crazy?
Sorry, but many people don't agree with you. If you want to remain the past, fine, but you shouldn't suppose that that's all of us.
@Josh Hill
I never suggested what you impute. In fact, the basis for my objection is that most people will accept these devices, thereby resulting in a secondhand smoke effect to the rest of us, jeopardizing our health and security without our consent. If you want to embrace monthly payments until you die from cancer, fine, but you shouldn't suppose that that's all of us.
2
Things are already creepy. I mentioned silverware in a conversation with my sister and lo and behold, two days later I started getting ads for silverware. My phone microphone is turned off, thank you for asking, there was no Alexa or other similar device, and I had not done any google or other searches for silverware. And they live in the backwoods in the most unwired house I know of. If my sister’s phone microphone was on, then somehow whatever was “listening” connected me to her. This was so bizarre, my husband and I started testing it. We would repeat one word over and over, loudly. Altzheimer’s? Sure enough, ads came in for dementia related things. SUV’s? Sure enough, there came the ads. Travel to Europe? Here come the ads for European cruises. But only across all of MY devices, which ALL have their microphones turned off. The creep is here, now.
374
This US government refuses to regulate online privacy. I protect my family by cutting out the worst offenders like Google and Facebook entirely (with DuckDuckGo set as search engine) and avoid smart speakers listening in like the plague. In my Internet provider’s settings, data was shared with third parties by default and I had to uncheck it. And there are plenty of excellent email services like the Swiss based Protonmail that are secure and can be linked to one’s own domain name for a very reasonable price.
5
@Frau Greta
Here's a confirmation of exactly this experience, just not in New Jersey. In Germany. Happened to my 15-year old son. Could it be a Trojan horse built into an app you downloaded? My son used (and lost) a phone made in China bought online.
1
@Big Oil...
That's awful, but a good point about apps, although I'm paranoid about using apps and don't use many. I try to use only ones that are mainstream (like OpenTable, QuickBooks, etc.), and I turned off notifications and camera and microphone access for all. I don't even use Siri. That's off. I know that the microphone can be turned on surreptitiously, which is probably what happened.
Where we live our only good Internet access option is via a tree mounted radio transmitter/receiver to a tower 5 miles away. It's a pretty good service. Early this week the device, basically a Linux machine, was hacked via the WWW to act as a contraption that sought out PlayStation passwords*. PlayStation supposedly notified our service provider, they shut down our equipment (7-8 unites over all on their system were compromised - ours being one). Our provider let us know right away and came out early the next morning to physically install new transmitter/receiver software. In chatting with the tech that arrived he said it's an ongoing cat/mouse game with hackers to protect devices connected to the WWW. Most of the hacking originating in China and Russia (which via software they've managed to deny). The latest issue he said was from within the USA. He mentioned it was not a security threat to our home's computers - just the hijacking of a device connected to the WWW.
One has got to speculate that with more devices connected to the WWW in a person's home the worse this issue is going to become. And that eventually the hackers will want information from within your own home.
* We do not have any home gaming devices nor do we play any games via the WWW.
56
@nestmaster
I know people in the computer business who agree that most of the 'smart' devices can be an entry into your life via hackers. I have seen films of people showing how easy it is for somebody to open your door with their computer.
17
I am so pessimistic about our government right now. They're all concerned with getting re-elected and seem to be removed from life out here in the world. Add to that the complexity of the digital universe and I have little hope for direction from Washington. Maybe one of the industry big guys will look farther out and save us.
26
@Kim Findlay
If we all refuse to buy this stuff, the profit motive will end it.
8
@McGloin
Well that sounds nice, but it's not that simple. Most of us have to live in the real world and in the real world this stuff is becoming ubiquitous and unavoidable.
1
I remember a discussion with an office mate -- we worked with computer systems/servers -- at a California University in the early 90's (I was 40.) The web/internet had just become available to us -- in the form of a text based menu system called Lynx -- and we were concerned that it would become overly commercialized. :) Look at us now - dependance and an always-on interconnectedness that has far too many negatives.
Other than my cell "phone", computers and streaming entertainment -- already a lot -- I won't participate in all of these little interneted add-ons. Don't need them and there is way too much downside associated with them.
69
@Heywally
I agree but there will come a time in the near future where not being connected will be an option. It will be more cost-effective for companies to just make everything internet-capable than providing two options. After that, the companies won't even provide set-up menus so you can disable internet connectivity.
6
The "Brave New World" is here! Or is it "1984"? I've always thought that the future was a dystopian choice between "1984" and "Brave New World". Maybe it's an unholy amalgam of the two. Total vigilance, total control, total information....Gee, I hope at least I'm an Alpha:-) Although, as a dissident Alpha, I may be exiled to Iceland....
16
@Michael Skadden
Not to worry; we will all be toast in eleven to twenty years. Why worry? The end is not only coming; it's here!
4
@Michael Skadden
In Iceland, they ponder being exiled to Houston.
5
Ray Bradbury’s “There Will Come Soft Rains” seems as prescient as ever. I, for one, do not welcome our new robot overlords.
93
It is funny to hear Progressives argue against Real ID or a national ID Card because they are afraid of the loss of privacy yet between the internet/phone companies, the credit card companies, and GPS in modern cars, we have no privacy from corporations. If I were an anti terrorist investigator, the most suspicious thing I could imagine is a person or car with no electronic signal who pays with cash. Recognizing that reality, we should demand immediate compliance with the Real ID Act by all states.
6
Mike, the giant problem is that a national database for a national ID will quickly be hacked. Talk about a golden ess that every hacker wants -- that database is it. Think about what you are wishing for.
4
@Mike
We argue against national I.ID.s because the Nazis used them to kill millions and control millions more.
Republicans have embraced their Neo-Nazi base, and embrace a president who promotes torture, police brutality, racism, sexism, genderism, and attacks the bill of rights (except when it applies to his indicted allies), and who wants to be President for life, and loves dictators like the Kims. I oppose national IDs more than ever.
The fact that Republicans embrace national IDs shows that they are not really against government. They are all for government control of individuals and against the Bill of Rights which protects us from government abuse. They are just against government doing anything useful for people while they try to control our morality by forcing their interpretation of their bible down our throats.
7
@Mike
Tracking everyone and everything in the world will not stop terrorists. It will lead, inevitably, to tyranny. Which will, in turn, create more "terrorists."
1