techrules21-blog

[techrules21-blog]

We should definitely try to incorporate a life-cycle mindset in our strategic and technological decisions. Which is why it is crucial to also think about cloud exit (Clexit) strategies when looking into migrating to a cloud because a clexit could be “more complex, time-consuming and costly than migrating to the cloud, with a host of technical and legal aspects to consider.” 

[techrules21-blog]

Do you want to subscribe to life? On the issue of IoT Privacy

The following was inspired by two TEDx Talks:

The Future of Your Personal Data – Privacy vs. Monetization by Stuart Lacey 

The coming privacy crisis on the Internet of Things by Alasdair Allan 

What if … your husband thinks you are cheating on him while he is on business trips overseas and he decides to access your location data stored on your phone, that shows that at certain times during the night you are not at home (where you claim to be) but seem to go to someone else’s home, and combined that information with your heartbeat data from your Fitbit, that reveals that your heartbeat went up to 157 beats per second over a period of half an hour at the same time? (see Stuard Lacey: min 4)

What if … you talk to your friend about going to the Edinburgh Christmas market and you discuss opening hours and conclude none of you know when the market closes, and then Alexa or Siri start talking to you and mentioning the opening hours (advertisers heartbeat are peaking right now)?

What if … in a world of autonomous vehicles, algorithms will decide over your life or death in seconds because they have entered a situation where either you are going to die or the person in the autonomous vehicle coming the other way. Maybe they will base this decision on your personal data, i.e. age - which one has already lived a long life, race or gender - depending on the country you live in there might be preferences of survivors, income statements - are you generating value to this society or are you a burden for the government. Or worse, what if hackers decide if you are going to die in your chosen autonomous vehicle. What if it is just someone you bullied in school 8 years ago, that wants to take revenge, but leaves your wife and child behind?

Nevertheless, looking at these frightening scenarios above, one might believe that privacy with IoT devices must come and there is no way around it simply because this becomes too private and too dangerous. However, humans are creatures of habits. We have known the internet for quite some years now and it always was for free. Services that in the physical world would cost money (i.e. buying an encyclopedia) were suddenly available for free. Basically, most of the services provided via the internet were free, whether that was entertainment, communication, education. Slowly business models are evolving that offer better services for entertainment (Netflix, Spotify) and education (coursera) than the free versions but also ask for a subscription fee. 

Would we be adjustable to paying monthly subscription fees for our fridge, washing machine, and thermostat? We understand those things were never for free, we bought them, spent money once and that was it. But if we are only willing to pay for the object and not for the development of the software - will they sell our data to make a profit and develop new products? Certainly, yes! On the other hand, it seems outrageous to charge subscription fees for everything. You already pay for amazon prime, Netflix, Spotify, your local gym membership, your membership at the tennis club and now add your watch, your washing machine, your medical device ... Would this create a social gap? Would you be willing to subscribe to a certain lifestyle? 

[techrules21-blog]

Online Privacy: make some noise

For personal interest, I am currently researching the topic on biased data and how it affects Machine Learning when data is not cleaned properly. A recent publication showed that Amazon’s recruiting AI preferred male candidates because the machine learned from data collected on hired candidates for tech jobs in the company in the past 10 years (Fun Fact: this application was developed in Amazon’s Development Center in Edinburgh). The argument that this kind of hiring process is inhuman might as this point be invalid anyway. Many big companies have already installed an unsurmountable process of automated evaluation of candidates, especially for graduates, students, internships and graduate schemes. Personally, I avoid applying for companies with such hiring processes simply because I deeply believe, this is not how a team should be formed and I would not be comfortable with the company culture.

So I was wonder how one could create dirty data, add “noise” to our data. My first guide would be Obfuscation – A User’s Guide For Privacy and Protest by Brunton and Nissenbaum (Section 2.14). It explains why feeding Facebook with more data than less is beneficial. Anyway, Facebook will collect data from you, in order to not have less but accurate data, one might prefer to add some ‘noise’ to their personal data. However, it seemed like a lot of work to me, to come up with all kinds of life events and details about a fake life. But for those who don’t want to be profiled and sold out by Facebook, should write their story.

Some simpler tools to use in order to add noise to your browsing history are available. One tool actively opens browser tabs and searches for random things. On the flip side, this will have an effect on the performance of your laptop. Therefore, the inventor of makesomenoise suggests running the application while you sleep. There are other tools, who solve this problem and use python scripts instead to create http/dns traffic in the background. No matter which tool you use to add noise to your traffic data, a machine will not be able to distinguish between real data created by individuals and noise added by the tools. Humans will, however, be able to tell the difference, because the tools generate data that is too random.  

On the topic of online privacy, I feel obliged as an Austrian citizen to give an update on activities by Max Schrems. Last year Schrems founded an organisation called nyob, which is short for “none of your business”. The non-profit organisation sees itself as the European Center for Digital Rights. The day the GDPR came into force he filled four complaints. All four complaints deal with the issue of forced consent of big US-tech companies, including Google (Android), Instagram, Whatsapp, and Facebook. Complaints were filled with the CNIL, DPA (Belgium), HmbBfDI (Germany) and the DSB (Austria). In particular, the complaints focus on bundling services provided with the requirement of consent, the necessity of data and annoying pop-ups.

[techrules21-blog]

Content Liability: are you liable?

This blog post by Scott Mason points out the obvious dangers of intermediaries being liable for the content uploaded for users saying that “would inevitably lead to a situation in which platforms become the unofficial arbiters of freedom of expression online”.

So far on the general topic of content liability ... at the meantime issues arise in India specifically after the mob lynching incidents similar questions on the liability of groups admins in WhatsApp emerge. This blog post talks about if group admins could be seen as intermediaries and to what extent they might be liable for content in the group. 

[techrules21-blog]

File sharing: an emotional discussion

Browsing the web on content related to the topic of file sharing, one might conclude that this is a quite controversial topic. Apparently, there are many obvious reasons why file sharing is bad, however, there are also many good aspects of it. I was especially intrigued by the statement that online piracy benefits those, particularly kids, who would not have the buying power to purchase the song, book, game, movie, etc. in the first place. Meaning that putting that content offline, those who would consume it illegally would not directly consume it legally, more likely, they would not consume the content at all.

This is where it got personal for me - as an undergraduate student, I used to ask my brother a lot to download me some book that I needed for university, that was not available in the library anymore, simply because I could not afford to spend EUR 150 on a book. I must say, I was very lucky that I had this opportunity to seek help from online pirates during my self-funded studies. I also used to download movies and music - whereas today I use Spotify and Netflix. However, if I could not have afforded higher education, maybe I would still consume more illegal than legal content. 

Still, it is fair to argue that online piracy is wrong and creators should be given credit for their work. However, this issue is not black and white. And copyright is not the only legal issue that file sharing as such bears. In the past, I have worked as an IT auditor and file sharing was a big problem there too. Whether it was just out of convenience or actually trying to harm the business. As a business you want to protect your data, your business practices and business secrets, concepts as well as IP. I have observed IT departments implementing measures such as denying access to the Google Drives and Dropboxes and install encryption software on company laptops that would be placed on every medium connected and files would still be shared with unauthorized networks. The problem that many here did not understand was, that you cannot simply ban a service and not offer a compliant and easy alternative. I believe that this is what regulators in IT are also missing...

Nevertheless, piracy and consumption of illegal content seem to have decreased over the past few years, as this study by the University of Amsterdam shows: http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2018/07/31/global-online-piracy-study/  The relatively small change in numbers confirm my statement above that there is only a slight positive correlation between illegal content being consumed on the internet and legal purchase of the same, when illegal content is taken down and my beliefs that pirated content will not go away. As much as there will always be a market for illegal substances, whether that will be shared by word-of-mouth or the darknet. 

[techrules21-blog]

Copyright and the Internet: cats

We all know and love grumpy cat. 

The image of the grumpy cat was copied and used in various memes all over the internet. Due to her increased publicity, she even had her fair share of appearances in films, games, etc. But she might have a reason to smile now: she won a copyright lawsuit against Grumpy Cat Grumppuccino, who used her picture on their coffee. Grumpy cat was awarded $710.000 in damages. 

[techrules21-blog]

Copyright in Cyberspace: Author: AI

This might be a little bit off topic, but I could not go around reblogging the following about copyright on content produced by artificial intelligence. Check out how the current copyright criteria are applied to content produced by AI: http://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2018/09/25/singularity-copyright-challenges-artificial-intelligence/

[techrules21-blog]

IP and Innovation: the role of blockchain

As a layman, one might think that patents are used to protect software ... because that is how companies like Microsoft are making money, right? Well, yes, but also no. For a rather basic understanding of the difference of patents and copyrights in software I recommend the IP series of the Michigan Engineering channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGzrgMIXLpk 

How copyright might also become an issue in the area of blockchain due to their open source nature was discussed in this blog by a Swiss lawyer: https://blog.froriep.com/en/spotlight-on-copyright-issues-of-blockchain-technology

But that is not the end of the story of intellectual property and blockchain. The  European Parliamentary Research Service believes that blockchain could change the patent system as we know it: https://blog.froriep.com/en/blockchain-for-patents-guestblog-by-dany-vogel