"The Information-Gathering Paradox"

Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc., collect data for the NSA; who knew? - "The Information-Gathering Paradox" | @NYTimes http://t.co/MEMvNfjJAU
— Kenneth D. Pimple (@Ethical_PICT) October 27, 2013

There's no escape

I keep this blog and Twitter account, and I edited a book on pervasive ICT, but I'm not a hard-core techie. I don't read any tech magazines, I don't go out looking for sources for this blog. I just scan a few sources daily or weekly, including The New York Times, and post interesting bits here or on my @TeachRCR Twitter account. My point is that I pretty much stumble across these things, which means they are pretty close to the line of common knowledge. Sometimes, like today, I find it a bit scary how creepy the in-the-pipeline technologies are, and I wonder what's out there, just a few steps behind.

All of that was triggered by these two stories in the Times. The first is just about a handful of Google Glass wannabes. Irritating, invasive, privacy-decomposing - but we're getting braced for the flood.

Cyborgs stalking us all - the actual zombie invasion? - "Seeking a Staredown With Google Glass" | @NYTimes http://t.co/S9QaDAb78c
— Kenneth D. Pimple (@Ethical_PICT) October 13, 2013

But along with it comes this:

Computational voice analysis and diagnosis of mood, personality - "In a Mood? Call Center Agents Can Tell" | @NYTimes http://t.co/1qITVvLKn6
— Kenneth D. Pimple (@Ethical_PICT) October 13, 2013

Somebody give me a "Come on, now!"

Here are my two favorite passages:

The more invasive audio mining also has the potential to unnerve some consumers, who might squirm at the idea of an unknown operator getting an instant entree into their psyche.

That's an understatement.

“It seems to me that the biggest risk of this technology is not that it violates people’s privacy, but that companies might believe in it and use it to make judgments about customers or potential employees,” says George Loewenstein, a professor of economics and psychology at Carnegie Mellon University. “That could end up being used to make arbitrary and potentially discriminatory decisions.”

I don't know about you, but to me this is a no-win proposition. If the software works as advertised, it's the most severe invasion of privacy we're likely to see until Isaac Asimov's pscyho-probe comes around. If it doesn't work, but people believe in it, it'll be another source of confusion and another tool in the power-abuser kit.

"Google to Sell Users’ Endorsements"

Has Google become yet another abomination upon the earth? On the bright side, we can all use it's own services to condemn it.

Remember "don't be evil?" Say it ain't so, Google! - "Google to Sell Users’ Endorsements" | @NYTimes http://t.co/1XZpp2Y5jt
— Kenneth D. Pimple (@Ethical_PICT) October 12, 2013

"How Pay-Per-Gaze Advertising Could Work With Google Glass"

Pay-per-gaze - what a revolting concept.

Interactive advertising might hit a new high (or low) - "How Pay-Per-Gaze Advertising Could Work With Google Glass" | http://t.co/BjGUAca1uV
— Kenneth D. Pimple (@Ethical_PICT) August 21, 2013

"Google Emulates Apple in Restricting Apps for Glass"

The developers get the first shot at Glass. Then, maybe, other people with too much money. How big will the change be?

Here it comes, for $1500 - Google Emulates Apple in Restricting Apps for Glass | The New York Times nyti.ms/Z0YsGB
— Kenneth D. Pimple (@Ethical_PICT) April 17, 2013

"Will Google's Personal Assistant Be Creepy or Cool?"

This piece by Jenna Wortham (New York Times, June 28, 2012) asks an astute question.

I hadn't heard about Google Now before. It appears to be a kind of pocket butler that will come with the next version of Android. It will connect disparate information about your location, your calendar, and your preferences to give you advice on how to get through the day. Google has a Flash video that makes the thing easier to understand than any merely verbal explanation.

This e-butler (my coinage), according to Wortham, has the potential to "feel like a menacing stalker."

Google Now may also cause people to realize exactly how much data and information Google actually has about their routines and daily lives. And that might cause some people to be very, very uncomfortable, regardless of how useful the service is.

Wortham ends the essay with a particularly nicely written passage on the world of tomorrow (or five minutes from now):

We’re at the beginning of an era, the adolescence, of just beginning to understand what information we want to share and keep private, and when we don’t have a say in the matter. But we’re learning that our data exhaust, the small particulate matter that we deposit around the Web and world through our browsers and mobile devices, is becoming a very powerful tool in aggregate, and that large companies are hoping to use it to their advantage.

Ken Pimple, PAIT Project Director

"Google to Sell Heads-Up Display Glasses by Year’s End"

The New York Times brings us information of a product whose time has come: Google to Sell Heads-Up Display Glasses by Year’s End by Nick Bilton (February 21, 2012). Augmented reality is on its way.

Read the comments, too.

Ken Pimple, PAIT Project Director

"Using Google’s Data to Sell Thermometers to Mothers"

I have been known to rant about advertising, which is intended to induce people to buy products they would not otherwise buy. In other words, advertising strives to manipulate behavior; it is (or wants to be) a kind of mind control. Perfect advertising would be perfect mind control. For this reason I deplore any advances in the art or science of advertising.

We learn in this New York Times article (Andrew Adam Newman, Dec. 22, 2011) of an advertising campaign for children's thermometers. The ads appear in "popular apps like Pandora," but only on devices used by mothers who live in areas experiencing a high rate of flu and who live "within two miles of retailers that carry the thermometer."

"Flu levels in your area are high," says the banner ad within an app. "Be prepared with [product name]."

This breakthrough in advertising is made possible by Google Flu Trends, a predictive model for flu outbreaks using Google's massive database of Internet searches. The model has "a reporting lag of only about a day, outdoing C.D.C. flu reports, which typically are published a week or two after breakouts."

Arguably, the thermometer advertisers are performing a public service. I know from experience that it can be hard to take the temperature of a baby or toddler, and easier methods are welcome. It's also important to know whether your child has a fever and, if so, how severe it is. Getting the word out could be useful to mothers and even life-saving for children.

So I don't really object to this campaign. But I do deplore the advance in mind control.

Ken Pimple, PAIT Project Director

"Google and Mozilla Announce New Privacy Features"

According to this New York Times article, Google's browser (Chrome) and Mozilla's (Firefox) will soon have the capability to send a "do not track" signal to Web sites they visit. Although they take different approaches, the opt-out feature of both browsers will, in essence, ask each Web site visited not to track the user. The new features will have no effect at sites that are not so configured.

These features do not seem as robust as Microsoft's (which I mentioned in an earlier post), which will allow the user to block Web sites based on a do-not-track list that users will be able to import to their browsers or create themselves. (See Microsoft's announcement for details.)

The comments posted by readers to the article about Google and Mozilla are generally disdainful of their approach - relying on industry to voluntarily implement the software that will make the privacy features work. Probably safe and legitimate sites will do so, but predatory sites will certainly not.

The comments also offer a few suggestions for dealing with this problem, including already available plug-ins (extensions).

Ken Pimple, PAIT Project Director

"Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic"

Similar stories to this one from the New York Times appeared elsewhere. The last I had heard, self-driving cars would require a retrofit of roads. (I don't remember when or where I read that; it might have been 30 years ago in one of my father's issues of Popular Mechanics.) Google's approach seems more feasible, though how feasible that makes it in absolute terms I couldn't say.

The obvious concerns about this technology include safety and reliability, as well as hacking (imagine kidnapping, or killing, someone by taking over her or his car; in fact, it might be an effective way to frame someone).

Perhaps less obvious: Will self-driven cars get better gas mileage? Will Americans put up with them, even if they prove safer than human-driving cars? Will they be the end of the designated driver?

Ken Pimple, PAIT Project Director

Google's accidental snooping

On May 14, the New York Times, the Huffington Post, and no doubt other sources, reported that Google's Street View cars had unintentionally collected snippets of information from unsecured WiFi routers. These two sources seem to be quoting from Google's own blog post on the topic. As I write, Google's post lists some 48 links in several languages back to the post, including one entitled "We No Longer Trust Google." (But they do trust Google enough to include a button allowing readers to add the post's URL to Google Bookmarks.)

Google has explained how it happened, outlined steps it is taking to dispose of the inadvertently collected data and make sure this doesn't happen again, and apologized: "We are profoundly sorry for this error and are determined to learn all the lessons we can from our mistake."

I  am not well informed of Google's other misdeeds, real or imagined, and I am not qualified to evaluate the ramifications of this incident, but standing on its own, it does not seem to me to carry the hallmarks of malicious activity. It is always a matter of alarm when the powerful make mistakes, though, because even innocent mistakes can have serious consequences. Let's hear it for vigilance.

But how many people do you suppose added security to their WiFi routers when they learned of this?

My thanks to Colin Allen for providing me with the links to the Huffington Post and Google blog posts.

Ken Pimple, PAIT Project Director