thebaldgeek

Really long think piece that raises more questions that it answers.
(And for me, left me feeling very helpless as a results).

http://mashable.com/2014/09/16/artificial-intelligence-failure/

Dan, Gary and I have talked about this on and off for the past 12 or so years.

Machine learning is what’s taking place with our personal data while we’re passive players in the process.

Personalization algorithms designed to know our intentions before we do form the backbone of the Internet Economy. And while these algorithmic systems may not fit all the criteria of genuine Artificial Intelligence (AI), their artifice is firmly in place in terms of their bias. Advertising-based AI frames our lives within purchase funnels, where our desires are only relevant in regards to return on investment.

This model is why the discussion about individuals selling their personal data is missing the point: ‘How much money is your data worth?’ ‘Are you just like any data broker if you whore your information to the highest bidder?’ These are questions asked within the existing paradigm of Internet advertising, where we’re simply tools to generate data versus individuals in control of our identities. Artificial Intelligence in this context makes perfect sense. Our lives in code are transactional versus transformational. Why bother getting humans in the mix when invisible tracking ostensibly knows us better than we know ourselves?

Yes, its a long and at times difficult read, but if you are interested in thinking about how your data, your online presence is handled, bought, sold and analyzed, its worth a read.
As I said, I am personally struggling to think about this topic. So much of what we do online is ‘free’ because we freely offer our data, it’s hard to know where to draw the line. Indeed, most times we don’t even know there is a line or how close we are to crossing it.
They make the point in the article;

It’s been widely acknowledged there’s also a creep factor when personalized advertising gets to know your actions in ways that don’t make sense to you. For instance, after buying a tent for a friend, you may get spammed with hiking ads even though you’re not an outdoors type. But with the acceleration of machine learning, ads may also target your “hidden self” you may want to hide or not even be aware of. Is the assumption among advertisers that a stranger revealing your secrets back to you with a commercial bias engenders trust or a desire to purchase?

What seems like a harmless action. Clicking ‘buy’ on a tent for a friend can have implications.
Often, far reaching ones that we don’t, indeed, can’t, know about.
How do you know what is logged and sold and what is not?
Can you do anything about it? Can you clear the purchase history of that tent from every broker that has brought the information? Who even owns that ‘click’?

It’s all a bit much and I suspect that it’s not going to ‘go away’ or become any easier to wrap our heads around.
Sure, there is the overwhelming desire to just unplug, but for some of us, that would mean the end of our careers.
Then what?

I’m asking more questions that I can answer. Never a good place to be…….

This is just astonishing.

http://www.psfk.com/2014/10/coding-required-new-tools-embedding-interactivity-maker-projects.html

For makers who have an idea for the next killer app but lack the programming skills to build it themselves, United Kingdom-based startup Marvel has developed software to let you quickly prototype and share a tappable demo of your big idea – no code required. With the free Marvel app, you can take sketches, wireframes or Photoshop files and layer in ‘hotspots’ that work just like a clickable button to open new pages and add transitions between pages.

Any jpeg, gif, psd or png file becomes a screen in your app and can be linked to others via the hot spots. Even those doodles on the back of a cocktail napkin can be photographed via your device and instantly uploaded to become a new page in your creation.

In short, sketch your user interface on a bit of paper. Take a photo of it.
Import that photo into their software and you can start to interact with your drawn interface and see if you like how it works.
Zero code.

No question I will be taking a deeper dive on this one.

[There is a whole conversation to be had about programming languages and software development tools/environments – now is not the time for that one – I’m just blown away by the fact that you can interact with a photo so seamlessly.]

There really should be a few posts around this topic. Bit like passwords really…..

http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/connections-between-phones-and-smartwatches-wide-open-to-brute-force-hacks/

Here’s the skinny.
Your phone has to talk to your wearable. If its a smart wearable, it might be a two way conversation. Data is sent both ways… Even if it’s a dumb device (like a step tracker for example) with mostly one way data, this security issue still applies.

The growing number of smart devices that interoperates with smartphones could leave text messages, calendar entries, biometric data, and other sensitive user information wide open to hackers, security researchers warn.

That’s because most smart watches rely on a six-digit PIN to secure information traveling to and from connected Android smartphones. With only one million possible keys securing the Bluetooth connection between the handset and the smart device, the PINs are susceptible to brute-force attacks, in which a nearby hacker attempts every possible combination until finding the right one.

First up, know that this attack was done on the old specification of Bluetooth. Version 4.2 addresses some of these issues, but not all.

Researchers from security firm Bitdefender mounted a proof-of-concept hack against a Samsung Gear Live smartwatch that was paired with a Google Nexus 4 running Android L Preview. Using readily available hacking tools, they found that the PIN obfuscating the Bluetooth connection between the two devices was easily brute forced. From that point on, they were able to monitor the information passing between the watch and the phone.

This opens a can of worms. A big can of worms.
In the case of the watch, the data passed back and forth could be really sensitive information….. I get email previews, images, appointment reminders along with location data… On and on the list of stuff that I may or may not want my attacker to read.
(I have not, but you can download two pass authentication apps that generate key codes that can be used to log into things like banking, network and data services – you are in effect, handing the keys to your digital life (and physical in the case of a bank) to the bad guys if you do this).

Hopefully you can see how much of a big deal this is.

I more to say, but this will do for now.
(The ‘more to say’ revolves around the security risks of even ‘dumb’ wearables).

I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around this one.

http://globalmoxie.com/blog/smart-watches-wearables-data-rash.shtml

It seems to be written by some sort of arts/design person and so is more about the lofty human aspects rather than the device and electronics.
As a result, it’s hard for me to wrap my hacker tech head around.
I like being stretched, so have read it a few times.

Will our skin burn with bubbling boils of data? Will our ears buzz with non-stop notifications? Will our eyes flicker with the alerts streaming across the clothing and accessories of others?

There are so many opportunities in the fact that we can now wear data. But the risk is that it will wear us.

It doesn’t have to be that way, of course. Careful, humane design can give us the benefits of wearing data without allowing information poisoning to seep beyond the screen and into our physical selves.

One other article I read had the lovely term ‘data exhaust’…. This person sort of goes there with ‘bubbling boils of data’… I think I like it.

As the internet of things turns everything—every object, every place, every person—into a potential interface, those interfaces have to be more discerning. They should demand our attention only at truly demanding moments, not at the receipt of every new email. The real luxury of wearing information is not in exposing ourselves to every passing data point but in filtering that data in ways that alert us gently, even subconsciously, to changes in our environment.

Struggling to get my head around this concept.
There are two parts to this, firstly, I get so few emails that I want an alert on my wrist for everyone I get. They are not annoying, they are helpful.
That said, both my bosses have commented about how their wrists almost buzz constantly with alerts because they get so many emails (hundreds a day).
Also battery life on their wearable is a real issue.

My second part to this statement is this idea of ‘changes in our environment’.
Huh?
Their next statement only sort of helps to get my tiny brain around this;

Cognitive science has a name for this. Pre-attentive processing is the way our brains gather information from the environment when we don’t even realize it. In the flash of an eye and without even a moment of concentration, we detect changes in temperature, in color, in motion, in facial expression. We process these environmental cues subconsciously, without effort, so they don’t compete with or intrude upon the subject of our conscious focus. Contrast that with the concentration it takes to read even a short text message, an activity that requires you to tune out everything else for a few seconds.

I think I am the wrong audience for this article. I just can’t get how this sort of thing might work.
The author refers to the wristwatch, it is just there, ready to be glanced at when needed. The watch does not push its time (data) onto me, but is ready to provide it when I request it.
They state that turning a watch into a smartwatch undoes all this elegance.

Their suggestion is that a watch should simply glow different colors and brightnesses when it needs our attention. As the emails pile up, the watch becomes a brighter red for example.
A single pixel interface. To me, thats just too constrictive.

Here is their closing statement;

Technology should bend to our lives instead of vice versa. Instead of using the cold and creepy terms of enhancement or augmentation, I suggest wearables should aim to amplify our humanity. They should let us be who we already are, only more so. They should give us greater control, mastery, and understanding over our environment and ourselves. They should reinforce connections with the people we love and the places we visit, instead of isolating us under a torrent of data. They should draw us into the world instead of drawing our eyes to a screen.

I throw all this here because I think it matters.
There are many different ways to look at the whole IoT / wearable subject.
My way is not the only way, its not the only right way.
We need to talk and think about this topic and find a way forward that can result in each person using the tech in a way that is comfortable and productive for them.

A single pixel interface is not for me, but that does not mean its wrong.
Lets stop and think and talk about what might work for us, because like it or not IoT is coming.
Don’t just get bulldozed by it, take control, one pixel at a time.