Raspberry Pi workshop at UnLondon makerspace

Makerspaces (sometimes called hackerspaces) are community workspaces – generally in the tech and digital arena.  Entrepreneurs might use them as workspaces and to collaborate with colleagues.  Hobbyists might use their tools to make something.  They often put on workshops – typically around tech and equipment – such as 3D printers.  They perform a valuable service to foster learning, creativity, and entrepreneurship.

I learned how to use a Raspberry Pi yesterday at a workshop at UnLondon.  (Harrison Pensa is a sponsor of UnLondon, and of their recent Explode conference.)  The first project was to wire and code (in Python) an app to create a blinking LED.  Crude, yes, but a good, quick introduction.

For those not familiar with the Raspberry Pi, its a tiny, inexpensive computer that is almost as powerful as a desktop.  Google Raspberry Pi to see hundreds of things people have made with them – including robotics controllers, TV set-top boxes, arcade games, networking equipment, and home automation.

I’m going to make something with mine for my office – perhaps an information display of some kind – but I’m open to suggestions.

Raspberry-Pi-1-600x283

Cross-posted to Slaw.

 

Emerging tech – potentially awesome and a privacy quagmire

I attended an event last night where Duncan Stewart of Deloitte talked about their TMT predictions for 2016.

It reinforced for me that the future of tech and what it will do for us is potentially awesome.  But also at the same time the amount of information that is being collected and stored about each of us is staggering.  That creates real privacy challenges, and real possibilities for abuse.  And because the information is there, there is a tendency for government and business alike to want to use it.

One scary aspect is that the more we get used to more information being collected about us, the more complacent we get.  Our personal freaky line – the line at which we stop using services because we are concerned about privacy issues – moves a little farther away.  That is in spite of the fact that the more information there is about us, the more ripe for abuse it is, and the more that we temper or alter our behaviour because we know we are being watched.

Think for a moment about all the information that is increasingly being collected about us.

  • Smartphones that know our every move and the most intimate and personal aspects of our lives.
  • Intelligent cars that know where we go and how we drive.
  • The internet of things where the stuff we own collects information about us.
  • Wearable tech that collects information about our fitness, and increasingly our health.
  • The trend for information and services to be performed in the cloud rather than locally, and stored in various motherships.
  • Big data that functions by saving as much information as possible.
  • Artificial intelligence and cognitive learning tools that can turn data into useful information and make inferences based on seemingly unconnected information.
  • Blockchain technology that has the potential to record surprising things about us.

On top of all this, it is becoming increasingly harder to understand when our info is staying on our device, when it goes somewhere else, how long it stays there, who has access to it, when it is encrypted, and who has access to the encryption keys.

It is in this context, and the fact that we just don’t have the time to spend to understand and make all the privacy choices that we need to make, that the Privacy Commissioner of Canada last week released a discussion paper titled Consent and privacy: A discussion paper exploring potential enhancements to consent under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act

The introduction states in part:

PIPEDA is based on a technologically neutral framework of ten principles, including consent, that were conceived to be flexible enough to work in a variety of environments. However, there is concern that technology and business models have changed so significantly since PIPEDA was drafted as to affect personal information protections and to call into question the feasibility of obtaining meaningful consent.

Indeed, during the Office of the Privacy Commissioner’s (OPC’s) Privacy Priority Setting discussions in 2015, some stakeholders questioned the continued viability of the consent model in an ecosystem of vast, complex information flows and ubiquitous computing. PIPEDA predates technologies such as smart phones and cloud computing, as well as business models predicated on unlimited access to personal information and automated processes. Stakeholders echoed a larger global debate about the role of consent in privacy protection regimes that has gained momentum as advances in big data analytics and the increasing prominence of data collection through the Internet of Things start to pervade our everyday activities.

Cross-posted to Slaw

Apple fights court imposed FBI backdoor order

Apple CEO Tim Cook has taken a very public stand against an FBI request and court order to create a backdoor into the Apple operating system.  This arose from the investigation into the San Bernardino mass shooting last December.

See this article on ZDNet for more details.  And Read Tim Cook’s customer letter posted on the Apple website for a more complete explanation of Apple’s position.

Kudos to Tim Cook and Apple for this.

Security and privacy experts continue to point out that backdoors are a bad idea that cause far more harm than good.

See, for example, this ZDNet article from yesterday about a new report saying “European cybersecurity agency ENISA has come down firmly against backdoors and encryption restrictions, arguing they only help criminals and terrorists while harming industry and society.”

Cross-posted to Slaw

A supercomputer on your wrist

smartwatchcray-2-computer-system

 

Sometimes we get so wrapped up in the specs and quirks of our current technology that we forget how far we have come.

To put it in perspective, consider a smartwatch.  There are many ways to measure computer performance – CPU speed, amount of ram, amount of storage memory, network speed, etc.  A common way to compare basic performance, though, is by FLOPS, or floating operations per second.

A smartwatch can do somewhere in the range of 3 to 9 gigaflops.  To put that in perspective, the Cray-2 supercomputer in 1985 could do about 1.9 gigaflops.  You could buy one then for about $17,000,000.  It used 200 kilowatts of power (that’s several times the power a typical home electrical system provides), occupied 16 square feet of floor space (if you ignore its separate cooling system) and weighed 5500 pounds.  (A pdf brochure with the details is here.) I’m sure no one then thought we would ever strap something like that on our wrists, let alone order one online and have it arrive a couple days later.

Makes one wonder what the next few decades will bring.

Cross-posted to Slaw

Happy Back to the Future Day

In the 1989 movie, Back to the Future Part II they time traveled to October 21, 2015.  (The move was produced by Neil Canton – no relation as far as I know.)

Articles abound today comparing the 2015 depicted in the movie to today’s world.  While we don’t have flying cars, and hoverboards have not proceeded beyond some proof of concept demos, drones and flatscreens and a few other things are here.

Another prediction that didn’t come true is the quip that the justice system works swiftly in the future now that they’ve abolished all lawyers.

Wearable tech was envisioned, though, which Gartner currently places at just past the “peak of inflated expectations” on its hype cycle.  If you believe wearables are just a passing fad or toys, take a look at this article entitled I’m a cyborg now and so are you.  And consider that one of the panels at next weeks Canadian IT Law Association Conference is entitled “Key IT Law Issues for Wearable & Mobile Devices.”  (I’m moderating that panel.)

Cross-posted to Slaw

Privacy Panic Cycle

The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation has released their analysis of how privacy advocates trigger waves of public fear about new technologies in a recurring “privacy panic cycle.”

The report is an interesting read and makes some valid points.  In general, people fear new things more so than things we are familiar with.  Like the person who doesn’t fly much being nervous about the flight when statistically the most dangerous part of the journey is the drive to the airport.

While a privacy panic for emerging tech is indeed common, we can’t summarily dismiss that panic as having no basis.  The key is to look at it from a principled basis, and compare the risks to existing technology.

New tech may very well have privacy issues that need to be looked at objectively, and should be designed into the tech (called privacy by design).

Even if the privacy fears are overblown, purveyors of the technology need to understand the panic and find a way to deflate the concerns.

Cross-posted to Slaw

Is a self driving car in your future?

Depending on how you define a self driving car – probably sooner than you think.

Sometimes new technology seems to come out of nowhere, but it often creeps up on us.  Legal disruptions that new tech spawns often follows the same path – usually a combination of lagging behind new technology, and getting in the way of new technology.

Current advances that come to mind include smart watches, drones, electric cars, and Tesla’s Powerwall.

Take self driving cars for example.

Its not as if we will go directly from a totally human driven car to a totally autonomous car.  They will creep up on us.  The Google self driving car gets a lot of press, and understandably so, but mainstream auto makers are rolling out these features now. We already have cars with features such as self parking, adaptive cruise control, cross traffic alerts, and lane departure warnings.  Over time these will morph from warning systems to taking control for a brief time to driving for longer period of time.  Self driving will start on highways before it moves to city driving.

Actually, self driving trucks might become prevalent sooner than self driving cars.

truck

Cross-posted to Slaw.

The smartwatch era is here

If you are an Apple fan, April 24 2015 marks the beginning of the smartwatch era – the date the Apple Watch is available. (Preorders start Apr 10th.) Smartwatches have been around for a while, but given the Apple reality distortion field, they will initially sell in large numbers, even though they are the most expensive ones available. The basic Apple watch is functionally the same as the most expensive gold watch edition that starts at $10,000. (Someone said that if you can afford a $10,000 watch, you probably don’t need to know what time it is.)

But there are alternatives, including several Android versions, the Pebble, and the Microsoft Band. Version 2 of several of these are expected soon.

Smartwatches are designed to be an interface to your smartphone. But if you want something that comes at this from a different approach, check out the Neptune – from a Canadian company that takes the intriguing approach of making the device on your wrist the main computer. There are still a few days left to take advantage of their indiegogo campaign.

Personally – as much as I want one – I’m waiting for the upcoming second gen Android versions. But then again that Neptune is rather cool…

Cross posted to Slaw

http://harrisonpensa.com/lawyers/david-canton

Is your logo favicon friendly?

A favicon is the small image that you see beside a web address in a browser tab. Similar images are sometimes used with social media names. Slaw, for example, uses as a favicon “Sl” in a particular font, Harrison Pensa uses its “HP” design (which, by the way, is a registered trademark), and my own blog uses my initials.

Because they are so small, they must be simple. If someone has a simple logo to begin with, it might be usable as is. But more complex logos won’t work. They need to be simplified, or edited so only a portion is used.

If one’s logo has been registered as a trademark, the trademark protection may not be effective if the logo is modified in any significant way. It may be necessary to register the favicon on its own as a trademark.

Anyone designing a new logo should keep favicon use in mind. It will not always be practical to design a logo that can be used in its entirety as a favicon, but that is a laudable goal. At the very least some thought should be turned to what portion of it might be used, whether people will recognize it as the same brand as the full logo, and whether there is merit to registering it separately as a trademark.

Cross-posted to Slaw

David Canton

.sucks TLD Sunrise Period Starts March 30

New TLDs (top level domains) continue to become live.  There are hundreds to choose from.  Gone is the day that there were only a handful, and a business could tie them all up for their corporate name and brands.

Also gone is the day that they are all inexpensive. Some of the new TLDs command a premium price.  A .lawyer TLD, for example, costs US$6500.  A .guru domain is a bargain at US$29.

This Yahoo article talks about the .sucks TLD, which will be in the sunrise period on March 30, and generally available 60 days later.  Some think brands should pay the US$2500 to secure their brand.sucks domain name to keep it out of the hands of others, while some think that’s a waste of time and money.

Most of the new TLDs would be irrelevant to businesses that are not in the niche intended for the TLD, such as .vacations or .guitars.  But others, such as .sucks or .help are more generic and could be used by almost anyone.  Businesses and celebrities have obtained their own names for TLDs that could be used for purposes that could be derogatory or contrary to their image simply to park them and prevent their use.  And there might be merit in getting ones like brand.help for one’s own use.

But there is a limit to what makes sense and what is affordable.

Cross-posted to Slaw