Not OK, Google

What he does not say is far more interesting, i.e. that in order to offer its promise of “custom convenience” — with predictions about restaurants you might like to eat at, say, or suggestions for how bad the traffic might be on your commute to work — it is continuously harvesting and data-mining your personal information, preferences, predilections, peccadilloes, prejudices… and so on and on and on.

AI never stops needing data. Not where fickle humans are concerned.

So the actual price for building a “personal Google for everyone, everywhere” would in fact be zero privacy for everyone, everywhere.

Doesn’t sound quite so OK, Google, now does it?
Natasha Lomas

… via the homonym post on TechCrunch!

People wonder why their daughter is taking 10,000 photos a day. What they don’t realize is that she isn’t preserving images. She’s talking. It’s not about an accumulation of photos defining who you are. It’s about instant expression and who you are right now. Internet-connected photography is really a reinvention of the camera. And what it does is allow you to share your experience of the world while also seeing everyone else’s experience of the world, everywhere, all the time.
Evan Spiegel

via bicyiclemind

To borrow from Bernie Sanders’s stump speech, the richest 1 percent in America have almost 40 percent of our country’s wealth, while the bottom 90 percent have 73 percent of the debt. This is largely the result of technology. And just wait until our work force is truly affected by the rise of robots and automation.
Nick Bilton

To resolve the hard questions ahead and ensure that the vast amounts of data we create become tools for personal empowerment and economic innovation, we need policies made in the open, with informed debate. The web’s true potential for democracy, economic growth and human creativity is only just beginning to be glimpsed. In 2016 all of us must protect and enhance this public space for the benefit of all humankind.
sir Tim Berners-Lee

Right now vendors have no real incentive to offer any kind of compatibility with each other. Instead they’re all trying to define their own ecosystems with their own incompatible protocols with the aim of forcing users to continue buying from them. Worse, they attempt to restrict developers from implementing any kind of compatibility layers. The inevitable outcome is going to be either stacks of discarded devices speaking abandoned protocols or a cottage industry of developers writing bridge code and trying to avoid DMCA takedowns.

The dystopian future we’re heading towards isn’t Gibsonian giant megacorporations engaging in physical warfare, it’s one where buying a new toaster means replacing all your lightbulbs or discovering that the code making your home alarm system work is now considered a copyright infringement. Is there a market where I can invest in IP lawyers?
Mattew Garret