# data[].attributes.headline
Tech laws help decentralise the internet architecture

# data[].attributes.subject
Tech laws help decentralise the internet architecture

# data[].attributes.body
The Brussels' law GDPR rightly sets the framework of privacy by design so that firms can comply to this legislation, esp. their clients are based in the EU.

Potentially problematic which IoT technologies may enable incl. dataveillance and cybersecurity, and these issues should be addressed by tech policies and regulations as well as tech solutions (e.g. Freedom Box, BBC Box, Signal, decentralised social media like FedDiverse, etc).

Our society has been exponentially digitalised while human capacity and knowledge as well as tech policies do not match up with fast-paced technological development.  Thus, the so-called new governors (ie. tech giants) set their rules (ie. business models based on neoliberalism) which compromise our democracy, freedom of expression and privacy.

Digital rights advocates along with democratic and just governments can thus help raise awareness, educate and scrutinise tech conglomerates' business practices or even fine them if found violating in/national laws.

# data[].attributes.body
upfront clarity about what is going to be 1) collected, 2) used, 3) stored (where & for how long) and 4) accessed (and by whom). Proactive communication of any changes to that - in a clear email of a couple of paragraphs, not pages of legalese

# data[].attributes.headline
All smart technologies suppose to be slave of the humans. However, what it algorithm is changed by interested designers in the way that it would work just for them?Perhaps should be a lot of supervisors involved.

# data[].attributes.subject
All smart technologies suppose to be slave of the humans. However, what it algorithm is changed by interested designers in the way that it would work just for them?Perhaps should be a lot of supervisors involved.

# data[].attributes.body
A design modification that enables the user to access and manage cloud data

# data[].attributes.body
Value sensitive design should incorporate a way for the original intended purpose of the technology  to be 'hard-wired' into the design so that any change in use is signalled to the user and requires further explicit consent

# data[].attributes.body
We have got used to using Google Maps for our daily driving needs.
In most cases, google records everything, from the route we have followed, our speed, the shops we stopped at, or crossed; it even suggests we write reviews about them! Is all this part of our navigation needs?
If I were to design such a system, I would pop up a set of settings before every use:
"Please select the info you would like us to collect during the navigation" with nothing pre-selected. Then for each of these fields, a clear explanation of how this would be used and how it would be useful to me.

# data[].attributes.body
Unless required, these only monitor your journeys when you ask them to. I’ve found occasions where Google is able to map out wherever I’ve been, without me (knowingly) having selected for them to track me like this. Being transparent with how much data a company has access to or profiles is also important, transparent in a clear way and not buried within a long privacy policy. Perhaps someone can have their usual long policy, but also have a summary part where people can click “I understand” to certain material statements, it disaggregated these things just like the GDPR tries to do. Additionally so many “financial” companies call me relating to an investment and I have no idea how they got my details and why there are so many that call me. There is clearly an issue with how data is shared.

# data[].attributes.body
Alexa should uphold the value of privacy, but one of the main concerns is that she is always listening. You could add a feature where you can set certain times of the day for her to be automatically muted so that she cannot accidentally be triggered on to listen.

# data[].attributes.body
Smart devices must consider security of data and people when they are designed. The designers often assume that users have full knowledge of the functioning of the device and they read and understand the fine print, and that they will use all necessary levels of protection. This should be pivoted around and all design should be safe and privacy protected by default.

The rush to market products and save time and cost needs to give way to security consideration.

# data[].attributes.body
We are still living in a world where we our default is to assume privacy in certain situations eg walking through town centre etc etc so we are still adjusting our behaviours and mindsets to actually we are being watched and our privacy is very limited. While I am normally carefully about what IoT technology I have allowed into my house suddenly now that I am working from home I need a webcam for work and suddenly I no longer think about the implication of what is the camera recording and what can be accessed through it.
When t comes to consent I increasingly find that I cannot or often do not fully understand the different options in relation to the software I am looking to use or the cookies on the website and find myself just accepting as there is not the time to fully engage with it. So again making compromises due to not fully understanding and design of the software not aiding.
So clear and easy to understand design that alerts me to this would help but then again what is easy for me to understand is maybe difficult for someone else - so are we doomed to gradually give away our privacy?

# data[].attributes.headline
Personal Information Management Systems- PIMS

# data[].attributes.subject
Personal Information Management Systems- PIMS

# data[].attributes.body
PIMS market shows a huge growth potential, estimating 16 billion GBP in the UK. This could be a solution for many of the privacy issues underlined in the 'smart home' , but designers should explain the benefits and risks of different types of PIMS (local or cloud) for data security.

# data[].attributes.headline
"Privacy" is really a past we believe to still be the present

# data[].attributes.subject
"Privacy" is really a past we believe to still be the present

# data[].attributes.body
I looked through others ideas before posting to see where I disagreed and agreed and really through exploration of this course I see privacy in its entirety is simple a myth. in order to progress technology through IoT and recent practices, we must sacrifice a part of our identity piece by piece. Simply going on to a different website each day for university research or for a break I am presented with cookies and regulatory forms which of course I don't read as my brain has accepted this is the way. I believe to achieve the progression required. To become truly ubiquitous, these compromises must be made. I do not accept negligence in this action, care MUST be taken, guidelines MUST be followed but I accept it none the less.

# data[].attributes.body
Privacy settings are set by users, or agreed by users upon purchase or activation of a device or software. In the case of IOT devices, Smart TV, Fire and Security Alarms, Internet Hub, usually in the users rush to get the devices out of the box and working default settings are agreed. A different approach would be to make devices, or Software activation result in the strongest Privacy settings, that the user then has to change. A further refinement would be after a time period say 60 days the user has to reauthorize Privacy settings if they have been reset. Some software/Devices is starting to do this, but the only way to enforce this is by law, very much in the same way electrical supply systems are regulated.

# data[].attributes.body
In one of my previous posts I discussed how uncomfortable I feel when I go to visit friends who have 'smart homes' as I am never sure if their devices are 'listening' to our conversations and gathering my personal data. In my opinion, home devices should uphold privacy values and in particular privacy rights of home visitors ( home staff, guests, service providers, etc.) Right now the design and functioning of the technology is to make it part of the ambient and as discreet as possible. One possible improvement could be for the smart devices such as Alexa to distinguish the guests voices and request consent to process their personal data. This way home visitors would not have to be trying to figure out which one of the many flower bases could be a smart devices recording every move

# data[].attributes.body
If the limits of my freedom are where the freedom of others begins. Why our implicit individual consent can compromise the privacy of third parties?

# data[].attributes.headline
Make the change of the default password by design a default before any robot vacuum cleaner can be used for the first time

# data[].attributes.subject
Make the change of the default password by design a default before any robot vacuum cleaner can be used for the first time

# data[].attributes.body
My proposal would be to make the change of the default password of a robot vacuum cleaner part of the define feature. That way, every user would be required to change the default password of a newly acquired robot vacuum cleaner before its first use.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Let's be honest: A lot of new devices are meant to stoke desire for something you never even knew you wanted. (A tiny keyboard? Yes, please! A DNA test for your cat? Purrrr-fect!) But if you're shopping for the best robot vacuum cleaner, it's usually because you really, really need one. Whether you're drowning in dog hair, need to lighten your chore load, or just want to spend a little more time with your family, these robot vacuums should help.

Be sure to check out our other buying guides, including the Best Air Purifiers, Best Fitness Watches, and Best Dyson Vacuums.
Updated for July 2020: We've added several new picks, such as the Roborock S6 MaxV, and cut a few older units.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Best Robot Vacuums for Every Home and Budget

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Let's be honest: A lot of new devices are meant to stoke desire for something you never even knew you wanted. (A tiny keyboard? Yes, please! A DNA test for your cat? Purrrr-fect!) But if you're shopping for the best robot vacuum cleaner, it's usually because you really, really need one.

# data[].attributes.body
Much of this course I've considered products such as the Google Nest and other prominent IoT items. But I've also had to really think about things like the lowest level of cookies that are collected by a website, just by visiting, these days in the EU/UK.

Let's say hypothetically that I want to revoke every consent that I have made to every public or private institution in the world about the collection, maintenance, storage, continued use, future use, etc. of the data they've collected about me?

How would I do that?

I mean, I know that the answer is "you can't do that."

But, how would I? If I wanted to, really badly?

# data[].attributes.headline
The usage of data to sell you things. Like other areas of digital development and data management. I think for all those commercial platforms there should be an automatic email that is sent out together with other comms such as Chat Bots that talk you through what your data searches and general characterisation evaluation on line will be used for, including the harvesting of basic such criteria through Cookies. Currently there are pages of Terms & Conditions that no one person  ever reads. It should be short and delivery, digestible info.     

# data[].attributes.subject
The usage of data to sell you things. Like other areas of digital development and data management. I think for all those commercial platforms there should be an automatic email that is sent out together with other comms such as Chat Bots that talk you through what your data searches and general characterisation evaluation on line will be used for, including the harvesting of basic such criteria through Cookies. Currently there are pages of Terms & Conditions that no one person  ever reads. It should be short and delivery, digestible info.     

# data[].attributes.body
Our cookies affect in terms of tracking data and therefore collecting personally identifiable information. In this sense, I think that education is the key to create awareness among the population, of what are we accepting whenever we use the internet. Indeed, consumers can control their cookies' usage, for instance, deleting all cookies from the browser at the end of each session.

But who is doing so?

# data[].attributes.body
Facial recognition systems should first be used only where it is initiated by the user (e.g. gaining entry/access to something, identification when passing security gate at the airport, etc.) but it should never be used in a general public area. The reason is simple: In a crowd, you're supposed to be anonymous...that is basically the definition of a public crowd.
If facial recognition is really needed (e.g. for security purpose in a bank or other places with a need for high-security), everyone gaining access to these location should first have access to a notice telling them about the use of such a technology. Then it is up to them to decide if they want to enter such area or not.
The technology is not the problem but the way it is being used. Just like facila recognition systems, nobody wants to be automatically recognized in public with your name, address and ID displayed for everyone to see.

An interesting article below on facial recognition and the choice of using a technology vs. it being automatically be imposed on users.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A few weeks ago, members of the Nexus traveller identification program were notified that Canadian Border Services is upgrading its automated system, from iris scanners to facial recognition technology. This is meant to simplify identification and increase efficiency without compromising security. But it also raises profound questions concerning how we discuss and develop public policies around such technology - questions that may not be receiving sufficiently open debate in the rush toward promised greater security.

Analogous to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) program Global Entry, Nexus is a joint Canada-US border control system designed for low-risk, pre-approved travellers. Nexus does provide a public good, and there are valid reasons to improve surveillance at airports. Even before 9/11, border surveillance was an accepted annoyance and since then, checkpoint operations have become more vigilant and complex in response to the public demand for safety.

Nexus is one of the first North America government-sponsored services to adopt facial recognition, and as such it could be a pilot program that other services will follow. Left unchecked, the technology will likely become ubiquitous at North American border crossings within the next decade, and it will probably be adopted by governments to solve domestic policy challenges.

Facial recognition software is imperfect and has documented bias, but it will continue to improve and become superior to humans in identifying individuals. Given this, questions arise such as, what policies guide the use of this technology? What policies should inform future government use? In our headlong rush toward enhanced security, we risk replicating the justification the used by the private sector in an attempt to balance effectiveness, efficiency and privacy.

One key question involves citizens' capacity to consent. Previously, Nexus members submitted to fingerprint and retinal scans - biometric markers that are relatively unique and enable government to verify identity at the border. Facial recognition technology uses visual data and seeks, analyzes, and stores identifying facial information in a database, which is then used to compare with new images and video.

There is an important distinction between the technologies. A thumbprint or iris scan requires the complicity of the subject. One must voluntarily (or be compelled to) place one's fingers on a scanner or look into an iris scanner. In contrast, facial recognition can be carried out at a distance and from anywhere as long as there is an equipped camera. It can thus be used without the explicit consent or even knowledge of the citizen. This should raise privacy and consent questions for the public and for policy-makers. For fingerprint and iris scans, a "transaction moment" with "consent" is built into the technology itself. For facial recognition, the transaction moment of consent is not required by technology. It only requires the appropriate policy.

This distinction is even more important given the potential pervasiveness of facial recognition scanning. Photos of Nexus members could be used to monitor and track them across any camera network that is connected to facial recognition software and the appropriate government data base. This would be a dramatic increase in the state's capacity for surveillance, and policies would need to build confidence that government institutions will provide checks and balances and ensure this enhanced surveillance power is not abused.

Another key concern with the latest Nexus news is what it reveals about how governments assess and adopt new technologies. There are three ways private or public organizations typically test technology policies. The first is the "trickle down" method, where policy is normalized by limiting it to an elite group of people who, through a combination of privilege and convenience, are not threatened by the policy. The risk is that lessons about trust and safety predicated upon the experience with this group are erroneously generalized across different social groups.

The second is the "exploitation" method, where organizations test new policies on marginalized groups of people who have limited rights to consent and/or protest. Though this may seem far-fetched and dystopian, one only needs to look at voice recognition testing in prisons in the US, or at the Canadian police departments that are secretly testing Clearview AI, a facial recognition service. The third method is to "test and iterate," engaging disparate groups of people with their knowledge and consent.

The Nexus program is for people who Canada and US authorities deem "low risk" and who are, by definition, a privileged group. Nexus members are likely to be socio-economically advantaged and less likely to fear a stronger surveillance capacity of the state. This makes Nexus a "safe" but also problematic program in which to normalize the adoption of facial recognition software.

Some argue the program is voluntary - no one has to participate. However, that argument replicates the incentives and metrics around consent and participation that technology giants like Facebook and Google have been criticized for using. Since Nexus provides significant convenience for its members, they must choose between slow service but better privacy (that is, long delays crossing the border) and faster, better service with a higher likelihood of state surveillance. This choice exemplifies the privacy paradox that people live with daily; namely, even individuals who deeply value their privacy often continue to use services and engage in behaviour that undermine that privacy.

What is happening to Nexus members today is less concerning than how government will use the lessons in future. It isn't hard to see those lessons being generalized into a mandatory facial recognition program for all travellers at the borders. This could hurt marginalized groups and have a chilling effect on freedom of speech, as those who participate in marches or protests may be more easily tracked and their entry at a border restricted. Governments should not model their privacy policies after the private sector, they should set a new, higher, bar.

Given the population it affects, it is not surprising that the changes to Nexus have generated little notice. But we should be wary of drawing broader conclusions from this muted response. There is growing concern regarding government use of facial recognition technology, which is banned in many American cities, for example, San Francisco, Oakland, Somerville and Brookline, and more are in the works.

The world of less surveillance has likely been lost to us. Instead, it's important to understand how decisions to use such technologies are being made and to stay engaged with their operationalization. In debating civil liberties, "ultimately, how much do you trust law enforcement and private companies to do the right thing?"

With Nexus, it's crucial we create a sound legal basis for facial recognition technologies, there must be public debate about the limits we must impose on such technologies, and there needs to be a body that provides sufficient oversight. While government has a mandate to keep people within its borders safe, individuals are ultimately responsible for overseeing their government.

Within astronomy, there is a theorized "Goldilocks Zone," the habitable zone around a star where the temperature is just right: not too hot and not too cold for liquid water to exist on a planet. In other words, the zone where life can flourish. Consider an analogous zone for the permitted use of surveillance technologies. It is up to all of us to define and defend this zone.

Do you have something to say about the article you just read? Be part of the Policy Options discussion, and send in your own submission. Here is a on how to do it. | Souhaitez-vous réagir à cet article ? Joignez-vous aux débats d'Options politiques et soumettez-nous votre texte en suivant ces directives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Facial recognition technology requires checks and balances

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A few weeks ago, members of the Nexus traveller identification program were notified that Canadian Border Services is upgrading its automated system, from iris scanners to facial recognition technology. This is meant to simplify identification and increase efficiency without compromising security.

# data[].attributes.body
The problem is having all personal data stored in a physical box at home and not in the cloud is that it risks being stolen or permanently damaged. It means that important data is lost for ever and it makes it too risky as a option. Perhaps, a third party cloud service run by a respected NGO might be a good way forward.

# data[].attributes.headline
EducationPeople are more likely to make more circumspect use of smart tech if they know what is does, what is might do, and how to prevent it. A simple example is setting your browser to block third-party cookies, employing an ad blocker, and similar tools. 

# data[].attributes.subject
EducationPeople are more likely to make more circumspect use of smart tech if they know what is does, what is might do, and how to prevent it. A simple example is setting your browser to block third-party cookies, employing an ad blocker, and similar tools. 

# data[].attributes.body
People are more likely to make more circumspect use of smart tech if they know what is does, what is might do, and how to prevent it. A simple example is setting your browser to block third-party cookies, employing an ad blocker, and similar tools.

# data[].attributes.body
Value Alexa should uphold is privacy and security. It fails to do so by always being on, always listening, always recording, and sending all of that information to a cloud that is not local to the user and over which the user has no control. It’s also wildly insecure in terms of its ability to be hacked, which means bad actors have access to the most private life of the users of the tech. Changes that would ensure it’s better at upholding this value include the ability to turn it on and off manually, the ability to access the video and audio the device has stored in the cloud about a user and allow the user to delete it at will, to program in keywords that could make the device stop recording or listening when that word is said, to hardwire the device so that the camera must be switched on manually and have it alert the user when it has been on for a certain period of time, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
FRTs are tools able to identify people thanks their capacity of rebuild facial print and find matches  and patterns. The aim of these new technology is to help the police to find people (offenders but also victims or missing persons) during investigation. Moreover, it allow to save  precoius resources and time.
But some problems are behind the corner:  the accuracy of the resaults is not guaranteed (false positive and false negative), discrimination and bias are inside the system, privacy and fairnesss. are compromised.

To solve these problems the big tech are working on new and powerfull solution, as 3D technology and thermal recognition. Of course, these new technology doesn't solve all the issues. It needs a binding regulamentation of these tools and an improvement of the idea of "privacy by design" to assure the respect of the "strict necessity" principle!

# data[].attributes.body
While Apple is not perfect they at least try a little more at keeping data at the device level , include duck duck go browser as an option. Goggle has improved by allowing you to delete some personal data and getting a list of what they have.  This should be available  as a minimum by all provides specially Facebook.

# data[].attributes.body
The data collected in the home and by cameras should be kept private (value). Because of the storage space required to store photos and videos, the cost is better born by Google than me, but facial recognition software can review all of my photos and videos. As long as storage is free, I am not willing to bring all this data into my house. To uphold the privacy value, Google could have two storage "units" -- one that is free with little privacy, and one that costs $1 a month and is guaranteed private. The minimal cost would cover Google's expenses and protect my privacy. This brings up the question, "If I am using a free service, how much can I actually demand from the provider?"

# data[].attributes.headline
Home security camera systems - Where is the off button?

# data[].attributes.subject
Home security camera systems - Where is the off button?

# data[].attributes.body
Home security systems that use cameras and sensors would uphold better the value of privacy if they allowed the user (homeowner) to switch off the cameras and sensors in a visible way.
The system I have at my house allows me to use my phone to remotely activate the cameras and see the feed, even if the alarm has not been switched on. This means I can spy on my husband when he's home and I'm not (and vice-versa), and he has no way to know or to prevent it. A manual on/off button on each camera would do the trick to protect privacy better!

# data[].attributes.body
I quite liked the concept of the BBC box. It is, however, in its first steps and limited. An idea would be to have a design where this bbc box is mandatory for applications, acting as a middle layer between the device and the cloud application. PII data would only be inside the device and the cloud service would send the trained models that require personal information to the box in order to create recommendations.

Of course, in order to be able to improve the models, users could choose to share their personal data via the box, but just for the time and purpose that they would prefer.

# data[].attributes.body
Smart home devices such as Alexa should make home life easier while also upholding the privacy of a home environment.
An issue occurs though as these types of devices must always be listening so as to pick up command phrases from the users, combine this with their ability to connect to the internet and now there is a potential gap in your home security.
A way to reduce the risk of a device such as this could be to ensure any data is stores (voice recognition etc.) on the device and not in cloud storage, failing this the 'fog' system may be a good alternative.

# data[].attributes.body
Home security IoT such as a network digital camera system should uphold a value of privacy. However, design by default and design is often sadly lacking in these devices. The devices are often configured for ease of use and set up, not to uphold privacy. This is understandable as no one wants a long and difficult set up process, but in establishing a path of least resistance, this should also be the path of greatest security. This is not difficult to achieve with some forethought. Preconfiguring a device with a unique QR code in the box to configure a companion app can help quickly establish a secure connection without arduous configuration of settings and credentials. The user shouldn't be prompted to set up security features, only be notified when security is inadequate.

# data[].attributes.body
I must admit this course just made me realise how domestic abuse victims can basically be 'controlled' by their abusers through technology. While I see some benefits to tracking a phone (in case it is stolen) or even to make sure your friend is safe if they are going on a walk/run alone there should be some system in place where users are alerted their tracking is on (just like the light the installed to laptop cameras in recent years that turns on when the camera is used).

# data[].attributes.body
Going back to the initial video this week about smart cities and ideas of medical data being transferred from Fitbit like tech to GPs automatically. Value sensitive design, concerning privacy, could come into play - perhaps in the form of prompts and a welcoming GUI. Data wouldn't always go to the GP automatically but the user instead could choose want data was sent depending on how concerned they were by an ailment etc. Reassuring prompts and reminders about medication/check-ups could promote a level of compatibility also ...

# data[].attributes.body
This technology should uphold the value of privacy by design, unfortunately the fact that users rarely change their passwords from default settings means that it is possible for hackers to watch families through these devices.

The safety of the user should not be put solely on the user, if a company is aware of the fact that users are likely to use a technology without changing a password they should ensure that security is obtained via other means.  This risk was forseeable in designing their product and it should have been designed more robustly to protect its users.

Home is often deemed our 'private sphere' , there is a human desire to keep this space safe which is exactly why people invest in such devices in the first place, home security is failing its users if it does not protect this.