Big Brother Technologies, Inc.

Google announced that they will anonymize user information in 18-24 months. I think this is a great step in the right direction (though some think that this may be a PR maneuver). Why 2 years? John Battelle thinks this is “because Google is all over personalization and doesn't want to hobble itself.” I tend to agree. I also think that two years is a very long time to lose one's privacy.

I think what needs to change is the basic model of how the user and the environment interact. Let me illustrate this by telling you a story that sounds a bit like the movie “Minority Report”:

“It is the year 2012. It has been a good year for me and business is doing well. I am rushing to the airport, late for a flight to Texas to meet with some customers and to close a $3 million deal! Thanks to the BBT (Big Brother Technologies, Inc.) equipment the airport has installed this year, I am instantly recognized by the airport the minute I enter. My wrist-screen immediately displays my gate information. I pass through the security screeners, and as I walk to my gate, I am targeted with personalized advertisements on the BBT screens along the corridor - including a number of screens that notify me that my plane has been delayed. What a relief! This is followed by other on-screen suggestions to stop at the Starbucks for my favorite coffee and to catch my breath. Good idea! These things know me too well. I arrive at the Starbucks, grab a latte and plop myself down for a minute. A couple of BBT officers approach me. Very gently, they ask me if I will go with them.

…

I come out two days later. I was in custody, trying to prove that I was not connected to a bombing in Texas the week before. It turns out that a couple of terrorists hacked into the BBT computers and impersonated my digital signature. They entered the airport, pretending to be me, to plant a bomb. I was digitally framed!”

Of course, this is just a story, a fabrication to illustrate a point - that when your environment knows your presence it opens up a whole new set of vulnerabilities. As suggested in my previous post "Google the Spy?," this model, however well intentioned it may be, is prone to hackers, terrorists, and yes, just like in Minority Report, frame-ups.

We all would love to enjoy the conveniences that come from a world that adapts itself to us. However, I prefer a vision of the future which involves a fundamentally different model with a similar outcome:

My “wearable computer” knows everything about me but never discloses my identity unless it is absolutely necessary and with proper authorization. The airport does not know that "I" have arrived. Instead, the airport first gets a query from my wearable computer for the gate number of my flight. It may also get a query for the location of my favorite coffee place, and my wearable may communicate with the screen I am passing by to tell it which of the ads I am likely to be interested in. Later, the message of my flight delay is communicated in response to a query from my wearable, letting me know that I'm free to relax at Starbucks for another hour.

While this is not a guarantee against identity theft, I am more likely to discover if someone has stolen my wearable computer, enabling me to take action quickly and making it more difficult for someone to impersonate me. Technology can also guarantee that my computer can only be used by me (such as through fingerprinting). On the other hand, when someone steals my identity online I may not find out about it until it's too late.

In short, my computer discovers my environment and makes my environment conform to my needs without revealing my identity.

Same outcome, different model. I feel much safer with the second version.

- Cuneyt

Comments

[carpet cleaning phoenix]

Likewise, it's a big discovery on my part.

[Headhunter]

I really appreciate the blog since the first time do I saw it. Now they have reached another milestone which lead us to report about it, and I think it's a great new... as the content of the text.