Category Archives: Tech

Are we moving beyond “evidence” in public policy debates?

Last week’s “Science Friday” on NPR had a segment on the gulf between some public opinion and scientific consensus, such as with anti-vaccine parents (“Scientists and the Public Disagree on Key Issues“). You can listen to the program by following that link.

Somewhere in the segment, there was an exchange between an interviewer and someone who believes vaccines are dangerous.

The interviewer asks something like this: Is there any thing that can be said, any kind of scientific evidence that could change your views? And the answer was simply, “No.” The reason: I don’t trust the government or the scientific establishment.

It wasn’t a matter of evidence. It was a matter of faith, or lack of it.

This problem was noted in the media about a year ago.

See Time.com, “Nothing, Not Even Hard Facts, Can Make Anti-Vaxxers Change Their Minds“.

Also: Slate.com, “According to a New Study, Nothing Can Change an Anti-Vaxxer’s Mind“.

Vox.com, “Understanding the fear of vaccines: an activist explains why he buys a debunked idea“.

I worry about how much of the anti-GMO “movement” is based on this basic distrust of authority, and the rejection of contrary evidence.

In the case of vaccines, the current resurgence of measles seems to have finally brought the pro-science, pro-public health forces out of the closet. Even most GOP presidential hopefuls have had to jump on the vaccine bandwagon or be left behind.

What will it take to challenge the “don’t confuse me with evidence” crowd when it comes to GMOs?

While I can see reasons to be concerned about the economics of GMO agriculture, the continuing reliance on mono crops and the decline of genetic diversity, those issues are separate and apart from beliefs about the safety to GMO foods, at least in my mind.

How do you pursue a public debate if evidence is considered irrelevant?

Google’s Dropcam: Great product or greater threat?

After seeing a friend’s Dropcam, an easy to use surveillance camera that can store up to a month’s worth of video in the cloud, I decided to try one out. I consider it a good addition to the SimpliSafe burglar alarm system that I’ve recently installed, an upgrade from my original pair of webcams that have successfully solved two burglaries at our home in the past several years.

It wasn’t until I placed the order that I started noticing the articles pointing out how creepy it is that Dropcam’s huge data centers capturing video feeds of the lives of thousands–eventually millions–of customers are part of Google’s growing universe of Big Data. The search giant’s Nest Labs subsidiary paid $555 million to purchase Dropcam earlier this year.

Fromn re/code:

How do you convince regular people to buy Google-owned monitoring gadgets and install them in their homes?

First, don’t mention Google in your nationally televised ads.

Next, make those ads pretty funny.

That’s the strategy Google’s Nest is taking in TV ads — its first campaign — that started running today for its connected thermostat, its connected smoke alarm and its Dropcam monitors.

I’m on the fence about the need for any of these things in my home, but I do appreciate the tack Nest is taking here: Yes, it’s at least a tiny bit weird to put these things into your home. But they’re also cool. And you’re cool, for getting why they’re weird and cool.

When Google’s purchase of Dropcam was first announced, a Forbes column called it “a Privacy Nightmare.”

Another has said it appears to be part of a global spy scheme, according to Investors.com.

A prominent Google (NASDAQ:GOOGL) critic says the company’s acquisition of webcam maker Dropcam is part of a nefarious plot by the search giant to expand its spying on consumers from online into the physical world.
In a blog post late Tuesday, Scott Cleland, president of research consulting firm Precursor, said Google’s $555 million purchase of Dropcam “fits into Google’s plans for a new ubiquitous physical surveillance network that will complement and leverage its existing virtual surveillance network.”

Wired asked, “Should We Trust Google With Our Smart Homes?

The threat is two-fold. First, because it controls such an enormous amount of data about the world’s people, Google becomes a “honey pot” for the NSA and other entities that can go beyond retrieving information via subpoena and National Security Letter and actually hack into Google’s systems, as recent revelations from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden have shown. And second, you can never be sure how Google will use your personal data. As Meiri points out, Google has already said, in a letter to SEC, that it plans on delivering ads to thermostats and other connected devices.

“Say goodbye to privacy forever,” says another critic writing in pandodaily.

Google might be taking our Surveillance Valley nickname too seriously. The Information reports that the company has expressed interest in acquiring Dropcam, the home security startup that offers an Internet-connected surveillance camera, through the Nest division it acquired for $3.2 billion in January. If that acquisition happens, Google will have traded its metaphorical all-seeing eye for something a bit more literal — and maybe a little terrifying.

I shouldn’t have to explain why budding interest in security cameras from a company whose entire business model revolves around the systematic degradation of individual privacy is a bad thing, but I’ll give it a shot anyway. Google’s future depends on new and exciting ways to get advertisements in front of consumers. Serving those advertisements requires the collection of increasing amounts of information, which creates a never-ending cycle of data vacuuming.

So I’m reading all of these dire prognostications, while testing out the Dropcam and finding that it works like a charm, just as promised. It watches and listens to everything going on in a large part of our house, alerts me of unusual activity wherever I happen to be, and stores the video & audio for future reference.

Should I be enthusiastic? Or scared? I’m not sure.

Alleged “patent troll” benefited from state tech programs

Did you see the news reports after a federal jury rejected the claims of a company that had been seeking $93.7 million in damages due to what it had said was infringement on several patents by Apple Computer? The website arstechnica.com has a good story about the case (“Jury trial concludes: Apple slaps down patent troll’s $94M demand“).

The trial took place in San Jose, California. It began on October 6 and wrapped up this week.

The case got a lot of attention in the world of technology media (do a search for the terms “gone corp” along with “apple” and “jury,” and you’ll see a sample of what’s been written.

Interestingly, GPNE Corp, which brought the claims, is based in Honolulu. It’s office is in the state-backed Manoa Innovation Center, run by the High Technology Development Corporation, according to its current business registration on file with the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs.

Despite the Hawaii connection, the case apparently wasn’t noticed by the local media.

After the verdict, Apple denounced the company, GPNE Corp, as a “patent troll.”

Kristin Huguet, a spokeswoman for Cupertino, California-based Apple, said in an e-mail after the verdict that GPNE is nothing more than a “patent troll” attempting to “extort money from Apple for 20-year-old pager patents that have expired, wasting time for everyone involved.”

“Patent troll” is an often-derisive term referring to firms that acquire patents for the purpose of demanding high royalties or winning settlements from manufacturers. Such firms have been the target of intense lobbying in Washington by technology companies looking for the fastest and cheapest way to dispose of such cases. [see Bloomberg.com, “Apple Cries ‘Troll,’ Marvin Gaye: Intellectual Property“]

In HTDC’s 2010 annual report, a GPNE officer is quoted concerning the support provided by the State of Hawaii via HTDC.

“HTDC has helped our company by providing us with essential services, access to facilities and other support that a company just starting out needs but usually cannot afford. Through the use of the facility, we have been able to interact with businesses and technical experts in Hawaii in ways that had previously been difficult to coordinate. This has allowed us to concentrate and expand our business in many ways.”

If Apple’s “patent troll” allegations are true, does it raise questions about the allocation of limited available resources to this type of company? It would certainly be interested to hear how the local tech community views the case and its lessons, if any.

Please report problems with captcha when commenting

Have you tried to leave a comment, only to be rejected repeatedly when trying to enter the displayed “captcha” code?

If so, please let me know. I’ve heard from two people who had this problem. Both are regular readers, and both say they tried repeatedly, without success, to enter the correct code.

As you may recall, I installed this screening mechanism on the advice of my hosting service after experiencing a glut of “comment spam” and being temporarily shut down.

If you run into a similar problem, please let me know (email ian@ilind.net). And you can always email me your comment, and I’ll bypass the system and post it.