Should Consumers Fear The Internet of Things?
So far in this What The Internet of Things Means For You series we've looked at how the Internet of Things (when everyday objects are connected to the Web) will affect marketers and accountants. Some of the comments on those posts have requested that we look at the effect on consumers - i.e. all of us. Normally when discussing this topic in relation to consumers, two big issues rear their heads: privacy and security. So we'll focus specifically on those two issues here.
One of the key aspects of the Internet of Things is the sheer volume of data it will introduce into the Web - and not just any data, but often very personal data.
Let's use the oft-quoted example of RFID in grocery stores. When this particular dream (or nightmare, depending on your point of view) becomes a reality, you will be able to do your groceries with the aid of RFID tags on the food items and RFID readers in your mobile phone or credit card. On the plus side, this will make the shopping process more efficient and transparent. For example you can do comparative analysis of food items on the fly. Plus there'll be no need for check-out, as everything will be automatically recorded against your mobile phone or credit card as you put it in your shopping cart.
The potential 'dark side' of this scenario is that at least two players in the retail chain will gather a lot of data about your precise shopping habits: the grocery store and the mobile phone and/or credit card company. Who knows what they will do with that data, right? Also who knows how secure it will be. Our own Dana Oshiro described the RFID chip as "the internet underground's bubonic plague" in her post about the demise of consumer RFID company Violet this week.
A recent Wired UK article (hat-tip John Simpson for the link) summarized the dangers of this type of scenario:
"How naked will your personal preferences be to advertisers when your entire digital-TV remote-control clickstream is merged with your web-browsing history, your storecard and email data, records of all your movements via face-recognition cameras and radio frequency identification tags, and maps of your mobile phone's signals? Even if you are determined to resist such data-led manipulation of your deepest desires, how do you know that this vast pool of information will not leak out or be used against your own interests, perhaps by a health insurer or a future employer?"
One person who is actively campaigning against RFID in supermarkets is Katherine Albrecht, who runs a site called CASPIAN (Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion and Numbering). It describes itself as "a national grass-roots consumer group dedicated to fighting supermarket "loyalty" or frequent shopper cards," but RFID is also on its radar.
Albrecht wrote an article in 2002 that warned against the dangers of RFID, which she termed "the worst thing that ever happened to consumer privacy." As is typical with RFID predictions, many of the timelines mentioned in Albrecht's article have failed to pan out ("these tiny tags, predicted by some to cost less than 1 cent each by 2004..." Yeah right). However the warnings are still relevant, if a little scare-mongering:
"Though many RFID proponents appear focused on inventory and supply chain efficiency, others are developing financial and consumer applications that, if adopted, will have chilling effects on consumers' ability to escape the oppressive surveillance of manufacturers, retailers, and marketers. Of course, government and law enforcement will be quick to use the technology to keep tabs on citizens, as well."
There's no evidence to suggest that the effects will be "chilling" or that marketers will be "oppressive," however it's certainly a good idea for us consumers to be wary about privacy and security issues. You can also read Katherine Albrecht on the spychips website (hat-tip to ReadWriteWeb reader Gene Becker for pointing out Albrecht's work).
Personally I believe that RFID, and Internet of Things in general (RFID is just an enabling technology), will bring more good than bad. The work of Albrecht and others will help to police retailers and governments, to ensure appropriate privacy and security rules are put in place. But these technologies are coming, whether we like them or not, because they are simply more efficient and offer much more functionality - for consumers, marketers, retailers alike. Let us know your opinion in the comments.
Flickr photo credits: cbmd; Manuel Monroy Correa; Touchatag
See also: Consumer Electronics 2.0: MIT's Henry Holtzman on The Internet of Things
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
I'm not sure how I feel about the Internet of Things, it does sound intrusive and there are sure to be many reprisals. Society will divide, like Demolition Man you will have Edgar Friendly leading the resistance underground. We're safe for the time being as cryogenically freezing people hasn't hit the mainstream!! :)
I agree that if misused the enabling technologies behind the "Internet of Things" could lead to a loss of consumer privacy. However, the shopper loyalty cards used in Supermarkets are largely anonymous - Mine just required a zip code. Of course it could be tied into my credit card, but I have the option to pay in cash.
I think with any new technology there will be a group of alarmist luddites, which as you say help keep thing in check. This is good. However, I would challenge the consumer's "Right" to privacy. I trade convenience for anonymity all the time. I have a right to a private ballot, but in commerce I enter a contract with a retailer and am free to sacrifice what I wish for value in return.
Where it gets a little fuzzy, at least in my mind, is medical technology. There are rules to protect patient data, like HIPAA in the US, but it doesn't cover all information exchanges.
In the end, until standards and laws are created all of these innovations should be approached in a spirit of Caveat Emptor.
This kind of technology also reminds me of another sci-fi flick, Minority Report. Ads were specifically tailored to the character's past shopping history and even mentioned the character by name in their advertising spiel. Of course, that character had stolen someone else's identity, so the ads were for that person instead of him.
I'm certainly interested in this becoming reality. Aspects of it make me apprehensive, but comparing it to grocery store frequent shopper programs puts things in perspective. I use my frequent shopper card all the time without worrying about the store stealing my life away.
I don't want to be in line to be an early adopter for this technology, but I'll be happy to jump on board after the kinks are worked out.
Good article.
Any technology can be used for good or bad - think of the good things RFID or pervasive computing can bring us - you could order a household robot that knows all your preferences of what you usually buy at a supermarket - your fridge door opens automatically at the set time, your medicine comes flying out of the cabinet from inside the fridge (propelled by tiny nano molecules) and lands near you so you can take your medicine at the right time, and so on... Any sufficiently advanced technology is somewhat indistinguishable from evil. (I think someone already said that)
As ever with technology discussion it's not as simple as the article suggests. Should the consumer fear pervasive collection of data on behaviours, movements, associations and activities? Probably more important to the individual is what assurances there are about how that data is then used and protected.
A major point is the granularity and the control that the individual has over that granularity. Clearly the vast majority of consumers don't have the technology, or privacy, knowledge and understanding to really exploit the protections that controls give. That imposes a communication burden on the infrastructure suppliers and data collectors. We also need assurances about the anonymisation and onwards sale of the data, and legislative checks and controls to assure it. Giving people a choice is only meaningful if they're informed about what the choice means.
Characterising those who are sceptical of the benefit/ privacy trade off as luddites doesn't advance the debate.
Any enabler can be abused, but we need to find ways to minimise the risks, not get so absorbed by the technology that we lose focus on the consumer.
I don't believe you will 'have to' use such technology, very much like online banking and the fast shopping lanes currently in our supermarkets. For those who aren't overly concerned about the privacy risk the convenience is there, for those more cautious there will be a more 'traditional' option.
Alistair,
I didn't mean to demonize the protesters by using the term "luddite", but I think it is apt. If you look at the cited websites they only discuss the technology in dystopian terms with no mention of the benefits to consumers (e.g. lower costs due to increased supply chain efficency).
That said, you are correct, people do need to be informed about the tradeoffs they are making. Fine print and EULA's will make things declarative, even if it isn't optimal and over time the norms will become established.
Growing up in the military I was taught how to avoid being a terrorist target and vulnerability to the base where my school was located. I recall that you should always vary your behavior and sometimes do outright random things. For us that meant not taking the same route to school every day, not accepting items from strangers (like at the airport). For you that may mean following a different clickstream sometimes, scanning a random item you would never buy, or developing several faux personas. I use a friend's Safeway club card number and pay with cash, for example. A healthy dose of Orwellian vigilance is apt in a time of ubiquitous privacy infiltration. I'd love to see a guide on how to confuse the internet of your identity and behaviors.
Joseph
Unfortunately a reliance on EULA and ''fine print'' does not inform those that are making decisions about their privacy. I deal in technology and procurement law on a regular basis and understanding it, as a technologist, takes time and knowledge. Suggesting that users need to invest their time in learning these things fails to recognise the reality that they don't see it as important. To paraphrase the Information Commissioner here in the UK, the user is sleepwalking into a surveillance society.
You may find it acceptable that it happens, many disagree.
The marketing and promotion needs to discuss the benefits; potential cost reduction, easier and quicker mass customisation, reduced user intervention, but they also need to be made aware of the risks.
Coupled with the opportunities of current and emergent technology there also needs to be a public, informed, debate. Again in the UK the ICO has an ongoing series of work packages emphasising the need to build privacy into the design of technology and business processes. The tech is one part of a technology shift that has the potential to seriously impact on how society operates, and at the moment the debate focuses almost exclusively on the tech at the expense of including those that it affects.
Sounds like a good reason to pay cash!
I admire the well written comments by Alistair Rae - well said. Ignorance leads to basic, inbuilt reactions: "I don't understand how that works, smash it to pieces."
In response to Surfer's comment "Any sufficiently advanced technology is somewhat indistinguishable from evil." I would like to throw in the phrase "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." (http://is.gd/2PA2j). Can you imagine telling someone from the early 1900's that people can now communicate directly to thousands if not millions of other people across the globe without any kind of witchcraft? Surfer, I feel you may like the look of this project: http://thingm.com/products/winem.html
I agree with the sentiment that a little cynicism is wise when approaching such ubiquitous technologies, though I feel that a lot more positivity can come out of them by taking a 'let's think of the good that can come of this' and including more people, as opposed to 'oh, but my privacy is so sacred'. Just look what can be done when we open up to new community driven technologies: iwillpayyourparkingticket.com
OK, so RFID technology being led by the big boys is probably focused on profit rather than the public's best interests, we can still educate ourselves and respond accordingly. Make use of your cortex - it's reet clever and way more advanced than anything we will be able to design for centuries!
Thanks for reading.
There are a thousand reasons why this is a very bad deal for consumers: further concentration of media ownership; combination of content delivery and distribution systems; clear Comcast penchant for schemes which would allow them to ration net access to content providers.
But rhere is one item which is basic to the whole thing....the further drive towards quasi monopoly. I have Comcast service for Internet, not for cable TV (yes I am one of those who cut the cord when it became apparent that I was paying a fortune for a vast wasteland of stuff I didn't want to watch.)