"Google parent company Alphabet just unveiled an enterprise version of Google Glass, licensing the smart glasses technology for business-focused applications. This is the first time in years the company has publicly talked about its plans for Glass."

"In a blog post Tuesday, Glass project leader Jay Kothari said partners such as GE Aviation, AGCO, DHL, Dignity Health, NSF International, Sutter Health, Boeing and Volkswagen have been using Glass over the past several years, and make up just a sampling of 50 companies using the wearable.

Wired said several of these companies found the original Google Glass to be very useful in factories and other enterprise environments. Google discovered this and began work on a product built by a team dedicated to building a new version of Glass for the enterprise."

Source: http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/18/google-glas...
AuthorJordan Brown

Tony Fadell, former Apple engineer on iPod and iPhone, founder of Nest (acquired by Google), and leader of Google Glass development until 2016, purportedly "mulls" technology's "unintended consequences."

"I wake up in cold sweats every so often thinking, what did we bring to the world?" Fadell said. "Did we really bring a nuclear bomb with information that can -- like we see with fake news -- blow up people's brains and reprogram them? Or did we bring light to people who never had information, who can now be empowered?"

The world Fadell describes is one in which screens are everywhere, distracting us and interrupting what’s important, while promoting a culture of self-aggrandizement. The problem? He says that addiction has been designed into our devices–and it’s harming the newest generation.

“And I know when I take [technology] away from my kids what happens,” Fadell says. “They literally feel like you’re tearing a piece of their person away from them—they get emotional about it, very emotional. They go through withdrawal for two to three days.”

Products like the iPhone, Fadell believes, are more attuned to the needs of the individual rather than what's best for the family and the larger community.

And pointing to YouTube owner Google, Fadell said, "It was like, [let] any kind of content happen on YouTube. Then a lot of the executives started having kids, [and saying], maybe this isn't such a good idea. They have YouTube Kids now."

“This self-absorbing culture is starting to blow,” he says. “Parents didn’t know what to do. They didn’t know this was a thing they needed to teach because we didn’t know for ourselves. We all kind of got absorbed in it.”


Source: https://www.fastcodesign.com/90132364/nest...
AuthorJordan Brown

Professor Katina Michael posted to the Uberveillance website in July 2013 shortly after the ISTAS13 conference - http://sites.ieee.org/istas-2013/ -  a short post about the onset of Opal cards use on the Sydney public transport circuit - http://uberveillance.com/blog/2013/7/8/opal-travel-cards-by-kai-reimer?rq=opal

Literally two years later I found myself teaching ethics and social informatics (ISIT203) in the workplace at the University of Wollongong. At the time I would catch the train down from my parents home in Sutherland New South Wales, Sydney and disembark at the train station in Wollongong, New South Wales opposite the University.

As I lived in Canberra my commute also involved a trip to Sydney by bus, then the train trip to Wollongong via train for three days of the week. For many years I had avoided public transport and driven the whole journey but for some reason this year I decided to buy an Opal train 'ticket' pass. I walked to the train station and was told the Opal card could only be bought at the local news agent store close by the rail station. I thought that rather odd but walked and tried to get the card there only to be told that I needed to put $10 minimum 'credit' on the card.

Perplexed I returned to the train station and inquired at the customer counter as to why I was unable to purchase a paper ticket that would only have cost me $7.00 return. The station master informed me that as of that day, 10th August, 2015 that the whole Sydney commuter service would be switched over to a 'paperless' RFID enabled commuter card system called Opal over a three moth period.

I asked if I could please purchase the very last of the paper tickets which he agreed to.

Paper ticket in hand I got on the train at Kirrawee railway Station and by the time I had reached Waterfall railway station I was confronted by three uniformed Opal security staff on the train who were moving from commuter to commuter and 'checking' their Opal cards by scanning these via a handheld PDA looking device that showed them their credit spend or availbility on their card.

When they got to me they asked me for my Opal card and I stated I didnt have one, presenting them with my paper ticket issued at the Kirrawee Railway Station. They looked at it and stated I needed an Opal card or I would be fined for not having it - $250 on the spot fine. I presented my case and was informed I needed to produce identification with photo to verify my identity. 

I replied that there were under no jurisdiction to ask for photo identification and their reply was to disembark the train at the next available station which was Heathcote railway station. I informed them I was teaching ethics and social informatics in the workplace at the University of Wollongong and that would cause me to be late. They replied that if I did not disembark they would radio in and be accompanied by Police. The train left the railway station and we continued on our trip which meant the only way I could disembark would be at the next station which was over 25 minutes away.

During that time they contacted NSW state police and were granted the right to issue me with a fine if I did not comply and provide photo identification. I gave them my drivers licence and using their radio system and their internet enabled mobile tablet device they crosschecked and confirmed my identification. They took photos of my drivers licence using their handheld device and informed me that this was being sent to their 'operatives' who would confirm it's validity.

I was astounded that this apparent breach of my civil rights by unknown entity could force me to surrender that identity and cross check it against systems I was even aware of existing. I was issued with a warning notice, written on a card that stated my personal records had been recorded in the Opal system as not having a 'valid form of travel'.

I stated that the paper ticket was purchased and issued as a valid form of travel on that day.  Two officers remained with me and began asking me questions about my state of mind and my capacity to understand their role as a judicial officer with the capacity to issue law enforcement statutes as I was travelling now on a state based railway system that is contracted to Opal as the the travel infringement agency. I retorted that I was well in charge of my own faculties and questioned them as to whether they understood that their alteraction with me (which by this time had gathered a crowd on that train) was prime subject matter for my ethics class when I disembarked from the train.

As the train pulled into North Wollongong railway station I was ushered off the train and again I was read the riot act by two NSW state police officers who informed me that whilst I did have a valid train ticket ( they had radioed the station master in Kirrawee) that I was going to still be issued with a 'traffic infringement notice' and that the incident was still going to be entered into the 'system' as they called it. Ten minutes later after again checking my staff card for the University of Wollongong and my drivers licence they stated that I would be required to purchase an Opal card as a PhD student through the UOW student services office. 

I was informed that I would be issued with a 'sticker' that is then attached to my student identification card that would 'validate' any purchase I might make against an Opal student card in the near future. Perplexed I asked the Opal officers who were still present why their Opal travel system was only available for purchase via the student services administration office and they informed me that identification systems matched, validated and issued the Opal system card according to the enrolment status of that individual. Not believing what I was hearing I proceeded to the campus and was informed by the UOW student services personnel that the information I was told was correct.

I walked to the coffee shop, bought a double strength cappuccino and sat down in a daze. A few minutes later a UOW security officer and another individual who identified himself as an 'Opal representative' confronted me as I sat on the campus grounds. I asked them both what they were speaking to me for given that my case was dismissed with the two NSW Police officers. They informed me that my  'aggressive questioning manner' with the UOW student administration had been reported. I asked if they would like to access the CCTV footage of my interaction with the staff member as I had recalled that a CCTV camera was installed at the front counter where the student administrator had interacted with me. 

I knew that my questioning was quiet, not confronting and if anything an expression of disdain for their system of corporate inculturation. That perplexed them both and I stated I was late to teach my class and they walked away without any further incident.

I photographed them both as they left.

An hour later I stood at the lectern and using the slideset for my presentation engaged 35 or so of my students in the lecture theatre in a debrief of what I had just experienced. As we picked apart the ramifications of the information systems, networked identification and mobile enabled database crosschecking as well as the systems enforcement the whole experience resonated with students strongly enough for them to start questioning the future trajectory of where Opal might be taking this supposed expedient, efficient and interconnected system in the near future.

I held up my paper ticket and a number of students remarked that they had never actually seen a paper based train ticket as they had transitioned from secondary school into their first years of higher education using an electronic identification and student RFID enabled card for transport. Their recounts of how Opal was implemented in their two years prior astounded me as it was presented them to as a binary and mandatory mandate not an opt in choice.

The lecture and tutorial that followed is one of the most memorable in my teaching career to date.

So during that tutorial I listened to, engage with and recorded a range of possible trajectories that Opal might use to bring about awareness of the surveillance, the networked identification and the trajectory of technologies currently as hand held or wearable RFID enabled cards. The predominant scenario that we identified was that Opal would be likely to partner with digital identification management corporations (DIMC) to enable implanted technologies in humans that do away also with the need for a card. 

The mapping we produced as a series of group based drawings demonstrated that these novice engineers, these students of the looming third millenia, had an understanding of the perceived and the actual trajectory of technology, which in their estimation included human implantable enabled technologies to triangulating a human entity as a corporation lead identity.

Today I awoke to the news that a Sydney based biohacker has leapfrogged and piggybacked that scenario by literally implementing that via a DIY test. His efforts contravene the Opal statutes for where the Opal chip can be located as it has 'escaped' the Opal branded plastic card yet I believe it sets a wilful and devastating precedent - that of implantable, embedded networked identification management of humans, subject to corporation lead control of entity.

"...Bio-hacker Meow-Ludo Disco Gamma Meow-Meow, his legal name, had the Opal near-field communication (NFC) chip cut down and encased in bio-compatible plastic, measuring 10 millimetres by 6 millimetres. He then had the device implanted just beneath the skin on the side of his left hand."

The article is available at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-27/sydney-bio-hacker-has-opal-travel-card-implanted-into-hand/8656174

You can also read about this via https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/36184329/opal-card-chip-inserted-into-hand-of-sydney-train-commuter/#page1

The very same network are 'threatening' to outlaw that implant however, the cat is out of the bag. The precedent has been set and the socio-ethical implications of this handheld to implantable technology is underway.

Here is what they are seeking to do - http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-28/opal-card-meow-meow-implant-could-be-deactivated-by-authorities/8658986?pfmredir=sm

In essence, what I predicted in conjunction with Dr. MG. Michael and Professor Katina Michael's plethora of past publication predictions two years ago has come to fruition literally in the very same locale and within the same network and scenario base which I had been calling on my students to consider from a socio-ethical perspective.

The following gallery of images is from my own personal lifelog and provides evidence of my story.

My personal and professional view is that the trajectory of implantable DIMC is in earnest and that it will only be a matter of years before we see it as a real and actual optin then mandatory implementation across many different global communities. This dangerous step towards an Uberveillance is the very basis and constitution of the PhD that I'm enmeshed in at present.

I returned from Wollongong to Canberra a few days later and on my way to buy some groceries at a shop I passed in my car a digital roadside sign that pretty much summed up that weeks experiences. 'INSERT MEMORY CARD' it reads and I chuckled to myself thinking through how many mistakes humanity will be making as it tries to fast track itself to success only at risk of imploding the entire anthropocene due to our avid engagement with individuals who design systems to control humanity and have little regard for others well being let alone their own ability to know what 'well being' means in the first place.


"Facebook researchers used a game to help the bot learn how to haggle over books, hats, and basketballs. Each object had a point value, and they needed to be split between each bot negotiator via text. From the human conversations (gathered via Amazon Mechanical Turk), and testing its skills against itself, the AI system didn't only learn how to state its demands, but negotiation tactics as well -- specifically, lying. Instead of outright saying what it wanted, sometimes the AI would feign interest in a worthless object, only to later concede it for something that it really wanted. Facebook isn't sure whether it learned from the human hagglers or whether it stumbled upon the trick accidentally, but either way when the tactic worked, it was rewarded.

It’s no surprise that Facebook is working on ways to improve how its bot can interact with others—the company is highly invested in building bots that can negotiate on behalf of users and businesses for its Messenger platform, where it envisions the future of customer service."

Source: https://qz.com/1004070/facebook-fb-built-a...

"Mobile devices have rapidly become one of the most common ways for Americans to get news, and the sharpest growth in the past year has been among Americans ages 50 and older, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in March.

More than eight-in-ten U.S. adults now get news on a mobile device (85%), compared with 72% just a year ago and slightly more than half in 2013 (54%). And the recent surge has come from older people: Roughly two-thirds of Americans ages 65 and older now get news on a mobile device (67%), a 24-percentage-point increase over the past year and about three times the share of four years ago, when less than a quarter of those 65 and older got news on mobile (22%).

The strong growth carries through to those in the next-highest age bracket. Among 50- to 64-year-olds, 79% now get news on mobile, nearly double the share in 2013. The growth rate was much less steep – or nonexistent – for those younger than 50."


Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/...
AuthorJordan Brown

The Swedish State Railways has decided to accept under-the-skin RFID tag implants for ticket purchases, arguing it enhances ticketless travel better than having your ticket in your mobile. Actually, they didn’t argue that at all. They just said “we’re digital” and “it works” as if that would justify the rest.

Sweden is a European state which, until recently, celebrated the fact that people were able to travel between European and Nordic countries without a passport or other identification papers. Since a few years back, the governmental train company, which operates with all the efficiency of one, changed all that on its own — by requiring photo ID to take the train just to the next city. The official reason for going all papieren, bitte on people just going to the next town was to “prevent the second-hand sale of attractive tickets”.

This company — the Swedish State Railways — has an insanely bad reputation in the country, known for never arriving on time and for mediocre service. To paint a picture of the service level, the company offers some compensation if passengers get more than an hour delayed with a local train (within the European state of Sweden).

This is the company now priding itself on “being digital” and announcing an extremely privacy-invasive method for travel. It may well be that it’s more convenient. That’s obviously not where the cause for concern is.

“We will never force somebody to have a chip implanted”, says Stephan Ray, press spokesperson for the State Railways.

I wish I could believe this — for this has been the standard line every single time a new privacy invasion has been presented. And there’s a catch which sounds all too familiar:

“We don’t rule out giving special advantages to travelers with under-the-skin RFID chips,” Ray adds.

At what point does this translate to putting ridiculous burden on people without under-skin RFID tags, even if it will technically not require them to implant? That’s usually a few years before the option is taken away altogether, judging from history.

As a final note, the article from the Stockholm local paper also notes that the local buses, trams, and subways are also seeking to start using passenger under-skin-RFID-tags for travel. Yes, you read that right: people in Sweden are seriously considering under-skin RFID tags to be a nice, cozy form of bus and subway ticket.

Fortunately, this is not something that would go over well in other European states. If I were to describe the Swedish attitude to this in a few words, I would choose “trusting and naïve”. This is in stark contrast to other states — say, Germany — which take privacy extremely seriously: Berlin’s ticket vending machines to the local public transport sell paper tickets for cash, and it would be inconceivable to remove that option, as was done a long time ago in Sweden (where you can instead buy identified tickets to your identified phone using an identified credit card).

As a final note, the image to this article shows animal tags. That’s because it’s the technology used. “Tagged like an animal” is quite literal. There’s also the concern of malware infecting such chips, which has been proven possible – and with RFID technology, the malware could spread quickly.

Privacy remains your own responsibility.

Source: https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2017/05/train-tickets-rfid-tags-europe/

Sweden's state-owned rail operator SJ is allowing passengers to use microchip implants rather than conventional tickets. 
The idea is currently being trialed just among some SJ members. It means all they need to travel is their left hand and the small microchip implanted in it. Authorities believe implanting the microchip will make the train journey more convenient.

SJ claims to be the first travel company in the world to enable passengers to use microchip implants to validate their tickets. The small implants use Near Field Communication technology, the same tech used in contactless credit cards or mobile payments. 

Implanting microchips under the skin is becoming increasingly popular in Sweden. But experts warn there are security and privacy issues to consider.

Source: http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/06/12/525048/microchip-implants-Swedish-railway

A few months ago, a Swedish company gained international headlines after launching an internal program under which staff were encouraged to have themselves implanted with security micro-chips.

Now, in a sign the technology is catching on, Sweden's state-run public transport provider "SJ" has got in on the action.

It's now allowing commuters to travel on its trains with just a wave of their hand.


Stephen Ray, spokesman for Sweden's Rail Provider SJ
Lina Edstrom, spokeswoman for Sweden's Rail Provider SJ
Ben Libberton, microbiologist, Karolinska Institute

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-12/swedens-state-rail-provider-waves-through/8611244

"A shadowy international mercenary and security firm known as TigerSwan targeted the movement opposed to the Dakota Access Pipeline with military-style counterterrorism measures, collaborating closely with police in at least five states, according to internal documents obtained by The Intercept. The documents provide the first detailed picture of how TigerSwan, which originated as a U.S. military and State Department contractor helping to execute the global war on terror, worked at the behest of its client Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the Dakota Access Pipeline, to respond to the indigenous-led movement that sought to stop the project.

TigerSwan spearheaded a multifaceted private security operation characterized by sweeping and invasive surveillance of protesters.

Activists on the ground were tracked by a Dakota Access helicopter that provided live video coverage to their observers in police agencies, according to an October 12 email thread that included officers from the FBI, DHS, BIA, state, and local police. In one email, National Security Intelligence Specialist Terry Van Horn of the U.S. attorney’s office acknowledged his direct access to the helicopter video feed, which was tracking protesters’ movements during a demonstration. “Watching a live feed from DAPL Helicopter, pending arrival at site(s),” he wrote. Cecily Fong, a spokesperson for law enforcement throughout the protests, acknowledged that an operations center in Bismarck had access to the feed, stating in an email to The Intercept that “the video was provided as a courtesy so we had eyes on the situation.”

Source: https://theintercept.com/2017/05/27/leaked...

"Dubai Police have revealed their first robot officer, giving it the task of patrolling the city's malls and tourist attractions.

People will be able to use it to report crimes, pay fines and get information by tapping a touchscreen on its chest.

Data collected by the robot will also be shared with the transport and traffic authorities."

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-4002694...
AuthorJordan Brown

"The biggest psychological experiment ever is being conducted, and we’re all taking part in it: every day, a billion people are tested online. Which ingenious tricks and other digital laws ensure that we fill our online shopping carts to the brim, or stay on websites as long as possible? Or vote for a particular candidate?

The bankruptcies of department stores and shoe shops clearly show that our buying behaviour is rapidly shifting to the Internet. An entirely new field has arisen, of ‘user experience’ architects and ‘online persuasion officers’. How do these digital data dealers use, manipulate and abuse our user experience? Not just when it comes to buying things, but also with regards to our free time and political preferences.

Aren’t companies, which are running millions of tests at a time, miles ahead of science and government, in this respect? Now the creators of these digital seduction techniques, former Google employees among them, are themselves arguing for the introduction of an ethical code. What does it mean, when the conductors of experiments themselves are asking for their power and possibilities to be restricted?"

The Guardian is running an article about a 'mysterious' big-data analytics company called Cambridge Analytica and its activities with SCL Group---a 25-year-old military psyops company in the UK later bought by "secretive hedge fund billionaire" Robert Mercer. In the article, a former employee calls it "this dark, dystopian data company that gave the world Trump."

Mercer, with a background in computer science is alleged to be at the centre of a multimillion-dollar propaganda network.

"Facebook was the source of the psychological insights that enabled Cambridge Analytica to target individuals. It was also the mechanism that enabled them to be delivered on a large scale. The company also (perfectly legally) bought consumer datasets -- on everything from magazine subscriptions to airline travel -- and uniquely it appended these with the psych data to voter files... Finding "persuadable" voters is key for any campaign and with its treasure trove of data, Cambridge Analytica could target people high in neuroticism, for example, with images of immigrants "swamping" the country. The key is finding emotional triggers for each individual voter. Cambridge Analytica worked on campaigns in several key states for a Republican political action committee. Its key objective, according to a memo the Observer has seen, was "voter disengagement" and "to persuade Democrat voters to stay at home"... In the U.S., the government is bound by strict laws about what data it can collect on individuals. But, for private companies anything goes."

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/201...

"'What's on your mind?' It's the friendly Facebook question which lets you share how you're feeling. It's also the question that unlocks the details of your life and helps turn your thoughts into profits.

Facebook has the ability to track much of your browsing history, even when you're not logged on, and even if you aren't a member of the social network at all. This is one of the methods used to deliver targeted advertising and 'news' to your Facebook feed. This is why you are unlikely to see anything that challenges your world view. This feedback loop is fuelling the rise and power of 'fake news'. "We're seeing news that's tailored ever more tightly towards those kinds of things that people will click on, and will share, rather than things that perhaps are necessarily good for them", says one Media Analyst. This information grants huge power to those with access to it. Republican Party strategist Patrick Ruffini says, "What it does give us is much greater level of certainty and granularity and precision down to the individual voter, down to the individual precinct about how things are going to go". Resultantly, former Facebook journalist, Adam Schrader thinks that there's "a legitimate argument to this that Facebook influenced the election, the United States Election results."

Source: https://www.journeyman.tv/film/7069/facebo...

Children refusing to put down their phones is a common flashpoint in many homes, with a third of British children aged 12 to 15 admitting they do not have a good balance between screen time and other activities.

But in the US, the problem has become so severe for some families that children as young as 13 are being treated for digital technology addiction.

One ‘smartphone rehab’ centre near Seattle has started offering residential “intensive recovery programs” for teenagers who have trouble controlling their use of electronic devices.

The Restart Life Centre says parents have been asking it to offer courses of treatment to their children for more than eight years.

Hilarie Cash, the Centre’s founder, told Sky News smartphones, tablets and other mobile devices can be so stimulating and entertaining that they “override all those natural instincts that children actually have for movement and exploration and social interaction”.


Child psychotherapist Julie Lynn Evans, who has worked with hospitals, schools and families for 25 years, said her workload has significantly increased since the use of smartphones became widespread among young people.

“It’s a simplistic view, but I think it is the ubiquity of broadband and smartphones that has changed the pace and the power and the drama of mental illness in young people,” she told The Telegraph.

A ComRes poll of more than 1,000 parents of children aged under 18, published in September 2015, found 47 per cent of parents said they thought their children spent too much time in front of screens, with 43 per cent saying this amounts to an emotional dependency."

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/t...

... or a dream come true for those in power. And those in power are the same entities pushing IoT technologies.

A little background reading about JTRIG from the Snowden documents is helpful. It's the modern-day equivalent of the Zersetzung---the special unit of the Stasi that was used to attack, repress and sabotage political opponents. A power greatly expanded with a society driven by IoT.

Full article from Daily Dot:

"In 2014, security guru Bruce Schneier said, “Surveillance is the business model of the Internet. We build systems that spy on people in exchange for services. Corporations call it marketing.” The abstract and novel nature of these services tends to obscure our true relationship to companies like Facebook or Google. As the old saying goes, if you don’t pay for a product, you are the product.

But what happens when the Internet stops being just “that fiddly thing with a mouse” and becomes “the real world”? Surveillance becomes the business model of everything, as more and more companies look to turn the world into a collection of data points.

If we truly understood the bargain we were making when we give up our data for free or discounted services, would we still sign on the dotted line (or agree to the Terms and Conditions)? Would we still accept constant monitoring of our driving habits in exchange for potential insurance breaks, or allow our energy consumption to be uploaded into the cloud in exchange for “smart data” about it?

Nowhere is our ignorance of the trade-offs greater, or the consequences more worrisome, than our madcap rush to connect every toaster, fridge, car, and medical device to the Internet.

Welcome to the Internet of Things, what Schneier calls “the World Size Web,” already growing around you as we speak, which creates such a complete picture of our lives that Dr. Richard Tynan of Privacy International calls them “doppelgängers”—mirror images of ourselves built on constantly updated data. These doppelgängers live in the cloud, where they can easily be interrogated by intelligence agencies. Nicholas Weaver, a security researcher at University of California, Berkeley, points out that “Under the FISA Amendments Act 702 (aka PRISM), the NSA can directly ask Google for any data collected on a valid foreign intelligence target through Google’s Nest service, including a Nest Cam.” And that’s just one, legal way of questioning your digital doppelgänger; we’ve all heard enough stories about hacked cloud storage to be wary of trusting our entire lives to it.

But with the IoT, the potential goes beyond simple espionage, into outright sabotage. Imagine an enemy that can remotely disable the brakes in your car, or (even more subtly) give you food poisoning by hacking your fridge. That’s a new kind of power. “The surveillance, the interference, the manipulation … the full life cycle is the ultimate nightmare,” says Tynan.

The professional spies agree that the IoT changes the game. “‘Transformational’ is an overused word, but I do believe it properly applies to these technologies,” then CIA Director David Petraeus told a 2012 summit organized by the agency’s venture capital firm, In-Q-Tel, “particularly to their effect on clandestine tradecraft,” according to Wired.

Clandestine tradecraft is not about watching, but about interfering. Take, for example, the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG), the dirty tricks division of GCHQ, the British intelligence agency. As the Snowden documents reveal, JTRIG wants to create “Cyber Magicians” who can “make something happen in the real…world,” including ruining business deals, intimidating activists, and sexual entrapment (“honeypots”). The documents show that JTRIG operatives will ignore international law to achieve their goals, which are not about fighting terrorism, but, in fact, targeting individuals who have not been charged with or convicted of any crime.

The Internet of Things “is a JTRIG wet dream,” says security researcher Rob Graham. But you don’t have to be a spy to take advantage of the IoT. Thanks to widespread security vulnerabilities in most IoT devices, almost anyone can take advantage of it. That means cops, spies, gangsters, anyone with the motivation and resources—but probably bored teenagers as well. “I can take any competent computer person and take them from zero to Junior Hacker 101 in a weekend,” says security researcher Dan Tentler. The security of most IoT devices—including home IoT, but also smart cities, power plants, gas pipelines, self-driving cars, and medical devices—is laughably bad. “The barrier to entry is not very tall,” he says, “especially when what’s being released to consumers is so trivial to get into.”

That makes the IoT vulnerable—our society vulnerable—to any criminal with a weekend to spend learning how to hack. “When we talk about vulnerabilities in computers…people are using a lot of rhetoric in the abstract,” says Privacy International’s Tynan. “What we really mean is, vulnerable to somebody. That somebody you’re vulnerable to is the real question.”

“They’re the ones with the power over you,” he added. That means intelligence agencies, sure, but really anyone with the time and motivation to learn how to hack. And, as Joshua Corman of I Am the Cavalry, a concerned group of security researchers, once put it, “There are as many motivations to hacking as there are motivations in the human condition. Hacking is a form of power.”

The authorities want that power; entities like JTRIG, the NSA, the FBI and the DOJ want to be able to not just surveil but also to disrupt, to sabotage, to interfere. Right now the Bureau wants to force Apple to create the ability to deliver backdoored software updates to iPhones, allowing law enforcement access to locally stored, encrypted data. Chris Soghoian, a technologist at the ACLU, tweeted, “If DOJ get what they want in this Apple case, imagine the surveillance assistance they’ll be able to force from Internet of Things companies.”

“The notion that there are legal checks and balances in place is a fiction,” Tynan says. “We need to rely more on technology to increase the hurdles required. For the likes of JTRIG to take the massive resources of the U.K. state and focus them on destroying certain individuals, potentially under flimsy pretenses—I just can’t understand the mentality of these people.”

Defending ourselves in this new, insecure world is difficult, perhaps impossible. “If you go on the Internet, it’s a free-for-all,” Tentler says. “Despite the fact that we have these three-letter agencies, they’re not here to help us; they’re not our friends. When the NSA and GCHQ learn from the bad guys and use those techniques on us, we should be worried.”

If the Internet is a free-for-all, and with the Internet of Things we’re putting the entire world on the Internet, what does that make us?

“Fish in a barrel?”

Source: http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sectio...

"...An instrument no bigger than an inhaler lodges a needle into the back of Benigeri’s arm. Woo removes his hand to reveal a white plate sitting just above the implant. Benigeri smiles.
Read more at https://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-biohacking-continuous-glucose-monitors-2017-1#To0MjhyLcHHBIhcD.99