So.... I guess that was CES?

Does anyone else find it weird that 2019's big Consumer Electronics Show wasted the entire week without showcasing anything for actual consumers?

I mean, sure, we got LG's rollup OLED TV, which looks sexy but costs US$8000, and which will need to be replaced in two years' time because of OLED's severe screen burn-in issues. Who can afford to spend $8K every two years on a roll-up gimmick TV? Who is this for?

We also got a plethora of 8K TVs, at a time when even 4K TVs aren't really a thing yet. I mean, it's great that the likes of LG are making 4K sets that are comparable in price to 1080p sets; if you're needing to replace your TV, and don't need a refresh rate higher than 60 Hz for any reason, then you can certainly go 4K because it won't cost extra so why not? But you still don't need a 4K TV for which there's almost no content available, and you definitely don't need an expensive 8K set for which there's even less content on the menu. 8K is nothing but costly, boasting high price points while delivering zero value to the consumer... which was basically the prevailing trend of CES2019.

Oh, yes, and then there's 5G... which, again, boasts a premium price while being completely useless to consumers since there are no 5G networks. And, no, AT&T's 5G E nonsense is not a 5G network, and does not count. Which brings us to CES2019's other prevailing trend, which was straight-up lies told to consumers about expensive products which are being marketed at them, without being in any way designed for them.

Worse yet, the one big discussion about technology that consumers actually care about was never mentioned by any of the big exhibitors.

Magical thinking, or, securing the Internet of Things

The news about Exactis' failure to secure their enormous trove of shadow profile data got me thinking about security in general: about the extent to which corporations, of whose existence we might be completely ignorant, are already harvesting all manner of highly personal information about you and I, not only without our informed consent, but without us even knowing when or how often it's happening. And that got me to thinking about the other data collection scheme that Big Data is so keen on lately: IoT, the so-called Internet of Things.

The idea that everything in your environment that incorporates a microchip would inevitably be connected to the Internet, and thus vulnerable to, and controllable by, any sufficiently sophisticated hacker, is something which has concerned me for some time now. I'm not convinced that it's possible to secure such a wide range of devices, from an equally wide range of manufacturers; and even if were possible, I'm not convinced that the measures required to make it happen are desirable. At all.

I'm especially un-sold on the capacity for Artificial Intelligence to succeed at this task when human intelligence has repeatedly failed, or to compensate for the combination of ignorance, incompetence, apathy, and/or greed that will doubtless be a defining feature of IoT for a long time to come. First things first, though; let's start by describing the scope of the problem.

No, Microsoft's original vision for the XBox One was not "right"

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

So goes the famous quote from Jorge Agustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás, known in English simply as George Santayana. He wasn't talking about Microsoft apologists, but OMFG, he may as well have been.

So, I was doing some simple YouTube searches, trying to gauge the reaction to the XBox E3 presser, when I came across this bit of revisionist history.

It's a lovely little think piece about how visionary Microsoft were the only ones preparing for a world of connected, online gaming; about how everyone saw it coming, but only Microsoft acted on that vision. They've suffered unjustly, is the clear implication here, for being such visionaries, and the gaming industry would be a better and healthier place if they'd just done a better job of selling their vision to consumers.

This is 100% bullshit. It quite simply isn't what happened. At all.

The "real" Facebook scandal starts to gain traction

It turns out that Facebook's "shadow profiles," wide-ranging data sets about users and non-users alike, might finally be getting the attention they deserve, rather than all of the attention being on the Cambridge Analytica angle... overseas, anyway. From the Sydney Morning Herald:

San Francisco: Concern about Facebook's respect for data privacy is widening to include the information it collects about non-users, after Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg said the world's largest social network tracks people whether they have accounts or not.

[...]

Zuckerberg said on Wednesday under questioning by US Representative Ben Lujan that, for security reasons, Facebook also collects "data of people who have not signed up for Facebook."

Lawmakers and privacy advocates immediately protested the practice, with many saying Facebook needed to develop a way for non-users to find out what the company knows about them.

[...]

Facebook gets some data on non-users from people on its network, such as when a user uploads email addresses of friends. Other information comes from "cookies," small files stored via a browser and used by Facebook and others to track people on the internet, sometimes to target them with ads.

"This kind of data collection is fundamental to how the internet works," Facebook said in a statement.

Asked if people could opt out, Facebook added, "There are basic things you can do to limit the use of this information for advertising, like using browser or device settings to delete cookies. This would apply to other services beyond Facebook because, as mentioned, it is standard to how the internet works."

Facebook often installs cookies on non-users' browsers if they visit sites with Facebook "like" and "share" buttons, whether or not a person pushes a button. Facebook said it uses browsing data to create analytics reports, including about traffic to a site.

If you were wondering why one of FB's fourteen class action lawsuits was filed by a plaintiff who “does not have, and has never had, a Facebook account,” then wonder no longer, because this is why. Creepy AF... and possibly illegal, since people without FB accounts have never consented to having Facebook build a data profile of them. There's nothing obviously security-related about the practice, either; Facebook appear to have no legitimate need for this data, they just want it.

Microsoft moguls name privacy and surveillance as major issues needing attention in 2018.

Apparently they're oblivious to the irony of taking a position like this one:

The past 12 months brought another important year in a decade filled with milestones relating to privacy and surveillance. And there is every reason to believe that 2018 will offer more of the same. Two specific topics rose to the top in 2017.

The first involves a sea change in privacy regulation, marked by the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation. It moves beyond the European Data Protection Directive adopted in 1995, enough so that “GDPR” has become a well - known word across the tech sector. The new EU regulation takes effect on May 25, imposing added requirements on companies that have the personal information of European consumers, regardless of where the company is located. While many regulations tell companies what they cannot do, GDPR also tells firms what they must do. Among the changes, the regulation requires that companies ensure that European consumers can learn what information businesses have about them, change the information if it’s inaccurate, move the information to another provider if desired, and delete it if they “wish to be forgotten.” In effect it prescribes new business processes and even product features.

Gee... does that mean that Windows 10 users will be able to opt out of telemetry at some point in 2018, or have an option in the control panel to turn off Cortana without a fucking registry edit? Or is Microsoft planning to continue doing the absolute minimum required to avoid (more) regulatory action, while continuing to treat users' PCs and personal data like Microsoft's pseudo-feudal fiefdom? Place your bets!

Microsoft, naturally, quickly move on to talking about government surveillance, while blowing their own bugle about the handful of court cases they're currently litigating to prevent the U.S. Government from encroaching on their big data fiefdom, but you shouldn't be fooled into thinking that Micrsoft have your best interests at heart, because they don't. This is all about protecting their interests; any benefit that you receive in the process is incidental.