Who's watching now?

With recent news topics covering the “standoff” between the FBI’s ask for access to `the San Bernadino Killers’ phone and Apple seeking to stand up and protect the privacy of its customers with concerns this could quickly become a default ask for all devices, ironically, I am getting a sense of déjà vu from almost 15 years ago when operators were facing the same debate.

15 years ago, governments and their security agencies were asking telecom operators to share their voice and data information for people deemed a security risk or to investigate a person’s activities prior to an event that happened - criminal or otherwise. At that point, the world was up in arms as to what this would mean for personal security or for that matter privacy as  governments were able to track what people were doing and where they were going.

However, over the years this has become a norm and, although not always accepted, a balance has been established where the operators report to the public on how many times they are asked to share information by the relevant government agency. What is interesting here is that this data is quickly becoming irrelevant as we move to digital and start to reduce our use of mobile platforms like traditional voice and SMS. With these traditional platforms, operators have had visibility of the activities of individual’s voice and messaging communications, whilst in our digital world all communications are increasingly moving to IP or Internet based services. This makes it incredibly difficult for operators to keep track, if they can keep track of the information at all.

I recognize that it is not only telecom operators being asked for end user information, but also the over-the- top players like Google, Apple and Facebook among others, and that they report on these regularly to the public. However, we need to recognize that there is increasingly ony one common source when it comes to telecom services, over-the-top services and other applications and that is simply our mobile phone. A little like our wallets used to be with our ID, credit card information, loyalty cards, receipts etc, with all of this now digital it is the mobile phone, which will increasingly become the centre of security discussions.

It is therefore not surprising that in recent surveys when people are asked what they would be most worried to lose the “mobile phone” is becoming increasingly prevalent[1], versus a decade ago when it was their wallet. The simple reason for this being we store more of our lives in our phones and online that anywhere else these days. Government agencies can approach credit card companies or operators and even online providers to ask for data about an individual, but the one area they are still trying to gain access to remains the phone. The documents, photos, message exchanges all have a common source instead of trying to debate access rights with all of the individual platforms.

I raise this because at some point the “national security” card will get played by government agencies and businesses could end up being forced to comply, similarly with what telecom operators have been through already. I would like to suggest to these handset manufacturers and over-the-top providers to start collaborating together about how they can protect the majority and isolate any handset access to be limited to individual cases. Perhaps there is a unique code that is created based on mutual compliance between the vendor and a government agency for an individual handset, that is to say avoiding sharing access to all phones through a generic override code or similar, which governments could then gain access to whenever they should so choose. In combination with this, then provide visibility to the public as to how many devices the government agency requested access to and how many devices they were given access to. Now this is just a suggestion and the important point here is for the digital community to think through a proactive approach of how they want to engage government agencies rather than being forced to comply with some all-encompassing banner of national security.

Our world continues to change and we need to remember that our lives, which were once paper-based, followed by analog and mobile, are now quite simply digital. Combine this with many governments that continue to fear what they don’t understand, the result is raising concerns on information that they believe exists, but are unable to see or control. In a digital world, where the data we create and store is growing exponentially every day, of course it is impossible to track absolutely everything. However, perception can quickly become reality, as governments and their associated agencies will continue to want to gain further visibility of our digital lives. So, we either act proactively and educate through defining an engagement model which protects the majority of people and addresses data sharing when only absolutely critical for the protection of society, or digital businesses will rapidly become the victims after a few cases under the banner of “National Security” become common place.

I appreciate this is a fine balance and many people will be unhappy with the idea of giving up privacy of our personal items, some will say this must be defended at all costs, but there are precedents already and I fear simply defending will result in a outcome none of us are happy with. I for one would rather know there is an understanding between digital providers and governments as to how this will be managed in the future before it becomes a case of turning on my phone or tablet and asking myself the question “Who’s watching me now?”

---

[1] http://blog.zixcorp.com/2014/09/survey-says-individuals-would-rather-lose-wallet-than-mobile-device/

The web is a highway; I wanna ride it all night long

Ok I don’t mean literally but, I would like to know that I can access the internet for content, services and socializing, wherever, however and whenever I want. Doesn’t everyone? However, this reality is under threat from the growing relationship between Content and Service Providers in the form of a discussion called Net Neutrality.

Net neutrality is a topic which I don't think is really going to go away and is something that almost everyone has an opinion on. Although, I don’t believe these views are really addressing the core problem. What I mean by that is, they are focused on demand for high capacity content exceeding the network’s monetary ability to supply along with its inability to dynamically scale to match the unpredictable nature of content. What we really need is a new approach, one which protects the customer experience in how they can access the internet both from usability, cost and prioritization, but doesn't get in the way of the education, commercial value and social aspects of the web.

Just recently I read again that video is dominating the web, but what is interesting is video downloads are still not used by everyone. Despite these downloads growing in demand, there are always different profile requirements. People could simply want to read the news, access their online services such as banking, government services or simply communicate with friends. However, with high demand services in the form of online video, gaming and content sharing growing this can place high strains on networks. Now, currently the content owners are happy as they have the ability to monetize their services either through direct payment or subsidized through advertising. You could of course ask the question why now is this a problem? The likes of Google, Microsoft and even Baidu, have been around for a long time. Yes, but it is the acceleration of demand, for high volume video content, that has changed the game and what is elevating the topic of who should have access to the multiple highways making up the web and ultimately who should pay for it?

Network providers would argue that everyone needs to pay for their content. Naturally, one would think, that it is a lot easier for an established player to pay an access fee on networks to reach their customers as compared with startup firms. As expected with startups, every dollar that leaves the company can detract from a dollar invested in their new solution or offering they have created, thus creating a canyon sized gap between the big players and those introducing new concepts and innovations. As you can assess, this then is not a viable option for the ongoing evolution of the web.

The OTT (Over The Top) players would say well let's open the network and force operators to treat all content equally. This of course would leave the operators in a dilemma of trying to balance the scale of required support for the volume of traffic, the costs for managing that network combined with the prices that customers are willing to pay. The OTT option is simply not viable. Either operators would eventually be run into the ground or be faced with expensive customer service costs as best effort becomes synonymous with not good enough.

I would therefore like to propose a third option. Associate price based upon the load on the network. We could do it the same way that many major European roads fees are, paid by drivers, based on the weight of their vehicles. By doing so, we will encourage the right behaviour, as they will all understand that I am getting what I am paying for. If a customer wants to watch something in real time, whether that is video or gaming, they either pay an incremental fee or the content owner allocates parts of its revenues to the operator carrying that traffic. This will encourage content providers to think with operators in solving the problems regarding how they can optimize traffic, avoid expensive replication of Internet live streams and ultimately think through the problem leveraging the creative force of the OTT community. Of course someone will say, there is already a mechanism to pay more when you want to download more, isn’t it as simple as paying a higher price for buying a faster broadband connection? This may be true when it comes to the local connection piece of the equation however, remember this is a mesh of highways and it is those who are pulling down the large files that can clog these highways. I believe we need to provide users with a choice, three choices actually. One, pick the slower lane and you will receive your file when it is ready (paying lower costs), or two, if you simply must have it now, pay for it be downloaded faster (pay higher costs). The third option is to have your content provider subsidize you for the download (costs vary). In the end we will all need to work out a model which protects the user experience whilst not inhibiting the access and personal choice on how to download content. This does not mean that network providers are let off the hook, network providers must be held accountable for the quality of the user experience to whomever is the paying party to ensure they are equally held accountable in driving innovation to improve the network experience for each customer, as well as maintaining healthy diversity in how we access content to ensure competition and therefore choice.

We need to remember that the Internet has become a utility. It is one of our most important commodities and it requires, OTT players and network providers alike, to figure out how we can not only continue to ensure its survival, but also leverage it as a source of innovation and service creation. It is an innovation and resource that everyone can and should benefit from. Bottom line is it shouldn't matter whether you want to read a newspaper, watch a live football game or socialize content with friends. For all of us, the web has become the all important highway for information, collaboration and fun. The web is a highway and well, if you are like me, then you’ll want to continue to ride it all night long too!

The reality of privacy

Recently I had the exciting opportunity to meet Retired General Hayden, the former head of the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He was discussing some of the trends he is seeing, as well as, the global developments that are taking place with regards to security. There were a lot of questions from the audience regarding privacy and espionage; whether state/governments or corporations were responsible; in addition to a discussion around understanding the evolution towards cyber security. Ultimately, an interesting discussion, however I left the event asking myself one simple question – “Who is now responsible for our privacy?”

 In the good ole’ days, before the time of the Internet and social media and “cloud services”, we were confident that our governments could and were protecting our privacy, whether that was our home address, phone number, or banking details. All of this information was under strict government policies to ensure a countries citizens were protected.  Of course, in many of these instances, we had to opt in, i.e. to remove our phone number from the directory or to ensure our address didn’t appear in the phone book.  But, it was definitely a simpler time and one in which we felt secure in the geographic boundaries that our country protected.

 Fast forward back to today and oh how the world has changed. Our home phone and home address have become the least of our concerns as our online identities are increasingly coming under threat. The knowledge that is available on each of us today is like nothing we have ever seen - your credit card details, your email address, your social media contacts and even what you store in the cloud.  All of this information is now worth much more than our home phone number ever was.

 It is interesting then that the responsibility of our Privacy is moving away from our respective governments and into the hands of local and global corporations.  When we contemplate what that means for each of us we may feel a shiver of fear or doubt, I know I did. Consider for a moment your purchases online or simple sharing of your hobby’s or interests with your friends in social media gatherings… Where does that data go?  Who sees it? Do you use a tablet or smart phone - guess where you’re phone numbers and any personal data is backed up? Certainly your local government has no involvement in the storage and safe keeping of this data.   So, at what point did we start relying on corporations – or in many cases “Over The Top” providers – to ensure our privacy and protect our identities? What do you think happens to that data?  Where does it go?  Who can see it?  What can they do with it?  What will they do with it?  I could go on, but I think you get the point.

 I am not sure about you, but I don’t recall being provided a location as to where all of this information was going, or being assured it was even remaining in my country of origin…  We need to remind ourselves that these are businesses, not governments.  There has been no signing of a memorandum between our governments and these businesses to officially hand over responsibility and accountability for the maintaining of our privacy.  Therefore, there is no assurance that any of our data is not being used to create profiles or not being shared with others – ever heard of people’s photo’s being hijacked for other uses? 

 I recently shared with a group of people the fact that it is easy to find out a whole raft of information about someone’s profile.  They were a little surprised at the ease with which I could get the data and one of them said that is why he doesn’t have an online presence – well at least one that he wasn’t aware of! These online businesses we are now relying on to protect our privacy, are in fact providing some privacy services (some of these we even pay for) however, you will actually find that many of them, in their fine print, inform you they are not responsible for your data and if this information is stolen or “lost” they will attempt to retrieve it but cannot promise anything.

 There have been some interesting cases recently where regulatory bodies have attempted to reign in these businesses, either in terms of how they are using our information, or how they were trying to access more.  But ultimately, what do you do when that business operates on a global scale? Given today’s environment, I am not surprised that we are hearing more and more about governments trying to tap into the Internet to listen and read what is going on. As I am sure you all know, we are really no longer sending letters via post office or making fixed line phone calls, in fact almost everything we use in terms of communications is somehow connected to the Internet.

 Interestingly, one business has recently been talking about the “connectedness of everything”, where we expect there to be some 50 billion devices connected to the “internet” in the next 5-7 years. Consider for a moment, 50 billion devices, which would include your car, refrigerator, TV, home security, washing machine, even our children (this actually happens today where a Sim card, combined with GPS, is used to track a child’s movements).  Do we really think all of this data will simply go onto a storage device in our homes? Of course not! Many of these devices being connected to the Internet will be incredibly useful to us.  Just think about it… knowing what to buy at the supermarket when you have forgotten your list or knowing when your car needs service –without worrying that something might break before you service or repair it. So, with the convenience and help that all of these devices can bring us, the concern still remains - what else would this data be used for?  Where will it go?  Who will see it?  What will they do with it?

 This is where I come back to the original question, who is responsible for our privacy? Well ultimately we are.  We need to ensure we are always checking the policy of the online providers we are using and understand what the fine print means. We need to ensure we are lobbying regulatory bodies and governments to ensure they only issue business licenses for online services to those providing clarity on what our data is used for and more importantly, for those who are intending to share our data that they MUST have an “opt-in” clause so we know what we are getting ourselves into. I don’t know exactly when governments became no longer responsible for our privacy, but ultimately we need to be aware of what we are signing up to and using the Internet for.

 Now some of you will be thinking – ok Nathan, so what are you saying turn off the Internet and resort back to mailing letters and using the landline phone for communication? Not at all! We are already far down the path to an Internet enabled world, and there is not much we can do about that. What I am saying though, is that we need to be aware of the risks, understand what we are signing up for, read the fine print and always think about what we are posting online or sharing with our online communities.  At the end of the day, we are now responsible for how we interact with our online world more so than ever before, and we need to ensure we do not assume that someone will protect our privacy or our governments will come riding in on white horses to save the day.

Our information has moved online and we must define our own individual policies.  We choose how to interact with “the net”.  We protect ourselves.  This is the new reality of privacy.

No Big Bang, Just a Passing in the Night

In this ever changing world of technology we are seeing a very interesting trend. Previously I wrote about the Next Big bang which I thought would involve the merging of IT and Communication Providers; it would seem however that it was more a passing in the night of two large forces than an actual collision to create a new wave of services.

In today’s market we have Hardware vendors now being driven to sell software in order to sell more hardware and software providers now selling more hardware in order to sell more software – still with me? I had expected or rather hoped that the Big Bang theory would create new partnerships between Hardware and Software vendors to leverage the shared strengths of both as opposed to vendors trying to over extend. We talk about the need for Businesses to adapt to the market around them to survive this could not be more relevant to technology companies but that shouldn’t mean these technology companies try to manage beyond their core strengths.

Okay that might sound vague but we only have to look at the wonderful new world of cloud computing to see how Hardware Vendors and Software Providers are trying to gain new market share or for many of those providers already in the hosting space trying to protect their existing business. It is this attempt to try and conquer all which is creating a new market dynamic. Cloud Computing is on the verge of significant divergence with so many different models offered by a vast array of providers both hardware and software alike.

The implications of these differing Cloud Computing models are that technologies moving into the cloud are increasingly becoming tied into specific cloud platforms. That is to say instead of being able to choose your own combination of a cloud computing platform and then your choice of Communications and IT services, business will now need to identify which services work with which platforms without the need for customization.  I am worried that although cloud computing was supposed to mean less customization and greater ease of use we are going end up with the exact opposite. The result being extensive ongoing customization and complex systems requiring intensive resource support diverting crucial resources away from businesses focus because of the increased hands on requirement.

This is because Hardware Vendors and Software providers alike feel the need to fulfil each other’s role rather than look at partnerships. This to me is a missed opportunity and one which businesses will end up having to managing. There is hope however I have seen a new wave of communications and IT service technology businesses that are working to remove the complexity of customization by taking on the integration requirements themselves embedded within their service offerings. This is intriguing to me as I had predicted these new providers/innovators to come about through the seamless integration of Hardware and Software, but it has been the gap which has developed between Software and Hardware vendors instead which has created an opportunity.

I am excited to see these new providers offering hope to businesses to leverage the benefits of new technologies whilst avoiding the worry of managing change. Augmentation helps businesses avoid rip and replace, and let’s face it in the current market environment no one wants to replace their existing systems. At the same time though businesses realise it is important to continue to drive towards sustainable growth leveraging the ongoing evolution of technology albeit based on the outcomes of their business goals rather than technology limiting those goals. Did you get all of that?

Best of Breed should always be about the choice of the customer, I am hopeful that these new technology companies will keep alive that opportunity for businesses to look at the blending of cloud computing with Communication and IT services as an opportunity to reduce customization and improve ease of use. So I would ask Hardware and Software providers to take a look in the mirror, stay true to their business focus and leverage these new providers in maximizing their own strengths and ultimately retaining their focus in meeting the needs of their customers.