In our time, the concept of property loses its essence. We are no different from medieval peasants, and the blame for this is the phenomenon of the Internet of things.
The devices connected to the network are so popular and so vulnerable that recently some hackers managed to crack the casino database through the aquarium. The aquarium operated connected sensors, which measured the temperature and purity of water. Through them, hackers managed to gain access to the control computer and transfer 10 gigabytes of data to Finland.
The story with the aquarium shows the problem of the Internet of things - in fact we do not have real power over such devices. And it is not always clear who has it - sometimes it is in the hands of developers and advertisers.
Smart aquariums, televisions, refrigerators, watches and smartphones constantly collect data about us and the environment. All this information is of value not only for us, but also for those who want to sell us something. These people will try to make sure that connected devices are willing to share your data.
Take, for example, the nice robot vacuum cleaner Roomba. Since 2015, the latest models of this cleaner create a virtual map of the owner's home for better navigation during harvesting. Recently, Reuters and Gizmodo reported that the robot manufacturer iRobot can begin to transfer the data of these cards to its commercial partners.
In the protection of smart devices there are initially loopholes.
Like roomba robots, other smart devices can be programmed to share your personal information with advertisers via feedback channels, which we do not even know about. And some gadgets can transmit very intimate information, such as vibrators WeVibe with control function from the smartphone. The application of this device collected and sent to the developer information on how often, with what settings and at what time of day users start the vibrator. When the owners of the device found out about this, they filed a lawsuit against the company, and now it is obliged to pay multimillion-dollar compensation.
Feedback channels from developers are a serious security hole in the device. Lenovo also found itself at the center of a similar scandal. She sold computers with the built-in Superfish program, which displayed special targeted ads in search results. It intercepted browser traffic without the user's knowledge, including encrypted data, for example, information for financial transactions.
Problem of ownership.
The main reason why we do not control our devices is that their manufacturers make us think that actually gadgets belong to them even after we got them from them. A person can buy a beautiful box with electronics (smartphone), but in fact gets a license to use the programs inside it. Producers argue that the programs still belong to them, and so they can control their work. It's like a dealer would sell you a car, and then said that some part of it, for example - the motor, belongs to him.
Such conditions destroy the very concept of possession. The engineering company John Deere has already openly told farmers that the tractors of this company do not actually belong to them - they own only a software license, which means they can not repair equipment independently and even carry it for repair to an independent workshop. Of course, farmers were indignant at this state of affairs, but some people would rather close their eyes to the problem. For example, those who buy smartphones on credit, and then pass them through trade-in.
Curiously, how long will it take for people to understand that manufacturers are trying to use the same approach in terms of smart homes, televisions, toilets and connected cars?
Return of feudalism
The problem of owning property has existed for a very long time. In medieval Europe in times of feudalism the king owned almost everything. The ownership of the rest depended on the relationship with the king. The peasants lived on the land of a local lord, bestowed by the king. Often they did not even own the tools that they used in farming and in such crafts as carpentry and blacksmithing.
For many centuries, the Western economy and law enforcement system has evolved to the present state: now people and private companies can independently buy and sell things, as well as directly own land, tools and other objects. With the exception of certain legislative cases (related to public health and environmental protection), ownership is direct and does not incur any third-party liability.
Such a system means that the car manufacturer can not forbid me to paint my car in a bright pink color or replace the oil in any workshop. I can even change the stuffing of the car or fix it myself. These rules apply to my TV, garden equipment and refrigerator.
But it seems that the spread of the Internet of things forces us to return to the old feudal model, in which people did not have real rights to own everyday things. In a modern version of this medieval system, companies use the intellectual property law (originally necessary to protect ideas) to manage physical objects, creating an imaginary sense of ownership among their real users.
Intellectual property management.
I have a Samsung Galaxy smartphone. Google manages its operating system and Google Apps service to ensure the stable operation of the phone. Google sells a Samsung license to develop its own Android interface modifications, and I sell a sublicense for the right to use the phone. Samsung, in turn, concludes deals with developers who would like to use my data.
But it seems to me that there are intentional mistakes in this model. We must have the right to repair and change the property. We need the right to drive out all advertisers from our device. We need the ability to cover all the reverse links for advertisers - not just because we do not like being spied on, but because such channels are a security hole, no worse than stories about a hacked aquarium and Superfish. If we do not control our property, then we do not own it. We are just digital peasants who use things that are in the possession of our digital lords.