It looks like the dream of living in that 1960’s cartoon show, The Jetsons is quickly coming to pass. Google just acquired the home control company, Nest and is probably the best company to advance this kind of technology.
Although this advanced way of living meets our futuristic passion for a Star Trek lifestyle, it can come with some potential negative possibilities. The most obvious uncertainty would be privacy. Knowing that a company is collecting information right down to how often you use the washroom is a marketer’s wonderland. My question and I’m sure it’s a question you’ll be asking is; “Will there be rules and regulations to how much of that information is used?” I think we all know that privacy needs to be redefined and how we define that really isn’t up to us. We’re already seeing our ideals on privacy becoming tested and abused through technology.
Recently, Canada gave Google a slap on the wrist for using health related queries to deliver health related advertising. Canada frowns upon health related query data to be manipulated for online advertising. It was reported that a query on sleep apnea triggered Google to deliver behavioral ads based on this subject. This was immediately brought to Google’s attention and they agreed to fix this and pull the plug on this scheme. This proves that the ability to manipulate the information you receive via the internet is completely based on what the common person deems as privacy. This doesn’t say much because if you’re reading this you’ve already lost your privacy. Day one when you signed up for that e-mail is the day you gave your privacy away.
This situation directly explains how the information collected from a home-controlled networking environment could leave people’s extended privacy at risk. Unfortunately the reality is there is no true way of protecting your data and what you think is private information really isn’t so private to begin with. As long as there are no cameras in the bedroom or bathroom it’s something we just have to adapt to.
Is This Good-bye to Net Neutrality?
Not yet, but corporate companies are working hard to make sure it is. Looks like Dave Davies and Jim Hedger almost came to a mutual understanding on this topic. The Webcology boys are known to have their disagreements on this subject where Jim has his pro neutrality stance and Dave quite the opposite. What was interesting is that they both seem to have the sense that this isn’t going to be easy, for small business will be affected. Most likely it will be a residual result of monetary pressure from web hosting companies.
Prices of these hosting companies have been able to maintain a price, keeping the monthly cost affordable by the common company for many years. Unfortunately, costs will go up due to packaged bandwidth and services obviously affecting how hosting providers package their hosting fees. These packages will more likely mimic cable bundling schemes ultimately placing an economic pressure on companies if they want to be placed with the bigger players on the internet like YouTube or Facebook.
Some fear the District of Columbia Circuit latest ruling that states the FCC’s open Internet rules have no legal grounds is the end to Net Neutrality. Like Dave and Jim said; “This outcome doesn’t just alter the American internet it influences the internet worldwide.” Our digital space is interconnected to the United States hence poisoning our own virtual space.
The game isn’t over yet and the general public still has a say in the matter. Petitions from the FCC as well as the Whitehouse Petition are available to help slow the loss of net neutrality. Thanks to Kristine Schachinger for the links to these sites.
The FCC petition: http://act.freepress.net/sign/internet_FCC_court_decision2/?source=slider%3Fsource%3Dwebsite_actions
The Whitehouse Petition: https//petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/restore-net-neutrality-directing-fcc-classify-internet-providers-common-carriers/5CWS1M4P
- How naked are you willing to get in front of Google
- Go do something good and sign the petitions
SEO news blog post by David Mackenzie-Kong @ 10:50 am