Ashley Madison and the Internet of Things

By Dane Avanzi

“Technology is not docile.” So said Joseph Alois Schumpeter, regarded by many as the Prophet of innovation and one of the most prominent economists of the 20th century. Any similarity is not coincidental with what happens today in the ecosystem of information technology, communication and the internet. The case of intimate information of millions of users of the site of romantic relationships Ashley Madison, back up the raw reality about how the internet environment is insecure when it comes to visceral information-including the financial life of those involved.

In the midst of insecurity today proven to be installed in the internet environment, only one thing is certain: we will not be the first nor the last attack. Last year happened several attacks on Sony, which had millions of users of virtual games PlayStation platform, hacked, including your credit card numbers. The case Ashley Madison has had, and still can have drastic consequences to the users of the site, having been advertised two suicides in Canada last week.

The issue is complex and has ramifications that go beyond the internet itself as industry. From a legal point of view, for example, it should be noted that the majority of democracies in the world, the right to liberty and to privacy as basic principles with regard to individual guarantees to its citizens. In this context, any technology that proposes to provide a service, whatever it is, should bear in mind the need to ensure the highest possible degree of security to its users. Fact that did not occur in this case. There’s even rumors that the site had numerous fake profiles of women (95%), according to the website Gizmodo. If true, a internáutico collective larceny.

According to statistics of the ITU-International Telecommunications Union, the UN specialized agency for telecommunications, based on data provided by Symantec, a global company that specializes in cybersecurity, the second 18 Internet users suffer some kind of criminal attack, resulting in 1.5 million victims affected in different regions of the planet. Considering this among many other weaknesses, including Governments keep safe from hackers, Affairs of State, I wonder: are we ready for the next stage of the internet, now released by the industry of information technology and communication as Iot Internet of things, or simply Internet of things?

I don’t think so. Apparently, we started to build a skyscraper from the top down, not worrying about the foundations, which is very dangerous. Aside from that, another question comes to mind of people, thinking about Internet of things: what we’re going to have security in the hypothetical world of “Jetsons”, now designed by major players of technological industry regarding the safety of tangible and intangible assets, as well as the guarantee of individual rights, such as the right to freedom and privacy?

The companies will continue seeking only profit without worrying about your customers? Human relations will distract with consumer relations reduced to crude personal calculations of cost and benefit? Unfortunately, the answer may not be good. In fact, today, much of our privacy is already severely damaged by search engines that literally know everything about you: places you’ve been, product preferences, your address, your profession, among so many other information. Not only is mapped who never connected and does not have a smartphone or Google account, Microsoft or Facebook.

As much as we do (maybe even more), Schumpeter lived in a troubled period and full of innovations. Born in 1883, lived until 1950. It was not a mere theoretical intellectual, experienced the economy of your time at various times of his life. Thoughtful, recognized all the benefits from capitalism and believed that the evils caused by the discomforts of the innovations would outweigh its benefits in so many other social areas. However, it was called capitalism, in the current context here represented by the major players of the internet ecosystem, “steamroller” and via the innovations as a form of “creative destruction”, the base of the creation and destruction of markets, which in a macroeconomic vision now engenders, now terminates economic cycles.

Assevere here that conflicts between drivers and Uber, mobile phone operators and WhattsApp, are mere shocks and developments of this force called “creative destruction”. Certainly, I would be astonished and intrigued with the world today if he were here among us. Unlike other great economists such as Adam Smith or John Maynard Keynes, did not create any theory, but left in his legacy of reflection that nothing stops the primitive force, blind and amoral that, consciously or unconsciously, often motivates and drives the economy, businesses and human beings.

Source: [Northern Tribune]