[Chapter-delegates] Internet of Things

Wed Feb 10 06:30:37 PST 2016

[ENG] We almost entirely agree Eric.
About manufacturing costs, I think it's a simplistic pretend to reclaim
money, for life, to the user, for a construction cost and investment in
manufacturing plants. We should talk in economistic terms to warn the
aberration in this proposal.
On the other hand, we are aligned, this is the opportunity to call to
action, be proactive rather than deliberative, that those who commit these
acts of spiying, beat and not deliberate.

= = =

[ESP] Estamos casi del todo de acuerdo Eric.
Sobre los costos de fabricación, creo que es una visión simplista pretender
cobrar al usuario, de por vida, un costo de construcción e inversión en las
plantas de fabricación. Deberíamos hablar en términos economicistas para
advertir la aberración de este planteo.
Por otro lado, estamos alineados, esta es la oportunidad de llamarnos a la
acción, ser proactivos más que deliberativos, por que quienes cometen estas
acciones de espionaje, actúan y no deliberan.

saludos,

- - - - - - - - - -

*Mauro D. Ríos.-*

2016-02-10 11:07 GMT-03:00 Eric Burger <eburger at standardstrack.com>:

>
> On Feb 10, 2016, at 7:41 AM, Mauro D. Rios <mdrios at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (español al final)
>
>
> [ENG] I think putting first and last name to the problem, citing companies
> or organizations, do not contribute to a serious discussion of the problem.
> What we do in this way is to delve deeper irrational fanaticism on trade
> policies of large companies. We could say that one of the mentioned Eric
> uses a slave company to manufacture its devices icons. So we could be
> fattening the list of objections, but without further discussion of the
> problem.
>
> My mistake for that. I agree, a particular company might have other
> connotations. The point was about business models in the abstract. My
> apologies.
>
> Spying is not the only thing that makes me repudiate a company, also
> abusive pricing practices, where a user pays $ 1,000 a device that
> manufacture cost only $ 25.
>
> Two things on cost. The first is the bulk of the value of electronics and
> software is not manufacturing costs (the $25), but development costs. For
> example, the price of an Intel CPU is roughly USD 500. The manufacturing
> cost for a single CPU is on the order of USD 0.00001 (the sand that goes
> into the wafer). However, it costs USD 3,000,000,000 to build the plant to
> manufacture the CPU and about USD 1,500,000,000 to design the CPU. Just
> because the manufacturing cost is USD 0.00001 does not mean a fair price is
> USD 0.00002. Someone has to pay for the fixed capital costs of production
> and, more relevant to, for example, software, the costs of development.
>
> Or the company that blocks the repair of one of its devices to generate
> exorbitant money on their official repair centers.
>
> I cannot speak outside the U.S., but this is expressly against the law in
> the United States. See the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act and the Clayton
> Antitrust Act.
>
> Or the company that patents blocking technologies or innovative devices
> that change the industry, simply because this was not the company that
> manufactures or to which it occurred to invent it.
>
> Patenting X and claiming it covers Y is evil (and fixing that keeps me in
> business). However, if you invent X and patent X, you get exclusive rights
> to X in exchange for explaining the world how to build X. Society expects
> that Y then gets invented, and society is better off. Many countries like
> that bargain, giving exclusive, time-limited rights in exchange for
> advancing the state of the art.
>
> So the Internet of Things have many faces, like a dodecahedron, each face
> we watch, step by step, and the firmness to defend freedom of the network
> and users, protect privacy. But all this from an objective and
> non-fanatical vision that does not help our interests as an organization.
>
>
> The technology today allows develop tools to limit, mitigate or nullify
> the chances of spy through devices, then let the fanatical philosophy
> against a company, other or all, and get to work to get open and secure
> standards, free networks and which we monitor precisely that are not being
> used as instruments of perverse spying of citizens. Seek allies in
> technology related to our objectives in this regard, organizations and
> develop standards, we improve existing, updated the policies and laws, from
> the constructive work and not from the spurious criticism.
>
> I think we agree - this is the opportunity for Chapters and the Internet
> Society.
>
>
> = = =
>
>
> [ESP] Creo que poniéndole nombre propia al problema, mencionando empresas,
> no contribuimos a una discusión seria del problema. Lo que hacemos de esta
> forma es ahondar más los fanatismos irracionales sobre políticas
> comerciales de las grandes empresas. Bien podríamos decir que una de las
> que menciona Eric, utiliza una empresa esclavista para la fabricación de
> sus dispositivos íconos. Así podríamos estar engordando la lista de
> objeciones, pero sin profundizar la discusión del problema.
>
>
> No necesariamente el espionaje me hace repudiar una empresa, también las
> prácticas abusivas de precios, donde un usuario paga $1000 un dispositivo
> que costó fabricarlo sólo $25. O aquella empresa que bloquea la reparación
> de uno de sus dispositivos para generar ingresos exorbitantes en sus
> centros oficiales de reparación. O aquella empresa que bloquea patentes de
> tecnologías o dispositivos innovadores que cambiarían la industria,
> simplemente porque no fue ésta empresa la que lo fabrica o a la que se le
> ocurrió inventarlo.
>
>
> Así que el Internet de las cosas tiene muchas caras, como un dodecaedro,
> deberemos atender cada una de ellas paso a paso y con la firmeza de
> defender la libertad de la red y de los usuarios, proteger la privacidad.
> Pero todo ello desde una visión objetiva y no fanática que no ayuda a
> nuestros intereses como organización.
>
>
> La tecnología hoy permite desarrollar herramientas que limiten, mitiguen o
> anulen las posibilidades de espiarnos a través de los dispositivos,
> entonces dejemos la filosofía fanática contra una empresa, otra o todas, y
> pongámonos a trabajar para conseguir estándares abiertos y seguros, redes
> libres y a las cuales vigilemos precisamente para que no se estén
> utilizando como instrumentos perversos de espionaje de los ciudadanos.
> Busquemos aliados en la tecnología, organizaciones afines a  nuestros
> objetivos en este sentido, y desarrollemos estándares, mejoremos los
> existentes, actualicemos las políticas y las leyes, trabajemos desde lo
> constructivo y no desde la crítica espuria.
>
>
> saludos,
> 
>
> - - - - - - - - - -
> *Mauro D. Ríos.-*
>
>
> e-Mail: mdrios at gmail.com
> Skype: mdrios
> Twitter: mdriosuy
> Linkedin: uy.linkedin.com/in/maurodrios/en
> Google+: goo.gl/4TpjWM
> Videolink2: videolink2.me/mauro.d.rios
>
> 2016-02-10 9:02 GMT-03:00 Eric Burger <eburger at standardstrack.com>:
>
>> It is a more simple question: does history repeat itself or do we learn
>> from history.
>>
>> History repeating itself: Let’s do something like Google that is so easy
>> to use and so pervasive so the intelligence community has a single place to
>> go to spy on people.
>>
>> Learning from history: Let’s do something like Lavabit or Apple’s alleged
>> “throw away the key” and make it so *no one* can get meaningful data to
>> spy on people.
>>
>> The choice is ours.
>>
>> This sounds like a great opportunity for Chapters to be out in front
>> educating users, governments, and developers about the right way to create
>> IoT infrastructure and applications.
>>
>> On Feb 10, 2016, at 1:07 AM, Jahangir Hossain <jrjahangir at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Glenn,
>>
>> Thanks for sharing this news. Now this is seems to be interesting from
>> IoT architecture views  . Is privacy dead in future technology ?
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Glenn McKnight <mcknight.glenn at gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> US intelligence chief: we might use the internet of things to spy on you
>>>
>>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/09/internet-of-things-smart-home-devices-government-surveillance-james-clapper
>>>
>>>
>>> Glenn McKnight
>>> mcknight.glenn at gmail.com
>>> skype  gmcknight
>>> twitter gmcknight
>>> .
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>>> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> *Regards / Jahangir*
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
>> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
>> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20160210/160c5b8b/attachment.htm>