Attached is a link to the first podcast on disaster in a series of one. This podcast is being cross posted on my Disaster Blog. All in the name of getting better Google rankings.
Podcast Episode 1 of 1
Sunday, February 20, 2011
The loss of our privacy
The trend that I selected was predicted in 2007 in World Trends and Forecast. This prediction has a little age behind it. I find it interesting to look at some trends that have started to show progress in become true. Maybe I am still suffering for the sting of not having flying cars, by 1990. In 2007 it was predicted that the development of wireless communication would challenge our existing notions of privacy. Our privacy will slowly disappear. If it disappears slowly enough we may not even care. What is the impact to our privacy when the cost of a camera is just a few dollars, the size is as smalls an eraser and there are hundreds of millions or billions of them in circulation? What is the impact on our privacy when everybody is carrying a GPS receiver that is tied to the Internet? What is the impact to our privacy when we pay all our bills, perform all correspondence, and view all our entertainment on the internet? What is the impact when all of our medical records, car records, and school records are connected into the internet? What is the impact with the cost of a terabyte is less than $100. What is the impact when face recognition software is near perfect? What is the impact when you can do picture content search? Answering any one of these questions starts to paint a picture of the impact on our privacy; the answer to all of these questions paints a picture where privacy may not exist. Today is not that we cannot gather much of this information. What keeps our privacy is the fact we are part of a huge crowd. We just cannot wade through all of it to paint a complete picture of an individual. It is too fragmented on different incompatible systems. Overtime search engines will get better, integration between systems will improve, and tools to combine all of the pieces will start to emerge. When that occurs a complete profile on an individual will be simple.
There are forces that both support and derail our privacy. On the technology front greater computing power, larger and cheaper storage, and greater interconnection of systems will help enable systems to piece together all of your information into a single profile. You add this together with improvements in face recognition, side-channel tracking, cookie tracking, government systems, security systems, and all the rest of the devices that watch you it seems that shortly there will be algorithms that will be able to create these individual profiles. A second force that drives the technology forward to remove your privacy is economic. There are many companies that are working to build profiles on you. Some of these companies plan and will do it in a way to help you. Their motivations are good and honest. They want to be able to predict what music you want to listen to or what shows to watch on NetFlix. They want to create an accurate credit score. However, as the technology gets built it will be used for other purposes. The bad people will get the same technology. It will be used for bad purposes. Today, I wonder how much information a person sitting at a desk at Verizon can gather about an individual. Unless the usage is encrypted, I would expect they could trap every IP packet the person sends both via their ISP landline and their wireless IP connection.
There are also forces attempting to protect an individual’s privacy. To start with there are technology forces that are starting to gain ground. A group of people attempting to push companies to encrypt their internet connect published an incredibility easy FireFox plug in that allows anyone to highjack user names, password, and sessions. The plugin is called Fire Sheep. 24 hours after the launch of the plugin there were over 100,000 downloads. I don’t know what the total number of download is but it may be in the millions. There has been some positive movement. The plugin was available for download in October 2010 and on January 27th 2011 Facebook announced that they will start using HTTPS, an encrypted page interface. This really brings into point two forces that are attempting to slow or protect a person’s privacy. There is a social force of people working to protect a person’s privacy. There is also a technical force that is helping those that want to protect their privacy. The third force is again economical. It seems the economical force always plays both sides of a controversy. Companies will and are working to help people protect their privacy. However, it always seems that those helping to protect privacy are behind those that are attempting erode privacy. However, the force is there.
Protecting privacy will become a growing challenge due to new technologies. A wireless device in your shoes to record your miles while jogging could be turned into a stalker’s handy tracking device. And cameras have become small enough to be disguised as shirt buttons to invade people’s privacy on the sly. Engineers are scrambling to counter that trend with privacy protection devices, such as a light-absorbing capacitor that blocks the signals of digital cameras. — World Trends & Forecasts, May-June 2007, pp. 12, 13
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Mountain Project - Web 2.0
I have stated in a previous post, I use a number of web 2.0 tools. The one that I will highlight in this post is a site call www.mountainproject.com. The purpose of Mountainproject is to be a social community of rock climbers that share information on climbing areas, routes, and conditions. It also has a few forums for talking about general climbing topics. From what I understand of the site, there are four guys that act as the main system administrator. They do the programming, feature improvements, and some content. It is not their full time job, but instead a hobby. There are 62 mountain administrators. They own specific areas, these can be states or countries. Their role is to police, add content, and organize the their area. They don't get paid. It is just a contribution to the community. These people change every know and then but I am surprised at how long they stay in the role. Many have been their since 2002 when the site started. After that there are thousands of individual contributors. I am one of them. I use the site to get information on climbing areas, routes, conditions, and to meet people. In addition I also contribute content. I have been a member for the past 1 1/2 years. In that time I have contributed 317 items to the site. Some are simple like a comment on a site about conditions or the route. Others are much more involved. I have developed 28 route pages, 8 areas, and added 67 pictures that document the routes. When I add a picture that documents that route I take picture in a specific fashion that allows others to understand the route. I then move it into PhotoShop and add important pieces of information to the picture. I would say each picture takes me 1 hour. In total have probably put 100+ hours into the site development. Here is a link to a page that includes both what I climbed and what I added to the site, link. To encourage people to add content the site provides people points. You don't get anything for the points, just a ranking. Last year I was ranked 493. That is low. It means a lot more people are putting up a lot more information. I know a few of these people. They put in 10 hours a week or more adding content. It is a way to help be part of the community. Here is a picture of a route area that I create. This one is just outside of Barcelona Spain. In an area called Montserrate. 
As with all of my Web 2.0 organization it also has a real life aspect. I don't just do this in cyber world. I go out and climb. I meet others that climb. I talk about what I have logged, and we help each other place content. It is using the web to help "real life" not replace it. I see this as an important piece of Web 2.0 for the vast majority of society. I realize that there are people that enjoy and will stay only in a internet world. They will have Facebook friends that they never meet, or different personalities on websites that never see "real life", but for a lot of people the value of Web 2.0 is to build a community that is shared between "real life" and the internet. The internet becomes a tool to organization, communicate, and stay in touch.
Robert
As with all of my Web 2.0 organization it also has a real life aspect. I don't just do this in cyber world. I go out and climb. I meet others that climb. I talk about what I have logged, and we help each other place content. It is using the web to help "real life" not replace it. I see this as an important piece of Web 2.0 for the vast majority of society. I realize that there are people that enjoy and will stay only in a internet world. They will have Facebook friends that they never meet, or different personalities on websites that never see "real life", but for a lot of people the value of Web 2.0 is to build a community that is shared between "real life" and the internet. The internet becomes a tool to organization, communicate, and stay in touch.
Robert
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Disaster tolerant nationwide wireless network
Outline for Social Technical Plan – Disaster tolerant nationwide wireless network
The United States needs a wireless communication network that can support the needs of its citizens during a time disaster. Today people rely on wireless communication for both safety and security. There is an expectation that they can dial 911 when they need help. However, the need for communication goes much farther than just the ability to dial 911. We use this technology to reach out to others for security. It can be just a quick word of assurance from the baby sitter, or the ability to check on weather before we head out. We rely on wireless communication to keep us safe. This nation needs a wireless communication network that citizen can count on during a time of personal or natural disaster.
Scope - Elements of the social technical plan
• Standards for wireless design that enable fault tolerance
• MANET – Mobile Adhoc Networks
• Wireless priority Service (WPS)
• Cellular Mobile Alert System (CMAS)
• Self Optimizing and Self Organization Networks (SON)
• E911 to support text messaging and data application in addition to voice
• A federal 911 center to handle and support something
• Aggregation of 911 centers from local PSAP to at least statewide centers
Elements that support a disaster tolerant nationwide wireless network
• Social changes where people are more and more relying on these services
• Ethical changes in the expectation of computer systems
o In the past computer and wireless systems have been given a pass on the social ethical requirements of their effectiveness. Ie we don’t treat the development of Twitter the same way we treat the design of a bridge.
• Technical advancements are making the possibilities more probable and cost effective
• Global changes – With the introduction of LTE the world will be on a single communication protocol.
• Side advancements of other technologies – Other more commercially viable technologies will aid in the objective listed above. These objective will get support from other activities.
• Legal – Over time it can be expected that laws will be passed that will start mandating central levels of disaster tolerance
o Katrina order was one example, though it got repealed
U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia. (2009). CTIA v. FCC Katrina Order Vacated No. 07-1475.(FCC 06-119).
Elements that detract from the development of a disaster tolerant nationwide wireless network
• Economic – The development of a fault tolerant wireless network cost.
o Investment in disaster tolerant systems would not be easy to monetize
• Political – Many of the changes needed have political implications.
o Local 911 centers would loss control and funding
o Power for dispatch would be moved from local to state level
o Elements with the industry will resist government mandates
To achieve the objectives above a few steps or actions can help gain traction
• Seek political support from organizations outside the industry
• Raise awareness of the issues
o Show example of when and where it breaks down
o Write case studies on how and why communication broke down
o Raise awareness to the general end user
• Seek support from those that started with the Katrina order
• Sadly when another disaster occurs political favor and support will help
• Seek support from emergency response organizations
• Start small and invest in the concepts within a single organization
In the 10 to 20 years I would fully expect that there will be good movement towards a nationwide disaster tolerant network. There are forces that will help achieve the objectives even without specific action by industry or government. The key will be the speed and level of safety net that is created. For there to be full success these concepts need to be pulled together into a complete plan. Its growth without a plan can and will create inefficiencies plus it will leave hole within the systems development.
The United States needs a wireless communication network that can support the needs of its citizens during a time disaster. Today people rely on wireless communication for both safety and security. There is an expectation that they can dial 911 when they need help. However, the need for communication goes much farther than just the ability to dial 911. We use this technology to reach out to others for security. It can be just a quick word of assurance from the baby sitter, or the ability to check on weather before we head out. We rely on wireless communication to keep us safe. This nation needs a wireless communication network that citizen can count on during a time of personal or natural disaster.
Scope - Elements of the social technical plan
• Standards for wireless design that enable fault tolerance
• MANET – Mobile Adhoc Networks
• Wireless priority Service (WPS)
• Cellular Mobile Alert System (CMAS)
• Self Optimizing and Self Organization Networks (SON)
• E911 to support text messaging and data application in addition to voice
• A federal 911 center to handle and support something
• Aggregation of 911 centers from local PSAP to at least statewide centers
Elements that support a disaster tolerant nationwide wireless network
• Social changes where people are more and more relying on these services
• Ethical changes in the expectation of computer systems
o In the past computer and wireless systems have been given a pass on the social ethical requirements of their effectiveness. Ie we don’t treat the development of Twitter the same way we treat the design of a bridge.
• Technical advancements are making the possibilities more probable and cost effective
• Global changes – With the introduction of LTE the world will be on a single communication protocol.
• Side advancements of other technologies – Other more commercially viable technologies will aid in the objective listed above. These objective will get support from other activities.
• Legal – Over time it can be expected that laws will be passed that will start mandating central levels of disaster tolerance
o Katrina order was one example, though it got repealed
U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia. (2009). CTIA v. FCC Katrina Order Vacated No. 07-1475.(FCC 06-119).
Elements that detract from the development of a disaster tolerant nationwide wireless network
• Economic – The development of a fault tolerant wireless network cost.
o Investment in disaster tolerant systems would not be easy to monetize
• Political – Many of the changes needed have political implications.
o Local 911 centers would loss control and funding
o Power for dispatch would be moved from local to state level
o Elements with the industry will resist government mandates
To achieve the objectives above a few steps or actions can help gain traction
• Seek political support from organizations outside the industry
• Raise awareness of the issues
o Show example of when and where it breaks down
o Write case studies on how and why communication broke down
o Raise awareness to the general end user
• Seek support from those that started with the Katrina order
• Sadly when another disaster occurs political favor and support will help
• Seek support from emergency response organizations
• Start small and invest in the concepts within a single organization
In the 10 to 20 years I would fully expect that there will be good movement towards a nationwide disaster tolerant network. There are forces that will help achieve the objectives even without specific action by industry or government. The key will be the speed and level of safety net that is created. For there to be full success these concepts need to be pulled together into a complete plan. Its growth without a plan can and will create inefficiencies plus it will leave hole within the systems development.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Innovative Idea SON
The area I selected to focus on is self healing/optimizing (SON) 4G wireless networks. While not as sexy as flying cars or designer babies the impact to our society is very important. Today’s society has become dependent on wireless communication, most notably cellphones. We use them for casual conversations, business deals, security, and safety. When they are not available we are left without an important tool to communicate. The loss of that tool can and has cost people their lives. The acronym SON has a few common definitions. I have seen it listed as self optimizing, and as self organizing networks. A key concept is that by a series of algorithms a wireless network can reconfigure or make change to account of external conditions. Those external conditions can be major traffic shifts, cell site outages, others today unknown conditions. Today, the idea of a SON system is widely desired. In the LTE specification there is a specification for the development of SON. A few of the vendors are starting to develop simple systems. In all cases, the vendors doing this development are really talking about the end state as in complete self healing, plug and play hardware, and self optimization. However, the actual implementation of these solutions is far closer to the Model T than it is to flying cars. If we were to look at this on the Hype Curve, we are at the peak of inflated expectations. This can spur development. However, there will be a trough of disillusionment and it will be at the point that SON will either gain its legs and move into mass adoption or stall until it receives another push.
SON has a number of supporting forces. First and foremost is that is current has momentum. A lot of great ideas never reach maturity because not enough people believe in those ideas. Momentum is not enough to push the technology into mass adoption. With SON it has a few of the “AL” words that also support it. The first is that there are strong economical reasons for the technology to continue to be developed. In theory SON should reduce the complexity of network design thereby allowing few engineers to design the network. It should also improve resource utilization. A well turned SON system would be able to move resources around based upon need and thereby reduced total cost. There is also global support for SON. SON specifications or maybe API is a better term is part of the LTE specification. LTE will be the 4G technology for >95% of the world. This massive size should aid in the development of SON. There is also a social force that will help in the development of SON. Society is becoming more dependent on wireless communications. It is starting to come to the point that the government is seeing wireless phones as a necessity for the safety and security of its citizens. The need for the wireless networks to be more reliable particularly during natural disasters is becoming more understood. It is possible that if we have another disaster like Katrina we will see further regulation on the wireless industry. It is sad but always true that it take disasters to help people see the need for great safety and security. Society’s use of these devices has changes, and so that technology needs to change to keep up with people expectations.
There are also forces that could slow or stop the development of the technology. The most notably is economical reasons. Today wireless carriers have to expend huge amounts of capital to deploy LTE. Because the costs are so large they are looking for ways to cut expense or at least control expenses. One way can be to invent only in what is absolutely necessary. It is like buying a car. If you feel you cannot afford the cost of the car you start scaling back features. SON is a feature that might never get enough funding to move past its rudimentary beginnings. A second force that can slow or hurt SON is trust of automation. Current vendors understand this well. They are talking about the need to have a system that allows for first recommendation, then semi-automation, and finally full automation. The concept of SON is not new. There are even small examples of it working today in wireless networks. However, there have also been many failures. These historical failures have lead to many people that are hesitant. This fear of turning the keys over to a computer has engineers concerned.
To understand the development of SON a Delphi model would work very well. There are many technical experts that could contribute to an analysis of its success or failure. This would also help in charting a course that would be more holistic and could help push the technology forward. How this is done has its pluses and minuses. Because there currently are not any strong political views on the topic, unlike global warming, I think that this would be a good topic for an open conversation among experts. It would not be possible to get everyone together but instead it would be possible to due the conversation over the internet.
http://business.motorola.com/experiencelte/pdf/LTEOperabilitySONWhitePaper.pdf
http://www.3gpp.org/LTE
SON has a number of supporting forces. First and foremost is that is current has momentum. A lot of great ideas never reach maturity because not enough people believe in those ideas. Momentum is not enough to push the technology into mass adoption. With SON it has a few of the “AL” words that also support it. The first is that there are strong economical reasons for the technology to continue to be developed. In theory SON should reduce the complexity of network design thereby allowing few engineers to design the network. It should also improve resource utilization. A well turned SON system would be able to move resources around based upon need and thereby reduced total cost. There is also global support for SON. SON specifications or maybe API is a better term is part of the LTE specification. LTE will be the 4G technology for >95% of the world. This massive size should aid in the development of SON. There is also a social force that will help in the development of SON. Society is becoming more dependent on wireless communications. It is starting to come to the point that the government is seeing wireless phones as a necessity for the safety and security of its citizens. The need for the wireless networks to be more reliable particularly during natural disasters is becoming more understood. It is possible that if we have another disaster like Katrina we will see further regulation on the wireless industry. It is sad but always true that it take disasters to help people see the need for great safety and security. Society’s use of these devices has changes, and so that technology needs to change to keep up with people expectations.
There are also forces that could slow or stop the development of the technology. The most notably is economical reasons. Today wireless carriers have to expend huge amounts of capital to deploy LTE. Because the costs are so large they are looking for ways to cut expense or at least control expenses. One way can be to invent only in what is absolutely necessary. It is like buying a car. If you feel you cannot afford the cost of the car you start scaling back features. SON is a feature that might never get enough funding to move past its rudimentary beginnings. A second force that can slow or hurt SON is trust of automation. Current vendors understand this well. They are talking about the need to have a system that allows for first recommendation, then semi-automation, and finally full automation. The concept of SON is not new. There are even small examples of it working today in wireless networks. However, there have also been many failures. These historical failures have lead to many people that are hesitant. This fear of turning the keys over to a computer has engineers concerned.
To understand the development of SON a Delphi model would work very well. There are many technical experts that could contribute to an analysis of its success or failure. This would also help in charting a course that would be more holistic and could help push the technology forward. How this is done has its pluses and minuses. Because there currently are not any strong political views on the topic, unlike global warming, I think that this would be a good topic for an open conversation among experts. It would not be possible to get everyone together but instead it would be possible to due the conversation over the internet.
http://business.motorola.com/experiencelte/pdf/LTEOperabilitySONWhitePaper.pdf
http://www.3gpp.org/LTE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)