#lcit

[thesinningcell]

Such a good submissive boy, don't you agree? Have him, as a part of the Octomer Deceit AU. I need to study tentacles if I wanna keep drawing for this AU lol. Probably the drawing that shows the most of all the drawings I did, I'm still working on anatomy too.

[thesinningcell]

I have a fic to finish, I know, but I'm bad at articulating my ideas and I can't write lately, so, sorry, but for now, the Loceit fic is like, stuck at right before they actually have sex

[thesinningcell]

Do you ever regret drawing something? Well, I drew this during my lunch break, and thus in the middle of my classroom, with my classmates nearby. Yeah, actually I don't care? It was a challenge to draw though.

@smuttysanderssidestwopointoh I believe you mentioned liking Loceit and the AU? Well, it's still a thing. I'm still... Drawing. Sometimes.

[thesinningcell]

Would you write my otp and drug loceit? Top dee is *chef's kiss* mwah

I mean, I can try? Do you have any preferences, kinks or AU you want?

Also, I love switch Dee topping bottom Lo, obviously :3 I agree it's mwah

[movefastbreaklaw-blog]

Now that every technology company in America seems to be selling cloud computing, we decided to find out where it all began.

Week 10: Somewhere up in the clouds

‘Who Coined 'Cloud Computing'?’ – Antonio Regalado, MIT Technology Review

Even though much of modern technology is dependent on it, to many people the Cloud is an elusive concept. This article provides an interesting overview of the history of the term ‘Cloud Computing’ and the early history of its development. It reminds us that often, when non-experts are talking about the Cloud, it is a useful metaphor to explain something that is little understood.

[movefastbreaklaw-blog]

Week 9: Babies can be smarter than you think

Where there are consumer products, there is data to be collected. It seems that no object can escape the destiny of becoming “smart”ified and connected to the Internet. It began with smart phones and has since moved on to smart TVs, smart watches and smart meters. No item is too mundane to be upgraded in this way – we have now entered the era of the smart nappy. The smart nappy is part of a recent proliferation of Internet of Things (IoT) devices, where everyday objects are connected to the Internet and can collect data. Pampers has developed a “smart” nappy system known as Lumi, which uses an activity sensor attached to nappies that detect when they are wet and track babies’ sleep (Pampers). The system can also follow babies’ routines, development and “nudge” parents to “to better take care of their children” (Financial Times).

Who benefits from this datafication of human activity? It is probably not the child who grows up and, in later life, has the ability to make a data subject access request to review their nappy data. It is questionable whether anxious parents gain by buying into yet another baby product with dubious benefit, given that all the smart nappy does is amount to a “truly brilliant update to the obsolete technology known as “your nose”” (The Guardian). Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, president of the International Society for Infant Studies, has suggested that the smart nappy could make babies less self-reliant as they do not need to learn how to communicate when their nappy is full (CNN). Additionally, there is even a change.org petition suggesting the nappies are not safe and potentially carcinogenic (Change.org).

It is not particularly surprising that the product was developed by Pampers in partnership with Verily – a sister company to Google. For Google’s parent, Alphabet, smart nappies can facilitate a truly cradle to grave relationship with consumers. Although it seems that only parents will be able to access the data, aggregate data will be used to “improve the product”. The exact purposes of collection and who will be able to access it are not yet clear, though Google does not have an excellent reputation for being transparent about its data collection practices. Until a leak exposed it, they did not disclose that human reviewers had been listening to conversations recorded by its Google smart speakers (The Guardian).

A further concern is that IoT devices have a relatively weak security profile and are more vulnerable to hacking (Walport). Perhaps the nappy data could be considered innocuous. However, parents do not normally advertise this information to friends and neighbours – so why should they feel comfortable with the risk of hackers accessing it? Additionally, the account information connected to the smart nappy is also expected to include the baby’s name, sex and date of birth, which is data that presumably parents do care about and do not want hackers to access.

Ultimately, these concerns do not seem to have deterred anxious parents – there is a waiting list to purchase Lumi.

[movefastbreaklaw-blog]

How much does Google know about you? – podcast

Alex Hern on how Google’s use of personal data has potentially helped create a new age of mass surveillance. Plus Lois Beckett on the US mass shootings

Week 8: “Can I stalk you? I promise more personalised services, so it’s worth it!”

The Guardian’s Today in Focus Podcast, ‘How Much Does Google Know About You?’

Some key points from the podcast, which I felt were relevant to this week’s class:

– Google collects vast sums of data, far beyond what we are consciously aware of.

– It is damaging to normalise this level of online behavioural tracking.

– The online behavioural tracking for advertising, for many people, is relatively innocuous. However, although Google are not using this mass surveillance for underhand purposes now, the volume of data gives them a huge amount of power and potential for control. In 2029 or 2099, that data might end up in the hands of people with dangerous motives. This is a serious concern.

– Despite this, people are willing to offer their data to Google because its services work very well. 

[movefastbreaklaw-blog]

Article 15 of the ECommerce Directive lays down the basic principle that EU Member States cannot impose a general obligation on internet...

Week 7: Filter me softly – internet intermediaries and content liability

At a time when regulators and the general public are calling for more active involvement of internet intermediaries in monitoring content, Cyberleagle (“Time to speak up for Article 15″ Graham Smith) outlines some of the perils that could accompany changes to Article 15 of the E-Commerce Directive.

The Simpsons meme reminds us that overenthusiastic private enforcement mechanisms, such as YouTube’s Content ID, can be heavily restrictive and extend the rights of copyright-holders beyond the scope of what is provided by the law.