Blog

A Trustmark for IoT: Some updates

A

Just for the record, a few quick updates regarding my work on a trustmark for IoT.

Last year I did some research with the ThingsCon network and Mozilla about the potential of a trustmark for IoT. (Learn more about my report “A Trustmark for IoT”.) This year, we want to turn this research into action.

This is work that I’ll be doing under the ThingsCon umbrella with support from Mozilla Foundation—as of March 2018 I’m a Mozilla Fellow. (Read the ThingsCon announcement about the fellowship.) It’s an inherent part of this project to work as much in the open as possible. With this constellation in mind, the project documentation won’t happen primarily here at this blog and instead in the following places:

Also, I’m happy to report that the initiative is already getting quite a bit of attention, including an interview with the Wall Street Journal for their cybersecurity newsletter (paywall), and a mention in Mozilla’s Internet Health Report 2018. (See the media mentions round-up on the ThingsCon blog.)

Full disclosure: My partner works for Mozilla.

Monthnotes for March 2018

M

Before we’re headed into the long Easter Holiday weekend, a quick rundown of what happened in March.

Mozilla Fellowship & an open trustmark for IoT

I’m happy to share that I’ve joined the Mozilla Fellows program (concretely, the IoT fellows group to work with Jon Rogers and Julia Kloiber), and that Mozilla supports the development of an open trustmark for IoT under the ThingsCon umbrella.

There’s no doubt going to be a more formal announcement soon, but here’s the shortest of blog posts over on ThingsCon.

(As always, a full disclosure: My partner works for Mozilla.)

I had already shared first thoughts on the IoT trustmark. We’ll have a lot more to share on the development of the trustmark now that it’s becoming more official. You can follow along here and over on the ThingsCon blog.

By the way, this needs a catchy name. Hit me up if you have one in mind we could use!

Zephyr interviews: The Craftsman, Deutsche Welle

We were humbled and delighted that Gianfranco Chicco covered Zephyr Berlin in the recent issue of his most excellent newsletter, The Craftsman. Links and some background here.

We also had an interview with Deutsche Welle. We’ll share it once it’s available online.

It’s great that this little passion project of ours is getting this attention, and truly humbled also by the super high quality feedback and engagement from our customers. What a lovely crowd! ?

Learning about Machine Learning

I’ve started Andrew Ng’s Machine Learning Stanford course on Coursera. Due to time constraints it’s slow going for me, and as expected, it’s a bit math heavy for my personal taste but even if you don’t aim to necessarily implement any machine learning or code to that effect there’s a lot to take away. Two thumbs up.

Notes from a couple of events on responsible tech

Aspen Institute: I was kindly invited to an event by Aspen Institute Germany about the impact of AI on society and humanity. One panel stood out to me: It was about AI in the context of autonomous weapons systems. I was positively surprised to hear that

  1. All panelists agreed that if autonomous weapons systems, then only with humans in the loop.
  2. There haven’t been significant cases of rogue actors deploying autonomous weapons, which strikes me as good to hear but also very surprising.
  3. A researcher from the Bundeswehr University Munich pointed out that introducing autonomous systems introduces instability, pointing out the possibility of flash wars triggered by fully autonomous systems interacting with one another (like flash crashes in stock markets).
  4. In the backend of military logistics, machine learning appears to already be a big deal.

Digital Asia Hub & HiiG: Malavika Jayaram kindly invited me to a small workshop with Digital Asia Hub and the Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (in the German original abbreviated as HiiG). It was part of a fact finding trip to various regions and tech ecosystems to figure out which items are most important from a regulatory and policy perspective, and to feed the findings from these workshops into policy conversations in the APAC region. This was super interesting, especially because of the global input. I was particularly fascinated to see that Berlin hosts all kinds of tech ethics folks, some of which I knew and some of which I didn’t, so that’s cool.

Both are also covered in my newsletter, so I won’t just replicate everything here. You can dig into the archives from the last few weeks.

Thinking & writing

Season 3 of my somewhat more irreverent newsletter, Connection Problem, is coming up on its 20th issue. You can sign up here to see where my head is these days.

If you’d like to work with me in the upcoming months, I have very limited availability but happy to have a chat.

That’s it for today. Have a great Easter weekend and an excellent April!

A Trustmark for the Internet of Things: First thoughts

A

I’ve been researching the potential of consumer trust labels for IoT for quite some time as I believe that trustworthy connected products should be easier to find for consumers, and the companies (or other organizations) that make connected things should have a way to differentiate their products and services through their commitment to privacy, security, and overall just better products.

One milestone in this research was a report I authored last fall, A Trustmark for IoT, based on research within the larger ThingsCon community and in collaboration with Mozilla Foundation. (Full disclosure: My partner works for Mozilla.)

Ever since I’ve been exploring turning this research into action. So far this has taken two strands of action:

  1. I’ve been active (if less than I wanted, due to personal commitments) in the #iotmark initiative co-founded by long-time friend and frequent collaborator Alexandra Deschamps-Sonsino. The #iotmark follows a certification model around privacy, security, and related topics.
  2. I’ve also been collecting thoughts and drafting a concept for a separate trustmark that follows a commitment model.

At this point I’d like to share some very early, very much draft stage thoughts about the latter.

A note: This trustmark is most likely to happen and be developed under the ThingsCon umbrella. I’m sharing it here first, today, not to take credit but because it’s so rough around the edges that I don’t want the ThingsCon community to pay for any flaws in the thinking, of which I’m sure there are still plenty. This is a work in progress, and shared openly (and maybe too early) because I believe in sharing thought processes early even if it might make me stupid. It’s ok if I look stupid; it’s not ok if I make anyone else in the ThingsCon community look stupid. That said, if we decide to push ahead and develop this trustmark, we’ll be moving it over to ThingsCon or into some independent arrangement—like most things in this blog post, this remains yet to be seen.

Meet Project Trusted Connected Products (working title!)

In the trustmark research report, I’ve laid out strengths and weaknesses of various approaches to consumer labeling from regulation-based (certification required to be allowed to sell in a certain jurisdiction) to voluntary-but-third-party-audited certification to voluntary-self-audited labels to completely self-authorized labels (“Let’s put a fancy sticker on it!”). It’s a spectrum, and there’s no golden way: What’s best depends on context and goals. Certifications tend to require more effort (time, money, overhead) and in turn tend to be more robust and have more teeth; self-labeling approaches tend to be more lightweight and easier to implement, and in turn tend to have less teeth.

The mental model I’ve been working with is this: Certifications (like the #iotmark) can be incredibly powerful at weeding out the crap, and establishing a new baseline. And that’s very powerful and very important, especially in a field as swamped by crappy, insecure, not-privacy-respecting products like IoT. But I’m not an expert in certifications, and others are, so I’d rather find ways of collaborating rather than focusing on this approach.

What I want to go for instead is the other end of the spectrum: A trustmark that aims not at raising the baseline, but a trustmark that raises the bar at the top end. Like so:

Image: Peter Bihr (Flickr)

I’d like to keep this fairly lightweight and easy for companies to apply, but find a model where there are still consequences if they fail to follow through.

The mechanism I’m currently favoring leans on transparency and a control function of the public. Trust but verify.

Companies (or, as always, other orgs) would commit to implementing certain practices, etc., (more on what below) and would publicly document what they do to make sure this works. (This is an approach proposed during the kickoff meeting for the #iotmark initiative in London, before the idea of pursuing certification crystalized.) Imagine it like this:

  • A company wants to launch a product and decides to apply for the trustmark. This requires them to follow certain design principles and implement certain safeguards.
  • The company fills out a form where they document how they make sure these conditions for the trustmark are met for their product. (In a perfect world, this would be open source code and the like, in reality this wouldn’t ever work because of intellectual property; so it would be a more abstract description of work processes and measures taken.)
  • This documentation is publicly available in a database online so as to be searchable by the public: consumers, consumer advocates and media.

If it all checks out, the company gets to use the label for this specific product (for a time; maybe 1-2 years). If it turns out they cheated or changed course: Let the public shaming begin.

This isn’t a fool proof, super robust system. But I believe the mix of easy-to-implement-but-transparent can be quite powerful.

What’s in a trustmark?

What are the categories or dimensions that the trustmark speaks to? I’m still drafting these and this will take some honing, but I’m thinking of five dimensions (again, this is a draft):

  • Privacy & Data Practices
  • Transparency
  • Security
  • Openness
  • Sustainability

Why these five? IoT (connected products) are tricky in that they tend not to be stand-alone products like a toaster oven of yore.

Instead, they are part of (more-or-less) complex systems that include the device hardware (what we used to call the product) with its sensors and actuators and the software layer both on the device and the server infrastructure on the backend. But even if these were “secure” or “privacy-conscious” (whatever this might mean specifically) it wouldn’t be enough: The organization (or often organizations, plural) that make, design, sell, and run these connected products and services also need to be up to the same standards.

So we have to consider other aspects like privacy policies, design principles, business models, service guarantees, and more. Otherwise the ever-so-securely captured data might be sold or shared with third parties, it might be sold along with the company’s other assets in case of an acquisition or bankruptcy, or the product might simply cease working in case the company goes belly-up or changes their business model.

This is where things can get murky, so we need to define pretty clear standards of what and how to document compliance, and come up with checklists, etc.

In some of these areas, the ThingsCon community has leading experts, and we should be able to find good indicators ourselves; in others, we might want to find other indicators of compliance, like through existing third party certifications, etc.; in others yet, we might need to get a little creative.

For example, a indicator that counts towards the PRIVACY & DATA PRACTICES dimension could be strong (if possibly redundant) aspects like “is it GDPR compliant”, “is it built following the Privacy by Design principle”, or “are there physical off-switches or blockers for cameras”. If all three checkboxes are ticked, this would be 3 points on the PRIVACY & DATA PRACTICES score. (Note that “Privacy by Design” is already a pre-condition to be GDPR compatible; so in this case, one thing would add two points; I wouldn’t consider this too big an issue: After all we want to raise the bar.)

What’s next?

There are tons of details, and some very foundational things yet to consider and work out. There are white spots on the metaphorical map to be explored. The trustmark needs a name, too.

I’ll be looking to get this into some kind of shape, start gathering feedback, and also will be looking for partners to help make this a reality.

So I’m very much looking forward to hear what you think—I just ask to tread gently at this point rather than stomping all over it just yet. There’ll be plenty of time for that later.

Always Be Experimenting with Your Daily Routines

A

Having been self-employed most of my life, and often been part of a peer-group that tends to be interested in experimenting with self-organization (cough did someone just say life hacks), I’ve had the privilege to be very much in charge of my daily routines for most of my adult life.

So I made a point early on in my career to experiment with them and see what sticks, what helps me be more productive, more aware, more awake, more creative—or simply be in a better mood.

After a period of experimentation, I tend to settle into a pattern that works well—for a while. The last few years, that has been a pretty steady, almost comically traditional day at the office, if with a somewhat relaxed schedule. I’d show up between 8:30 and 10, would have a lunch break (preferably without meetings), and try to leave between 5 and 7. At any given time the details would depend on the current ongoing projects: Higher workload meant longer and more intense hours, a lighter workload meant more time to read, write, and meet with folks. It was almost as if I had the most traditional routing because I didn’t have to. I got pretty effective and efficient with my workflows. This was pretty much a management schedule (as opposed to a maker schedule), optimized for conference calls and meetings rather than uninterrupted periods of deep work time that would allow flow.

Image: Public Domain. Image from page 517 of "Railway mechanical engineer" (1916)

But recently, especially since we had a baby, this has been a little less satisfying: I’ve been doing a lot more deep work (research, writing) that isn’t really all that compatible with a management-style schedule, so I’ve been needing more uninterrupted time to get into the flow. Also, I now need a bit more flexibility to take care of the little one or relieve M even while she’s on parental leave now (I’ll take a leave a little later, too). Still, it’s not like I need to simulate an “orderly” workday for anyone: There’s still no boss to convince I’m working if I’m not. Additionally to the deep work time I need more of, I also want to make a point of allowing me to put in more time to learn and develop new skills: It feels like I’ve been plateauing on my core skills and it’s time for upgrades in adjacent branches of the skill tree. (Yes, I’m nerdy enough that I used to play pen-and-paper role playing games.)

In other words, time for another round of experimentation.

I plan to read some more about opportunities and frameworks to optimize for combinations of deep work and learning new skills, and will seek out some the advice of friends who know more about this than I do.

In the meantime, here’s what I’ll be trying for a while:

  • Spend more time in offline, especially in the morning: No checking emails and social media for as long as possible in the mornings, and absolutely not before breakfast. This should help with mindfulness and to have more control over the way my day starts. I like to be proactive rather than reactive. The inbox is the natural enemy of being proactive.
  • Schedule time for reading, writing, learning. Especially I’ll set aside 1-2 longer uninterrupted blocks per week for learning or upgrading skills, like producing podcasts, Python, machine learning basics, or even notionally boring-but-important management things like better accounting/budgeting/leadership skills.
  • More walks. I often and frequently walk, it’s the best catalyst I know for thinking through challenging problems. Recently I’ve fallen short, I’ve walked less than usual. This will change right away. Walking is the best thing ever.
  • Cluster meetings and calls in the afternoon. Part of this will be to have calls and meetings in the afternoon as much as possible. It’s my least productive time in terms of focused input/output, but it’s perfect for conversations.

I hope that this might lead to concrete improvements and outcomes:

  • Stronger focus for longer periods of time, which should result in more long text output (essays, blog posts, maybe a book or two).
  • Less reactive scheduling, and more productive use of my time.
  • More flexibility to be present in my family as the better use of my time leads to less time-at-desk and rather to better-output-per-day.
  • Both new opportunities and improvements in my practice through new skills.

Are there any techniques or approaches you found very helpful yourself? Give me a shout, I’m curious!

Zephyr Berlin: Featured in The Craftsman

Z

The Craftsman header

The brilliant and kind Gianfranco Chicco writes a super lovely monthly newsletter called The Craftsman. For it, he meets and interviews craftsmen (and women, obviously) around the world about their projects, products, and passions.

I’m super happy, and very much humbled, that Gianfranco approached us to feature Zephyr Berlin in the March edition (read issue #006 on Medium).

Zephyr Berlin is very much a passion project of Michelle’s and mine, and we dug deep into the craft aspect when working with our designer Cecilia. Also, I loved that he gave a shout-out to our iterated designs that feature extra deep pockets, the model we internally nick-named The Deep-Pocketed One.

Here’s the blog post over on zephyrberlin.com.

Monthnotes for February 2018

M

What happened in February? I’m a little short on time today so let’s keep it short and sweet:

×

The National IoT Plan in Brazil has been published by the Brazilian National Development Bank (BNDES)—and it’s so good to see our ThingsCon & Mozilla Trustmark for IoT report picked up there.

I’m very, very happy (and to be honest, a little bit proud, too) that this report just got referenced fairly extensively. To learn more context, here’s Brazil’s National IoT Plan, concretely in Action Plan / Document 8B (PDF). (Here’s the post on Thingscon.com.)

This is exactly the kind of outsized impact I always strive and hope for.

×

We’re headed for a social media winter. I think we’re arriving in the post-social media era. It’s going to be interesting to see what’s next. My money is on small, private groups (think Whatsapp chats).

×

Less formal media: For somewhat more off-the-cuff, more personal takes and pointers come join my semi-personal newsletter, Connection Problem.

×

More formal media: For the first time in a long time, I have some things to advocate for (responsible IoT, trustmarks, etc.) and a story to tell. So I’m looking to improve my media presence beyond the occasional, fairly random interview or article. Still figuring out how to best go about it. Any pointers are welcome!

×

If you’d like to work with me in the upcoming months, please get in touch.

×

That’s it for today. Have a great March!

Welcome to the Post-Social Media Era

W

The last decade was the era of Social Media: Community-driven platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and even LinkedIn have completely changed the way we interact with, and perceive, the world.

(Purely anecdotally: I joined Twitter in 2006, about a year after it launched—and felt I was late to the game. Since then, I think I owe a great deal of my career to the people I met through Twitter.)

Societally, the impact of these platforms has been amazing: They have enabled communities to form, they allowed people with niche interests to find likeminded folks around the globe, and they have empowered groups to advocate and campaign for their causes globally without the need for traditional, large scale campaign infrastructure.

Social media also has made us all (with a caveat: some more than others) commentators, and active participants in the global media conversation. In the process, they allowed for real-time fact checking and commentary of media and politics. For a while, it seemed this was a bottom-up revolution that propelled society to more truth, easier access to facts and experts, and a more informed public.

Image (Public Domain): U.S. National Archives: Actual Demonstration by the Fire Department Training Station. Photographer: David Falconer.

And it has, to a degree. But at the same time, the same mechanics have also led to large scale harassment and fake news, and have helped undermine trust in journalism (aka “main stream media”) and political institutions like governments and political parties. Turns out tools aren’t neutral or a-political; and even if they were, Bad Guys are really savvy using tools for nefarious purposes.

By now, the combination and scale of fake news, harassment, and intransparent platforms with their black box algorithms are killing social media as we know it:

Social media first undermined the media’s and institutions’ credibility, and now their own. Facebook and Twitter (the platforms) are the tech world’s functional equivalent of main stream media; Facebook and Twitter (the companies) are the institutions.

In their place small, private groups thrive (think Whatsapp), but public social media has peaked.

We’re headed into a social media winter. The post-social era has begun.