What are the contributions of the paper? The paper provides an introduction of the privacy issues in the field of Ubiquitous computing and develops six principles which can be used as the guidelines for privacy protection including: notice, choice and consent, proximity and locality, anonymity and pseudonymity, security, and access and recourse. For each of the principles, the paper discusses the advantages, disadvantages, assumptions, solutions and future enhancements. What is the quality of the presentation? The quality of the presentation is good. The structure of the papers is both clear and logical, and audiences can follow the flow of ideas easily. The paper uses both theoretical computing knowledge and real life examples to support the ideas and this makes the principles intuitive, precise and easily understood. What are the strengths of the paper? By providing the introduction of privacy protection history and legal status, the paper give rise to both the interests of audiences and the attention of the privacy issues of Ubiquitous computing. The paper does not only introduce each principle separately but also discuss the combinations of the principles, which can server as a whole to achieve better privacy protection. What are its weaknesses? The paper should talk more about the social impact/cost of privacy violation in the Ubiquitous system including: cause, possible attacks, cost and recovery methods. The author could associate the principles with each cases so that audiences can have a better understanding the real implementations of the principles. What is some possible future work? The author can have further investigations on the implementations of the principles including: technologies to be used, cost analysis, handling exceptional cases, necessary legislation issues and the cooperations amoung government, computing industry and customers. ============================================================================= This paper presents a very comprehensive discussion of the privacy issues faced by computer scientists today. While the theme of the paper is privacy in pervasive computing, it sheds light on many different areas such as databases and AI where privacy issues seem to originate from. The paper does an excellent job of summarizing what we, as a civilization, have learnt so far regarding the costs and benefits of privacy and underscores the critical principles on which to come to compromises in the design of future privacy aware systems (may they be ubiquitous or otherwise). And finally, the reason why I found the paper exceptionally enjoyable is that without attempting to provide a limited answer to the question of privacy vs. ubiquity it lays down the groundwork on which it should be answered. It asks many open questions which may not have any answers but more importantly they provide a basis for intellectual discussion on the issues that need to be addressed by researchers of today. ============================================================================= For some reason I have been seized with the idea that dealing with privacy issues is mainly a topic considered by law makers, so this paper looks rather legal system oriented than computer science based. Nonetheless, it is a great paper on taking a close look at the privacy issues involved in ubiquitous or pervasive computing and the designing of the principles and guidelines of privacy aware ubiquitous systems. The structure of the paper is simple and elegant, and I found that in particular the elaborations of the backgrounds and implications of privacy and ubiquitous computing are very helpful in terms of understanding the need of privacy-aware ubiquitous systems. (It is interesting to know that some people advocate a privacy-free world). The author contributes the design principles and guidelines, based on the fair information practices, for the main areas that cover most of the privacy aspects of ubiquitous systems---systems that implement privacy without compromising the availability of data. However, I believe that there are more possible solutions to the problems listed in each area to be discovered. This paper serves as a guidance to the to-be-explored huge problem and solution domains of ubiquitous computing on privacy issues. ============================================================================= * What are the contributions of the paper? The major contributions of this paper is giving the six principles for guiding system design, which are notice, choice and consent, proximity and locality, anonymity and pseudonym, security, and access and resource. It is true that we can protect our privacy according to these principles. Sometimes, it will make the protection work easier by using them. * What is the quality of the presentation? It is really hard to say the quality of this paper because it is neither a survey paper nor a technical paper. I think we can consider it as an introduction paper, which is suitable to every reader, no matter what he/she focuses on. If we consider it as this, it has a good quality. For example, in the Part 2 (Privacy), it talks lots about different Privacy Law and Acts, which is the basis of all the current protection work. Those can be the guide for computer researchers. * What are the strengths of the paper? First, it detailly analysis many privacy laws, which can guide the researchers to work. Also, in some description of the privacies, there are some points relating to the privacy protection work, such as Convenience in Page 5, which tells us what kinds of information are worth protecting. Second, it mentions some technologies in other areas can be used in ubiquitous area. And, summarize the main difference between ubiquitous computing and other computer science domain, which can be used as a guide to distinguish what kinds of technologies can or can not be used in ubiquitous. Third, the six principles given by the paper are powerful to guide the system design. Forth, every idea and principle in this paper is well defined and explained. (Sometime, maybe too much.) * What are its weaknesses? It did not give any technology, just some possible suggestions, which let me think this paper was not written by a computer researcher. It writes too much about the histories of the privacy laws so that this paper can not attract the computer researchers. The paper should give more examples to support those six principles. Maybe some diagrams will be helpful. * What is some possible future work? The author and other computer researchers can use those six principles as a guide to implement some ubiquitous protocol. By these, if it is successful to implement, then the author or others can make a guider book for future developing by using these six rules. ============================================================================= What are the contributions of the paper? This paper gives us an introductory reading to privacy issues in the field of ubiquitous computing. The most outstanding contribution of the paper is that it gave us a principle and guideline of the privacy-awareness when designing ubiquitous systems. Based on a set of fair information practices common in most privacy legislation in use today, the author presented six main areas of innovation and system design for future research on which ubiquitous computing would need to focus. These areas are notice, choice and consent, anonymity and pseudonymity, proximity and locality, adequate security, access and resource. What is the quality of the presentation? The quality of the presentation is very good, because there is not mathematic equation in the paper that would be hard and abstract to understand. When the author explains what he wants to express and what seems to be hard to the readers, he makes a corresponding analogy that is easy to understand (e.g. coffee cup). Besides, the organization of this paper is clear. The author gives a brief history of privacy protection at the beginning, and then discusses historical legal issues and its expected utility as background information. After that, the author presents the six principles for guiding system design. What are the strengths of the paper? First of all, the principles the author gave are comprehensive, so it contains all aspects regarding privacy. That ascribes to the mass of background materials. In addition, the author didn’t simply talk about privacy issues, when designing systems. He associated the privacy issues with social implications and legal issues, and emphasizes on whether it is implementable when designing a system (e.g. power consumption and connectivity problems). What are its weaknesses? In my opinion, if the author could give some pictures to illustrate his ideas, it would achieve better effect for his expression. In addition, the paper gave a high level presentation, did not address solutions for some specific privacy issues. What is some possible future work? We need to continue to explore new principles when designing privacy-aware ubiquitous systems, because the new technology is emerging day after day. Therefore, we don’t know if and when personal data collection by new technological devices (or sensors) erodes privacy. ============================================================================= # What are the contributions of the paper? The main contribution of # this paper are 6 basic principles for guiding system # design,especially in ubiquitous systems. Those principles would give # ubiquitous system designers a privacy-protection in mind when # designing and planing their works. Besides, it helps us to # understand the legal and social issues and their effects on privacy # protection in ubiquitous systems. What is the quality of the # presentation? The presentation is clear and well-organized. The # paper structure is coherent and easy to follow. What are the # strengths of the paper? The author did a very good research on legal # privacy matters and showed us some people's interesting arguments on # why privacy protection is not really necessary. Each suggested # principle in the paper is analyzed carefully, many good and # understandable examples are given for explaining and demonstrating # terms and issues the paper mentions.The proposed principles # effectively exploits features of ubiquitous systems. Besides # suggested principles, the paper also recommends some very good # appoaches on how to implement them in real life. # What are its weaknesses? Even though showing us some reasons why # privacy protection is not really necessary, but the paper doesn't # mention any reason why privacy protection is actually vital. The # locality principle is not described very clearly in the paper, # however , this principle is kind of too restricted and it doesn't # really prevent information unwantedly distributed, especially with # nowaday technology (a person who gathers information in a place no # matter where it is easily spreads it to everyone else). The paper # basically proposes 6 principles, however, the paper doesn't mention # any possible problem that applying those principles into system # designing might reduce the utility and convenience of ubiquitous # systems. What is some possible future work? Besides those 6 # principles, is there any other principle which is equivalent for # privacy protection in ubiquitous systems ? More experiments needed # to be done in order to prove the correctness of those principles. # Is it gonna be hard or easy to implement those principles in real # ubiquitous systems ? ============================================================================= What are the contributions of the paper? -Provided some background history and legal issues of privacy -Provided areas of ubiquitous computing that raise concern in privacy issues. -Propose some possible solution to those problems such as: robot.txt-like announcements and devices detecting if owner's in proximity What is the quality of the presentation? -Over all is good, although I found the author tries to cover too much in this paper so I felt that it seems to jump around topics. What are the strengths of the paper? -Lots of new ideas and they are all very interesting. -Althought the scenerios describled in the paper are very far from reachable in the near future, the issues and solutions seem valid. What are its weaknesses? -Aside from trying to cover too much different aspect, there isn't alot of weaknesses. What is some possible future work? -Futher investigate each of the area described. -The argument about the all-remembering coffee mug v.s. a friend with good memory sounds interesting. May be a study of people willingness have a conversation with say: A stranger A stranger with relatively good memory A stranger who likes to take notes of converstations A stranger who records conversations.....etc ============================================================================= his paper gives an introduction to privacy in ubiquitous computing. The author developed six principles for guiding a system design in the field of ubiquitous computing, namely, notice, choice and consent, proximity and locality, anonymity and pseudonymity, security, and access and recourse. Also the author supplies the paper with privacy in ubiquitous computing from three perspectives, history, legal status, and expected utility. The author also mentioned four reasons that privacy in ubiquitous computing deserved addetional attention including ubiquity, invisibility, sensing and memory amplification. The author presented the paper in such a way that it gives the reader an idea about basic privacy in ubiquitous computing. This paper provides six focused points to get a good privacy solution. One of the strength of this paper is that it gives guidelines to any organization about how to deal with their customers’ information. From Customers side, this paper clarifies what information customers look for when they deal with an organization for the first time. The idea of proximity is hard to be applied in many scenarios. The author did not mention the role of the government regarding privacy protection. ============================================================================= The paper is a great introductory reading about privacy in ubiquitous systems. It elaborates the issue from many perspectives, such as history, law, technology and etc. The presentation is very good. It could be better if there are some figures. The strength of the paper is its comprehensiveness. It addresses the privacy issues in ubiquitous computing from many perspectives that many people may have not thought about. The paper also summaries the principles and guidelines for designing privacy and explains their pros, cons, and difficulties to achieve these principles in ubiquitous systems. However, as an introductory reading, the paper does not talk much about the current progress and the direction of the frontier research in this area. How do people in academia look at this issue? How do people in industry look at this issue? Is ubiquitous computing achievable from the perspective of science and engineering? As an introductory reading, the future work might be to summarize and report the current research results. Are there any exciting and groundbreaking progresses? People are eager to know. ============================================================================= What are the contributions of the paper? This paper develops six guidelines for designing privacy-aware ubiquitous systems: notice, choice and consent, proximity and locality, anonymity and pseudonymity, security and access and recourse, balancing the privacy practices and goals with the convenience and technical feasibility. It also gives the background on privacy. A brief history shows how the primary focus of privacy has changed according to technological development. Additionally, the author reviews two influential pieces of privacy legislation, the US Privacy Act of 1974 and the "Directive", and their impact on the design of data processing systems. What is the quality of the presentation? The structure is clear and has good transitions. What are the strengths of the paper? This paper is thought invoking. It provides computer scientists the legal issues surrounding privacy, and calls on them to follow the well-established principles when design ubiquitous systems, and drive technology into a responsible direction. When giving the six principles, the author considers both its technical feasibility in the context of ubiquitous computing, enumerating possible devices or mechanisms, but also the convenience or inconvenience associated with them. What are its weaknesses? Although it is a introductory level reading, the introductions of principles and guidelines should be fulled developed. Some guidelines (e.g. Access and Recourse) lack in-depth analysis. What is some possible future work? One of the possible future work is to apply these guidelines to the design and implementation of the ubiquitous systems. ============================================================================= The main contribution of this paper is to present some principles to be followed (or at least be aware of) when designing ubiquitous computing systems. Among them: notice, choice and consent, proximity and locality, anonymity and pseudoanonymity, security, and access and recourse. Concerning the quality of the presentation: the paper is well organized and well written, however, I think the author could have written a better conclusion, which could summarize better the content of the paper. What makes this paper strong is the comprehensive analysis of the principles, which includes a future vision of the world and how the computer systems might interact, as well as the social implications of such a modern and "ubiquitous" world. Furthermore, I personally really liked the several examples the author gives in each of the principles discussed. On the other hand, I think that the paper suffers from a European view. In order to make a more comprehensive analysis, I think that such a work could consider the point of view from people of the different continents and cultures, making the principles still stronger. Since this paper is an introductory reading to privacy issues in ubiquitous computing, I think that this work could be expanded by building some real cases models, and deeply analysing such models. This analysis could consider implementing such models in different countries and be analysed by several research groups. From this study may result material enough for the elaboration of a book, which in turn would give a great contribution in the privacy and ubiquitous computing areas. ============================================================================= The main contributions of this paper are to provide a background in the concepts of privacy and ubiquitous computing, and to set forth a set of principles and guidelines to feasibly provide privacy in a ubiquitous computing environment. The paper gives a lot of background and history of the concept of privacy then provides some information on the social implications of ubiquitous computing. The principles of giving notice when data about a person is being collected, making sure that people have a choice and give consent to have data recorded about them, giving people the option of being anonymous or pseudo anonymous to the system, limiting the range of where the data collected by the system can be used, providing the appropriate level of security for the data collected, and how access and repudiation should be applied in the system are all discussed. The overall quality of the presentation was excellent. The paper was very easy to read and could actually be read straight through and easily understood. The sections of the paper progressed logically from one topic to the next, and a great amount of background information was given. The paper didn’t have any diagrams, but truthfully, the way the material was presented didn’t really require them. The paper had many strengths. The largest of these, as mentioned above, was probably the detail that went into the background information given, which really helped in understanding where the principles and guidelines presented in the bulk of the paper were based. The principles and guidelines presented in the paper also seemed to be quite well thought out, and don’t seem like they would be unrealistic to implement. The use of recurring examples (like the “coffee cup” example) helped illustrate the points being made while not forcing the reader to envision a new scenario for every point. This helped to keep the paper flowing smoothly. Finally, showing how the principles given are implemented in current internet privacy systems (such as discussing how P3P gives notice on the world wide web) gave a good reference point from which to view the principles. There were really only two main weaknesses to this paper. The first of which is related to the length of the background information on privacy. The detail certainly was appreciated since it gave a good reference point from which to discuss privacy issues in ubiquitous systems, but the sheer length of this section seemed a little excessive, taking up nearly half the paper. Some sections about the history of privacy probably could have been omitted and paper would have been equally understandable. Second, while the principles and guidelines given in the paper do seem solid, there is no real discussion for their technical application. Even though this paper is meant to simply be a set of guiding principles, some technical information would have been nice. Obviously, the main future work derived from this paper would be to develop a prototype ubiquitous computing environment which actually implements the principles discussed. Having practical test results of these principles being applied would definitely be the next step in proving their validity. ============================================================================= What are the contributions of the paper? The author did an excellent job in making this paper an introductory reading on privacy issues in ubiquitous computing. In stead of making yet another definition on the hard to define term privacy, the authors discuss privacy from three angles: its history, legal status and utility. The author argues that the degree of privacy protection with ubiquitous computing should be sitting on the middle ground of zero-privacy and total privacy. The authors also suggested 6 guiding principles that the future research on privacy protection in ubiquitous computing should focus on. What is the quality of the presentation? The paper is well organized. As a wonderful introductory reading, the paper is organized in a very good flow: first gives the readers a feeling on privacy issues and then talks about the social impact posted by ubiquitous computing and finally suggests some guiding principles. The writing is easy to read and understand. What are the strengths of the paper? The author brought up some very interesting questions in the discussion of privacy protection versus feasibility, convenience, social benefit, information symmetry from social point of view. I also like most of the interesting examples given in this paper. The six guiding principles in privacy protection are very useful in my opinion and should be taken into serious considerations during the design of ubiquitous computing systems. What are its weaknesses? Some examples used in this paper are not accurate and not likely to exist in reality in the future, say spy coffee-cup, recording cloth. The paper somehow gives me the fear that our environment in the future will be filled up with next generation sensors capable of high quality audio and video recording. Actually I believe that a bigger threaten to privacy with ubiquitous computing is not audio/video, but tracking and information leaking from smart devices. What is some possible future work? I especially like the ideal of anonymity and pseudonymity. Actually, for example, as long as my real identity can not be identified by others, I don't care if my coffee mug or the sensors along DC hallway knows that there is a person who goes to the coffee shop ten times a day. I think how to break the linking of devices to person or hiding the real identify of device owners by anonymity or pseudonymity might be a good direction for future research for the privacy protection in ubiquitous computing. Also I feel that the degree of consent/authentication should really tight with the amount and the sensitivity of information that I or my smart devices are going to disclosure. ============================================================================= What are the contributions of the paper? The paper's primary contribution is an overview of privacy principles identified in key privacy legislation with a view to their applicability to ubiquitous computing settings. It serves as an introduction to the legal issues involved and describes how they might be addressed in this context. It also makes a few suggestions about how these privacy principles may be implemented in current technologies. Finally, it gives a starting-off point for thinking about how these privacy issues interact with the technology and how both may have to change to accommodate each other. What is the quality of the presentation? The presentation is of reasonably high quality. The key issues and main points are clear. Examples are used to make some of the more abstract concepts concrete. However, grammatical mistakes make the wording of many sentences awkward. What are the strengths of the paper? It provides a clear introduction to the key issues. The background and historical discussion give the reader insight into how current laws and ideas about privacy evolved in relation to the technological changes of the time and suggest how future ideas may evolve from today's technological changes. What are its weaknesses? One possible weakness of the paper is that it provides little in the way of really practical advice for ubiquitous system designers and implementors. It seems instead to be meant as a jumping-off point for considering privacy issues. What is some possible future work? As the paper states, the privacy issues in ubiquitous computing are just starting to be addressed. There is much room for future work on both the theoretical and practical sides of the issue. On the theoretical side, there is a rich new world of possibilities for computer scientists, legal scholars and social scientists to explore in determining how technological advancements will change what information we can gather about people, how we can gather it, what laws should govern it, and how much information people are willing to give up. The very idea of what is private and what is public information may be changed by these technologies. Also, there is much work to be done on the practical side of actually taking these principles and investigating how and even whether they can be applied to different systems in practice. ============================================================================= * What are the contributions of the paper? Discusses principals * of privacy in the coming years as ubiquitous computing takes * hold. Its model is very realistic and illustrates a sort of * bike-lock mentality: wanting to keep honest people honest. As * computing get small they will find many uses for illegal * surveilance, but its important to keep people who just want to * use their devices, and as the example suggests, forget them * somewhere, from accidently inheriting a wealth of private * data. It begins with privacy law implementation in US and EU and * clearly shows a preference for EU law (which I too now have). It * shows two mentalities, where EU has strong privacy law, but * people are eager to hand their privacy to them for their own * good, a stronger trust in their government, where such trust can * be earned. EU formerly kept phone call registers, but they were * made on a request only basis following WWII, when the nazi used * phone records to round out potential dissidents, communists, and * jews as they rampaged through europe. Clearly, EU has had more * extreme lessons of the importance of privacy whereas US sees * only benefit in mass comsumerism by having no customer privacy. * It then talks about a few main principals that should be applied * to ubiquitous design in the future. By using proximity then * recording devices are no more of a threat than having every * single conversation you make be on-the-record, instead of every * conversation you make being heard by people not present * What is the quality of the presentation? Very interesting * paper. The topic matter is interesting and well * written. Examples used such as gossiping in a small town to show * the effects of locality illustrate well the idea. Use of smart * coffee cups and other examples make the paper humourous without * distracting from the main point. In fact it adds to it: * ubiquitous computing is coming and it will be rediculous! * Citations occur mainly when discussing various privacy laws in * the EU and US. However, for most of the sections involving * actual subject matter there are almost no citations. For * example, Ian Goldberg's work with Zero-Knowledge is discussed * uncitedly. Also, it does not mention any future work. Many * ideas are suggested, such as proximity and locality, but no * algorithms or protocols are suggested and no research into such * things are mentioned, or indeed cited. The reader is left with a * glimpse into the future with no where to look for more depthful * research into a single topic. An introductary paper such as this * one should try harder to guide the reader towards a greater * wealth of resources relating to specific topics in which they * may now be interested. * What are the strengths of the paper? Really interesting * work. It creates an image of a future world where computers are * so cheap and omnipresent that you have to assume that there is * always one present. Moreover, its a basic assumption that * everything you say and do will be recorded by a person present, * for good or bad. The pace of the paper is well, it suceeds in * introducing the field of ubiquitous computing. Providing a brief * history of privacy laws is a good idea because it provides the * field with a goal of reasonable privacy to which it should * strive. Changing the law because the devices won't cooperate is * not a solution, banning the offending devices is. for example: * radar detectors interfere with the law, so they are banned. It * is also good that they reinforce that ubiquitous computing * cannot trump people who choose privacy. Thus ubiquitous devices * must be able to avoid tracking people who opt out. It certainly * makes it interesting problem because not tracking someone is a * form of tracking them. Using anonymity is a solution it * mentions, and it also clearly shows the risk that so much data * is publically available and cross-referencable that much care * must be taken when collecting even anonymous data. It also * discusses how if very few people opt for anonymity, then they * lose their anonymity entirely (and moreover, might be thought of * as suspicious!) The focus on the privacy principals is well * done, as the problems, such as getting consent and notice are * clearly manditory, but the fact that they are unavoidably hard * to solve in practise is well illustrated. The idea of walking * down the street and being warned that dozens of things are * violating my privacy and me having to permit them is absurd. * However, the use of proxity and locality are well argued. By * only letting devices work when their owner is present is a * splendid solution to accidentally leaving behind surveilance * devices, however many more solutions will be necessary as the * actual devices and attacks become clear. As for a field * introduction it was very informative and intersting. * What are its weaknesses? N.B. Most of these weaknesses I * provide deal with ubiquitous computing combined with an * adversary, and it says the principals are for protecting against * accidental privacy violations. However in its abstact it says it * is an introductory reading to privacy issues and thus should * have at least mentioned these problems. It takes for granted that governements will insist on privacy laws and thus private industry will naturally accept these laws. This field will likely required some intense activism and lobbying, which the business sector already has an advantage (they are already doing it!). The EU provides hope for similar laws, but recently has been undermining their position. They started automatically generating phone call lists again, and Britian is making ID cards manditory. How do you police this? Manditory RFID cards and police scanning? Police could patrol and aim a scanner at anyone, fetching their ID and crosslinking it to their police record instantly, or use datamined statistics that have been precomputed to present a threat level a random person poses, and perhaps follow them around. People who innocently correlate well may find themselves harassed moreoften. Additionally, the US is currently a worse violator of public privacy than it has been in recent memory. Is trusting the government to always act with noble interests ever a wise course of action? Certainly there are a number of countries in which I would never want to be a political prisoner, whereas I trust this country to afford me a great deal more freedom of speech, however absolute power corrupts absolutely. With locality, it is still possible that any government body could form a warrent and enter into an building to hear the transgressions. It also shows no concern for having every conversation catalogued and documented, instead seems to accept it as: the future. When everyone's words recorded by everyone, perhaps a toolkit can arrive that allows searching through voice for words, and arranging them to produce a dialog of the person's choice, and using techniques in sound (not yet developed) to link the words in a natural way. This would allow all conversations that alledgedly happened to be plausibly denied, and result in data collection devices only to be used for their intended purpose, to record your thought and conversations for later personal recollection. Locality makes applied sense, "what happens in vegas, stays in vegas", but it doesn't really provide any assurances of privacy. If conversations you make can only be repeated in the same room they occured, then you can only protect conversations in your own office. What if someone breaks into it? or places a device that actuates the recording and creates its own recording of what it hears? How will you manage to get someone else to participate in a controvertial conversation, when both parties will want ownership and access control? What if the doorknob hears? will it be able to tell people on the other side? It is nice that they reinforce that idea that 'take it or leave it' is not a good or socially beneficial strategy, however I'm left with the concern that this is the evenvitable result. If I'm walking down the street and my cell phone warns me that someone is walking with a voice recording, how can I not permit it? by not walking on the street or demanding they turn it off? Surely banning such devices on public street is a better solution for all involved, but the computer retail industry will not favour such a solution. Moreover, how can I know who is using it without violating their privacy? If I'm walking behind them I'd want to know that its not an ephereal event (i.e. they walk by me the other way and are gone) which I might otherwise ignore. If my phone is on quiet, how will I be able to give informed consent. Useful that it does not try to prevent ubiquitous computing to be used for evil, as all technology will and it is hard to safeguard against it. However, perhaps it is in the publics interest that companies look and consider the effects of their products on society before releasing it. If surveillance equiptment can be used for bad things, then perhaps its best to just not mass produce such devices than let any hacker with free time break a system. Ubiquitous computing is only enitable because of the free market will ensure cheap tiny computers when they are high demand, but if the devices never reach the market then their price will be unaffordable except to those who really want to use such a device. And if they spend that much money so they can spy then it must be something really worth spying. But if anyone can buy devices that are as inconspicious as a coffee cup and then hack them to be surveilance equiptment then there is so much potential for abuse, that maybe something should be done regarding the legality of these devices become they become ubiquitous and cheap. It mentions that if knowledge is public than it cannot be a weapon in a small few, but does not mention the crime that could result if peoples locations where known and broadcasted publically, even as just surveillance cameras showing a family out and about. Perhaps it assumes that the burgalers too will be recorded. This would have great impacts on society, random and violent crime could become something of the past, leaving only white collar crime and crimes of passion. If someone was being made a victim of a crime, a simple mayday signal could find the perp's signal of their ID card, alert the authorities, etc. Even just record the time and place and have all those who are around flagged for questioning. This wouldn't stop a crime at the time, but it would guarentee that the perp would get caught, which may be sufficient of a deterrant to stop all but crimes of passion. Emotional detectors may be recording a person emotional activity, and then lawyers will argue the person was temporarily insane from emotions and unable to act responsible (belive it or not, but its held up in court where a murderer was deemed to be provoked to kill a homosexual because the homosexual made an advance on him, and because the reaction of murder was so disproportional to the provokation of homosexual flirting, and he was a despicable bigot, the murdered was deemed temporarily insane and not guilty of murder). At any rate, the great effect that ubiquitous computing will have on crime was not explored in this paper. * What is some possible future work? Much future work. This was a * predictive paper of the future when computing power is trivially * priced, made enevitable by free markets: eg. digital cameras, * once prohitively expensive, are now used instead of balls for * mice. Some examples were presented where unknown conversations * were recorded, and solutions involving proximity were the best * solution. Algorithms for proximity and locality of data must * then be developed. Unexpected results of ubiquitous computing * need some serious development, especially since many clever side * channel attacks could likely be developed when a set of * seemingly unrelated ubiquitous devices interact. This field will * be more explored when ubiquitous computing devices actually * reach the market place and everyone wears a personal computer to * some effect. Also, much research into what those devices might * be, tasks they will perform and how they will intercommunicate * without interference can be researched. Specifically, humans * will want to limit the number of devices they must carry, and so * all their required needs should be performed in a combined * manner. However, not everyone will want everything, and * certainly not be able to afford it all, and with anticompetition * laws means that a random collection of devices may need to * interoperate. Recorders that use a central storage means that a * standard interface for connection, communication, interaction, * authorization, and even safe remote method invocation must be * developed. This needs to be able to extend to perform any action * that could be available in any device that may connect and * operate with any other device, that is forwards * compatible. Stardards organizations will take care of this, * however it is a really interesting problem. Perhaps medical * research will also ensue if it is correlated that extreme rises * in cancer has started with the invention of RF and the vast * quantities of telecommunications that are performed in and * around people without any longterm studies having been performed * priorly to the potential health risks (think smoking was * completely safe until it found out that it wasn't).