From Wiki IoT
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a Text property.

Pages using the property "CC9"

Showing 7 pages using this property.


DRM in Cars Will Drive Consumers Crazy +''"The problem extends beyond inconvenience. In plenty of cases, DRM has led to users losing altogether the ability to watch, listen to, read, or play media that can't be "authenticated." Video games with online components now routinely reach an end-of-life period where the company providing the authentication decides it's no longer worth it to operate the servers. That raises the frightening possibility of a company like Renault deciding that it's not cost-effective anymore to verify new batteries—and leaving car owners high and dry."''  +


Internet of Things. Applicazioni, sicurezza e riservatezza dei dati personali +''"La tendenza mostra che, anche senza un contatore intelligente, i dispositivi che ci stiamo portando in casa sono fin troppo “smart”. Vi ricordate il caso di LG dello scorso maggio? I possessori di una smart TV di LG si sono visti aggiornare il software, ma non per eliminare una vulnerabilità di sicurezza. L’interfaccia chiedeva all’utente di esprimere o declinare consenso, pena il non funzionamento dei servizi a valore aggiunto. Consenso per cosa? Vediamo: ''"Our Privacy Policy explains and seeks your agreement for how we collect, use, and share information that we obtain as a result of your use of LG Smart TV Services, as well as how we use cookies. You do not have to agree to the Privacy Policy but if you do not, not all Smart TV Services will be available to you. In that case, we will still receive certain non-identifying information from your Smart TV that we need to provide the basic functions that will be available"''. Aggiungo che il testo di cui sopra è stato trascritto manualmente leggendo dalla TV, perché non ne esiste una versione pubblicamente disponibile, nemmeno nel manuale cartaceo o sul sito di LG. Sì, è la stessa LG che pochi mesi prima era stata contestata perché ogni volta che si collegava un disco esterno o una chiavetta USB alla TV, l’elenco dei file ivi presenti veniva spedito ai server di LG. Tornando alla privacy policy, avete notato il passaggio in cui si dice che, indipendentemente dall’accettazione o meno delle condizioni, LG continuerà a raccogliere dati (non identificanti il possessore) per continuare a poter erogare le funzionalità essenziali?"'''  +, ''"Of course, there is always the “dumb” option. Users may have the ability to disable data collection, but it comes at a cost. The device will not function properly or allow the use of its high-tech features. This leaves consumers with an unacceptable choice between keeping up with technology and retaining their personal privacy."''  +


Opinion 8/2014 on the Recent Developments on the Internet of Things +''"In practice, users in the IoT tend to be locked to specific systems. Devices usually first send data to the device manufacturer, which then makes this data accessible to the user through a web portal or an app. This design allows manufacturers to provide online services that leverage the device capabilities, but it may also prevent users from freely choosing the service that interacts with their device. Additionally, today, end-users are rarely in a position to have access to the raw data that are registered by IoT devices. Clearly, they hold a more immediate interest in the interpreted data than in the raw data that may not make sense to them. Yet, access to such data can prove useful for the end-users to understand what the device manufacturer can infer from it about them. Also, availing of this raw data would give them a capacity to transfer their data to another data controller and switch services - for instance, if the original data controller changes its privacy policy in a way that does not satisfy them. Today, in practice, these persons have in practice no other possibility than to stop using their devices as most data controllers do not provide such functionality and provide access only to a degraded version of the stored raw data."''  +


Payment Method Design: Psychological and Economic Aspects of Payments +<u>We may try to apply this research to the current trend of the IoT market, in which - even if there is actually along-time relationship between the provider and the consumer - usually the payment is a lump-sum at the moment in which the consumer acquires the possession of the token that makes the service possible. Among the reasons for the business model chosen, there might be the consumer's ''pain of paying'': paying for the token could be considered the equivalent of a subscription, in which you pay once and for all, and in which therefore consumer's pain of paying is reduced. Businesses should thus prefer this form of payment, because - given that consumers prefer it, rather than pay-per-use (and also, as an intermediary step, periodical fees) - they will more willing to conclude the contract and subsequently to use the product frequently and for a long time. And - considering the fact that often the business model of the firm is focused on the collection of data rather than on the commercialization of the hardware - this kind of approach may be susceptible to foster a greater data collection. The problems are, however, that: 1) when physical objects are concerned, and consumers pay once and for all for them, they think to be able to use them permanently: even if the free paired service ceases to be provided after a period long enough to reward the sum paid for the hardware, consumers will claim against the supervened unusability of the product; 2) even if, unofficially, the sum is paid for the service, officially it is paid for the token: therefore, if the service ceases to be provided before a period of time sufficient to remunerate the lump-sum paid, nothing will be returned to the consumer, and usually the standard terms accompanying the product even state that the service could be discontinued at any time and for any reason. Someone may complain about the fact that, in the adaptation of this study to the IoT world, I have approached the periodical fees to the pay-per-use, considering the fact that - in traditional services - the opposite of pay per use is subscription (i.e. periodical fees; think about the flat rates paid to network operators). But traditional services have from the start been considered as "services", where the alternative payment methods could be subscription and pay-per-use (even in the world of contracts for Internet provision, where we have a service + a token - which is the router -, the router has always been seen as a tool to access the service); on the contrary, when dealing with the IoT, the products concerned are traditional items - which have always been subject alternatively to sale or rental - that suddenly become smart and susceptible of providing services: therefore, in consumers' view, the payment method consisting in periodical fees is not the payment method that reduces the most the pain of paying, because there is a further method which causes lesser pain, i.e. a lump-sum paid once and for all.</u>  +


Renault Introduces DRM For Cars +When you buy a Renault Zoe, the battery isn't included. Instead, you sign a rental contract for the battery with the car maker. In a Zoe owner's forum, user Franko30 reports that the contract contains a clause giving Renault the right to prevent your battery from charging at the end of the rental period. According to an article in Der Spiegel, the company may also do this when you fall behind on paying the rent for the battery.  +


The End of Ownership: Why You Need to Fight America's Copyright Laws +''"While this ushers in a whole new world of possibilities, it’s also redefining ownership. Because when you purchase a physical object, you don’t actually buy the software in it — that code belongs to someone else. If you do something the manufacturer doesn’t like — repair it, hack it, unlock it — you could lose the right to use “their” software in “your” thing. And as these lines between physical and digital blur, it pits copyright and physical ownership rights against each other."''  +


Unfair Contract Terms in European Law. A Study in Comparative and EC Law +Because of the difficulty to assess the unfair character of a term on the basis of the general definition of article 3, there is an Annex to the Directive 93/13/EEC, which contains an indicative and non-exhaustive list of unfair terms (p. 4: NEBBIA states that those clauses can be clustered in four categories: 1) terms giving a party the control of the terms of the contract or of the performance of the contract (i, j, k, l, m, p); 2) terms determining the duration of the contract (g, h); 3) terms restraining a party to have the same rights as the other (c, d, f, o); 4) exemption and limitation clauses (a, b, n, q)). <u>Clauses J (terms that enable the provider to alter the contract unilaterally without a valid reason) and G (terms that enable the provider to terminate a contract of indeterminate duration without reasonable notice) may be particularly useful in the context of IoT products. However, pay attention to the fact that paragraph 2 letter (b) of the Annex states: ''“Subparagraph (j) is also without hindrance to terms under which a seller or supplier reserves the right to alter unilaterally the conditions of a contract of indeterminate duration, provided that he is required to inform the consumer with reasonable notice and that the consumer is free to dissolve the contract”''.</u>  +