Visit our website
New America Cypbersecurity Initiative
New America Cypbersecurity Initiative
MIT Technology Review
MIT Technology Review
io9
io9
Techdirt
Techdirt
Knowledge@Wharton
Knowledge@Wharton
Bioscience Technology
Bioscience Technology
redOrbit
redOrbit
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Popular Science Blog
Popular Science Blog
Pew Research Center
Pew Research Center
Genomics Law Report
Genomics Law Report
Science 2.0
Science 2.0
The Guardian Headquarters
The Guardian Headquarters
Genetic Literacy Project
Genetic Literacy Project
Disclaimer

Statements posted on this blog represent the views of individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Center for Law Science & Innovation (which does not take positions on policy issues) or of the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law or Arizona State University.

Starbucks Challenge – October 2015

Each month we feature a technology with potential legal, social and/or ethical  implications and ask:

What’s YOUR answer?

One $25 Starbucks gift card card awarded per challenge based on what we feel is the most judicious response to the highlighted technology, below. 

Deadline to be eligible for this month’s Starbucks gift card is November 5, 2015.

The Internet of Things will allow us to spend less time thinking about things that need to get done and subsequently doing them.  Let the fridge figure out when it needs more milk and let it communicate with Safeway.  The garage door will sense when you are in the vicinity of the house and open, without human intervention.  Cars will be able to “speak” to each other, so who needs lights at intersections?  But think about this: what about the evildoers, humans or otherwise, who might write, program or code software to do nasty and unwanted things?  It is not difficult to imagine the dark side or fall-out from the Internet of Things, resulting in illegalities, social angst and confusion.  Do you think we should be concerned? If so, why?  If not, why not?  What types of systems might we develop to help ensure we stay ahead of potential abuses that will be difficult enough to discover, much less monitor?  What types should we avoid?  How effective might proactive systems be if we don’t know what the specific threats are – yet? Should we play the wait-and-see game? What’s your answer? Here is an article to help jump-start your response (note the article repeats itself, so it is not as long as it appears).