The Jammer Coat: High Fashion meets Wearable Technology & Privacy

You might not think the SumRando blog would be the ultimate source for high fashion.  For the most part, you would be right.  We wanted to share an interesting story about a concept related to wearable technology.  It's no secret that people are betting that a boom of wearable technology such as Google Glass is inevitable.  Wired Magazine recently did a cover story on the topic, and there are hosts of new startups looking to revolutionize technology on your body.

A new concept out of Vienna suggests wearable technology might start to be reflecting the diversity of potential consumers as it relates to privacy.  Just as some prefer slacks to jeans, wearable technology fashion could accommodate those who want to be more connected to others and those who want to remain undetectable.

Vienna-based Coop Himmelblau's Jammer Coat

Fast Company reports on a new "invisibility cloak for the digital age" out of Vienna.  They share, "Vienna-based architectural design firm Coop Himmelblau has come up with a CHBL Jammer Coat that lets you disappear, sort of. Unlike wearable tech like Google Glass, meant to better connect you to the world, the Jammer Coat makes you utterly untrackable."

Coop Himmelblau describes their Jammer Coat concept with the following:

"The CHBL Jammer Coat is a piece of clothing that enables its user to disappear: Google cannot find you anymore. The piece is made of metallized fabrics, which are blocking radio waves and shielding the wearer against tracking devices. You are no longer reachable on your mobile phone and no information from your credit card can be captured. The Wave Circle pattern of the fabric gives an illusion of strange multiple body parts, which hides and frees the individual physicality."

The Jammer Coat highlights an interesting parallel between transportable technology and wearable technology: The spectrum of privacy needs/desires and people's action's to carry out those desires.  Fashion in many ways acts as an interesting metaphor for people's preferences when it comes to the internet.  Certain services and routines are trendy ("fashionable"), which is why users will often go to great lengths -- or be willing to sacrifice a great deal -- in order to remain in step with the latest service.  Others are more selective about what technology they trust and use, amassing a set of tools and apps that seem attractive to like-minded people.

The Jammer Coat would shroud your devices from detection.

Jammer Coat is important because of the impending growth in wearable technology.  Just as good art and design should, Jammer Coat pushes us to examine or re-examine our contexts and the ways in which we view the world.  This piece might suggest to some that those of us concerned about privacy advocate for more Jammer Coats (though more colorful and more flattering) at the advent of widespread consumption of wearable technology.

What if by doing so we suggest a lack of privacy options is a wearable technology fashion faux pas?  The fear of your data being exposed is as real as the fear you've mismatched your outfit at work -- or, more fittingly -- left a zipper open.  Unfortunately, there are millions of "zippers down" today and too little messaging that leaving one's zipper down is not just a faux pas but a potentially destructive and dangerous mistake.

Is Iraq Gov’t Wrong to Block Access to Internet Amid Turmoil?

Mashable reports that the Iraq Ministry of Communications is actively blocking access to social media sites as militant groups like ISIL are using these sites to organize themselves.  Users have reported service blockages and the emergence of malware-infected VPNs advertised as ways to circumvent the government’s internet blockage.

The Ministry’s actions highlight a key question related to internet freedom: Does your stance change when the shoe is on the other foot?  In any situation where the government limits access to the internet, we could be universally opposed to any such action in that all people, regardless of their political affiliation or agenda, should have access to the internet in order to communicate and organize.  Supporting internet freedom universally is to adopt a “come what may” mentality about its potential.  It’s even easier if we do not believe those targeted are inherently bad actors or we believe the reason behind the action is flawed.

With Iraq, where the government seems to be directly censoring a potentially dangerous group (and indirectly censoring the larger public), our universal convictions might be called into question.   Mine are.  I recognize that once we start to support the suppression of certain groups’ ability to use the internet, quickly we become submerged in ethical quicksand.  I find myself fighting against the pull of that quicksand when it comes to a militant/terrorist groups like those the Iraqi government seems to be targeting with their blockage.

Where I felt the Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan acted far beyond his authority and arrogantly suppressed the voices of his dissenters this spring (and previously), I wonder now not if the Iraqi government’s actions had sufficient cause but rather if their actions in blocking the internet were the most effective means to stymie dangerous forces.  As someone deeply committed to open access, I feel somewhat unsettled to even entertain supporting a government for limiting access to the internet at all, even for security.

Erdogan’s supporters should rightfully push back on my logic since I’m exhibiting less than universal support for internet freedom or, as I’m thinking of it, an appetite for certain exceptions.  Admittedly, this appetite for exceptions is linked to security.  Erdogan would likely claim, even emphatically, his actions were in the name of security, meant to protect the Turkish people against the harm the internet and social media in particular can bring to the masses.  Unlike Erdogan’s crusade, which rallied against social media’s internet danger separate from specific actors, the Iraqi government’s decision to limit access to militant groups promoting propaganda (while still not clearly the most effective means to achieve this result) is different.  Where Erdogan’s actions were ideological, it’s possible the Iraqi government’s are far more situational.

Regardless of how we feel about targeted action taken by the Iraqi government, we must also recognize the larger implications of such action.  Just as the government is limiting this group’s ability to communicate and organize, they are limiting that of millions of other people.  The emergence of potentially compromised/unsafe VPNs and other circumventing tools are putting many at risk, at the hands of those the government initially targeted or other malicious actors and groups.  This is why I question whether the government’s actions were the most reasonable and effective to achieve their desired goals.

AP — Sadr City, Baghdad, June 21, 2014

What do you all think?

Should a government ever take actions like these, and under which circumstances?  Given what we know about the current situation in Iraq, did the Ministry of Communications make the right move?

2014 EMC Privacy Index: Consumer Privacy Desires, Expectations & Actions Conflict

The EMC Privacy Index released a study that "examines privacy perceptions of consumers around the world and creates a ranking of nations."  The 2014 study "surveyed 15,000 people in 15 countries to produce a ranking of nations based on consumer perceptions and attitudes about data privacy, and their willingness to trade privacy for greater convenience and benefits online."

One of the most interesting takeaways from the study is that consumer desires and expectations are often in conflict when it comes to internet privacy.  Without widespread adoption of privacy protections for consumers by large, industry-leading companies and with the continued development of government surveillance programs that infringe on users' privacy, the burden to ensure one's privacy often stands squarely on the shoulders of individual internet users.

In this environment, our users at SumRando VPN are actively taking control of their privacy with our easy-to-use and reliable solution for protected, undetectable browsing.  Even reading blog posts like this one is a step towards becoming someone who takes additional steps to protect themselves online rather rely on industry and government to protect your privacy interests.  

The 2014 EMC Privacy Index suggests that this type of individual initiative of our users is not the standard among internet users.  A majority of internet users (62%) do not take even basic steps such as changing their passwords regularly to protect their privacy online, while around half of internet users have experienced a data breach (email, mobile device, social media, etc.).

Users report low rates of privacy protection activities, suggesting the importance of passive privacy protections for users.

The index breaks down data based on users' various personas (at work, as consumer, as social media user, etc.) in full text or easy-to-digest infographics that additionally suggest we as users act differently given the task at hand or persona we embody.

Read more about the study's findings at the 2014 EMC Privacy Index website or read the Executive Summary they have posted.  Let us know what you think in the comments below.

Can Google's New End-to-End Push Industry Standards Forward?

Last week, when we supported the #ResetTheNet campaign, we provided our Gold VPN free for a month to encourage as many users as possible to start using a VPN or allow them to upgrade to one that was faster and more helpful.

The intent behind the RTN campaign was to encourage individuals to take action to protect themselves, but another main goal of the campaign was to encourage companies (like us) to help “reset” the complacency and lack of knowledge that characterizes internet privacy issues en masse.  Privacy experts like ACLU’s Ben Wizner have observed that while individual action can curb the harmful effects of invasive practices, it is industry that needs to take the lead on these matters.

Last week, Google participated in RTN with SumRando and other companies by unveiling a new solution that could help their users better encrypt their data.  Google has been the target of extensive criticism the past several years, but their new “End to End” Chrome extension seeks to make encryption easier for a larger group of users.  Given its size and market share, Google could help inspire other companies to follow suit.

Google's End-to-End Encryption Solution

But how viable is this to conquer the market?  As Information Week reports, End to End is not ready for mainstream use quite yet:

Google's encryption software is not yet ready for mainstream use. The company is offering it as alpha code so it can be tested. Those who find bugs in the code can submit them for a possible reward through the company's Vulnerability Reward Program.

When End-to-End is ready to be released, Google plans to offer it through its Chrome Web Store as a Chrome browser extension. End-to-End is based on OpenPGP, an open protocol for encrypting messages through public key cryptography.

Given how much Google relies on their customers’ data for ad use, they will likely employ strategies to maintain their strategic edge while better encrypting data.  IW shared the following:

Google's embrace of encryption will have a downside for the company: Messages encrypted on Google's servers cannot be scanned, eliminating their use as a source of ad-targeting data. However, given how much Google already knows about its users and the fact that it expects only the security-conscious minority to install its encryption software, the company's ability to target ads isn't likely to be much degraded.

Read more about Google’s new encryption solution at Information Week or Google's code hub.

Today is the Day: #ResetTheNet

Today is the day to #ResetTheNet, where internet users across the world take strong steps to ensure their privacy and security -- and those of others.  Companies like SumRando VPN are running specials, launching new products, and making public statements in support of increased privacy and against mass surveillance.

In honor of #ResetTheNet, you can sign up for our Gold VPN for 1 month FREE.  If you aren't using a VPN currently or you want to upgrade to our premium account, use the code RTNGOLD on our site.


Learn more about today's activities by checking out ResetTheNet.org.

Take Advantage of Our Special #ResetTheNet Gold VPN Promotion!

We are excited to be participating in Fight for the Future's #ResetTheNet campaign tomorrow, June 5.  At SumRando VPN, we believe in #RTN's message that individuals and companies should take strong steps to ensure their privacy and security online.  Leading up to tomorrow activities, we wanted to invite people to take strong individual action to protect themselves online.

We are offering 1 month of our VPN Gold Plan in honor of #ResetTheNet.  You can take us up on this offer by entering the code RTNGOLD after clicking here.  If you aren't currently using a VPN, try our Gold VPN for free, and if you're an existing user, upgrade to Gold for more features and faster service.

Learn more about #ResetTheNetIn addition to protecting yourself with our promotional Gold VPN, we encourage you to learn more about the larger #ResetTheNet campaign and other ways you and protect yourself and your customers, if you represent a company.  There are many commonsense ways to improve your security online that this campaign promotes, and many of these solutions are free of cost.

As the campaign unfolds, our team at SumRando VPN, we will keep you up-to-date with more coverage today and tomorrow on Twitter, Facebook, and here on our blog.