The business world is almost as fad-ridden as the education
world, and one of the hot words in the last few years is "cloud" as
in "I'll get it from the cloud," or "We put all our data on the
cloud." In this sense, the
word means a set of Internet servers where your important data is archived so
that it is accessible from anywhere that has an Internet connection. The concept is increasingly vital to
commercial and institutional users worldwide, and makes sense in that
context. But as Scientific American columnist David
Pogue warns in the February issue, Apple and Microsoft are taking not-so-subtle
steps to force many individual users of their products onto the cloud. And I doubt that anyone reading this
column can avoid using Apple and Microsoft products without a lot of
inconvenience.
The situation, as I understand it, is basically this: suppose you have data that needs
continual updating on your portable gizmo (which can be an iPad, an iPhone, a
BlackBerry, one of those Android things, or you name it), and you'd also like
the same version of the same data on your laptop. In the old days, whenever you made changes on your calendar,
for example, you would then physically plug your portable device through a USB
cable or whatnot into your laptop and tell it to sync. That way, your laptop calendar would
agree with your handheld thingy's calendar and vice versa, and you wouldn't
find yourself at Aunt Mimi's when you were supposed to be having your teeth
cleaned. So far, so good.
Then the number of handheld devices proliferated, and so did
their operating systems, and so did the ways you can have laptops and towers
talk with portable systems (wireless, IR, Bluetooth, etc.), and at least
according to the manufacturers and their unofficial representatives, it just
got to be too hard to come up with proprietary software to sync absolutely every
portable thingamajig with each operating system for all the popular
computers. So they just said
forget it: the real data will sit on the cloud, where
we can keep track of it, and then all we have to do is make sure that every
piece of hardware (portable or not) can keep in touch with the cloud. And that solved the problem. . . .
But if you were used to firing up your old laptop and
plugging it into your BlackBerry that you've had since 2003, and you are
dead-set against keeping your data in a place that you know not where and you
know not when it might go down, you are now out in the cold and under the
cloud, so to speak. According to
Mr. Pogue, the latest operating systems from both Apple and Microsoft either
don't allow you to do hard-wired transfers without involving the cloud, or make
it so hard to do that you almost have to get a networking certificate from
Microsoft to know how to do it. A discussion thread on an Apple forum on
exactly this topic has been going on since last October, and has accumulated
150 pages of comments. So there
are more than a few people upset about this.
Call me Amish, but it doesn't affect me because my form of a
BlackBerry is a three-by-five card.
Or rather, many three-by-five cards. I suppose if you took all the three-by-five cards I've used
in the last decade and piled them up, they would make a stack high enough to
fall over and form the kind of mess my desk looks like some days. In fact, that may be why. . . anyway,
somehow I have survived thirty years of an occasionally intense professional
life with nothing more advanced than a laptop or two and a mobile phone that
you still have to use the numeric keypad for to send a text. It's so annoying to do it that way that
I hardly ever send texts, which is all right by me.
But seriously, this specific issue is an example of a more
general trend that organizations are following: a move toward exerting
increasing control of any computer that is connected to one of their
networks. For example, I spend
some time at the University of Texas at Austin. If I was using a University-provided laptop (which I'm not,
as it turns out), I would now have to make sure that all the data on it was
encrypted in accordance with a University-provided type of encryption software
so that if it happens to get stolen, the thieves can't run off with University
data. That makes sense from a
liability and security point of view—I have blogged on numerous scandals and
crimes that happened when someone took home a laptop full of supposedly secure
data—but it represents another intrusion, if you will, into a space that was
formerly rather private.
Of course, if the University owns the laptop, they get to
say what you can and can't do with it.
Privately owned computers connected to privately rented networks are
another matter, but then you still have to deal with Apple or Microsoft, and
their pressure to keep your stuff on the cloud will prove irresistible. The Star Trek Borg, a race of
cybernetic beings, liked to say "resistance is futile," but that was
only a TV show.
Personally, I don't see any real harm in letting Microsoft
know the details of my next dental appointment. And yes, those massive servers go down from time to time,
but then so does your laptop. I
admit that I would feel a certain kind of existential queasiness in entrusting
the only record of my professional schedule to some ethereal system that is everywhere
and nowhere, rather than having it in a tangible, solid form on pieces of paper
in my appointment calendar in my briefcase. (Yes, I do that the old-fashioned way too.) Maybe people living in the 1850s felt
the same way about the newfangled electromagnetic telegrams, and didn't really
trust them on an instinctive level as much as they would trust a letter written
by the hand of a friend they knew.
But they got used to trusting telegrams, and I suppose we will get used
to trusting the cloud, as long as our trust is not abused.
Sources: The online version of David Pogue's
article "The Curse of the Cloud" can be found at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/were-forced-to-use-cloud-services-but-at-what-cost/. I also referred to Wikipedia articles
on BlackBerry and Borg (Star Trek).
No comments:
Post a Comment