General Motors has made a flurry of announcements around its Maven mobility brand for car sharing and its investment in Lyft. The latest news, first reported by re/code, is that Lyft and Maven will be rolling out a short-term rental program for Lyft drivers to use Chevy Equinoxes in Chicago later this month. The program is called Express Ride.
Continue reading “GM in the Middle of Mobility Muddle”
10nm SRAM Projections – Who will lead
At ISSCC this year Samsung published a paper entitled “A 10nm FinFET 128Mb SRAM with Assist Adjustment System for Power, Performance, and Area Optimization. In the paper Samsung disclosed a high density 6T SRAM cell size of 0.040µm[SUP]2[/SUP]. I thought it would be interesting to take a look at how this cell size stacks up to 6T SRAM cells we have seen to-date and some projections for what other companies 10nm 6T SRAM cell sizes might be.
[TABLE] align=”center” border=”1″
|-
| style=”width: 71px” |
| style=”width: 60px” | 45nm
| style=”width: 60px” | 32nm/
28nm
| style=”width: 66px” | 22nm/
20nm
| style=”width: 66px” | 16nm/
14nm
|-
| style=”width: 71px” | Intel
| style=”width: 60px” | 0.3460
| style=”width: 60px” | 0.1710
(32nm)
| style=”width: 66px” | 0.0920
(22nm)
| style=”width: 66px” | 0.0588
(14nm)
|-
| style=”width: 71px” | Samsung
| style=”width: 60px” | 0.3700
| style=”width: 60px” | 0.1490/
0.1200
| style=”width: 66px” | NA
| style=”width: 66px” | 0.0640
(14nm)
|-
| style=”width: 71px” | TSMC
| style=”width: 60px” | 0.2420
| style=”width: 60px” | 0.1270
(28nm)
| style=”width: 66px” | 0.0810
(20nm)
| style=”width: 66px” | 0.0700
(16nm)
|-
|-
| style=”width: 71px” |
| style=”width: 60px” | 45nm
| style=”width: 60px” | 32nm/
28nm
| style=”width: 66px” | 22nm/
20nm
| style=”width: 66px” | 16nm/
14nm
|-
| style=”width: 71px” | Intel
| style=”width: 60px” | 0.3460
| style=”width: 60px” | 0.1710
(32nm)
| style=”width: 66px” | 0.0920
(22nm)
| style=”width: 66px” | 0.0588
(14nm)
|-
| style=”width: 71px” | Samsung
| style=”width: 60px” | 0.3700
| style=”width: 60px” | 0.1490/
0.1200
| style=”width: 66px” | NA
| style=”width: 66px” | 0.0640
(14nm)
|-
| style=”width: 71px” | TSMC
| style=”width: 60px” | 0.2420
| style=”width: 60px” | 0.1270
(28nm)
| style=”width: 66px” | 0.0810
(20nm)
| style=”width: 66px” | 0.0700
(16nm)
|-
6T SRAM cell size versus node (µm[SUP]2[/SUP]).
Looking at this data you can see that at 45nm and 20nm TSMC led and at 28nm Samsung led (the leaders at each node are in bold). At 16nm TSMC chose to take a conservative approach and leverage their 20nm process pitches for their first FinFET resulting in a larger SRAM cell size than would otherwise have been expected. Intel very aggressively scaled their process and took the lead.
I have taken 6T SRAM cell size data for Intel back to 130nm, Samsung back to 90nm and TSMC back to 130nm and plotted SRAM cell size versus node. Using a power law to fit the curves the R[SUP]2[/SUP] values are >0.98 for Intel and TSMC and >0.97 for Samsung clearly indicating a very good fit. Using the resulting equations, I have projected Intel and TSMC 10nm 6T SRAM cell sizes. For Intel I project a 6T SRAM cell of 0.0284µm[SUP]2[/SUP] and for TSMC of 0.0238µm[SUP]2[/SUP].
Assuming TSMC returns to their historical SRAM trends they will once again have the smallest SRAM cell size. This may be optimistic because Intel is expected to have a smaller contacted gate pitch and minimum metal pitch than TSMC at 10nm. In fact, we expect TSMC’s 7nm process to have similar pitches to Intel’s 10nm process. We should note here that TSMC is expected to begin ramping 10nm at the end of 2016 and they are targeting the end of 2017 for a 7nm ramp. With Intel delaying 10nm to 2017 TSMC’s 7nm and Intel’s 10nm may be ramping around the same time.
The bottom line is based on my analysis the Samsung 10nm 6T SRAM cell size looks significantly larger than what I would expect from Intel and TSMC.
Shifting Asia Electronics Production
Japan emerged as the largest supplier of consumer electronics in the 1980s. The Japan surge was driven by lower cost labor than in the U.S. and Europe as well as innovative products from companies such as Sony, Toshiba and Panasonic (formerly Matsushita). By the 1990s much consumer electronics production shifted to South Korea with even lower cost labor and the growth of companies such as Samsung and LG (formerly Lucky Goldstar). Also in the 1990s Taiwan became a major source of production of computers and peripherals.
In the 21st century China has become the dominant source of electronics production. Initially China electronics production was primarily done by subsidiaries or partners of Japanese, South Korean, U.S. and European electronics companies seeking lower cost labor. China-based companies such as Lenovo, Haier, and Huawei have now become major producers. China will continue as the dominant electronics producer for the foreseeable future. Its population of over 1.3 billion will provide a long term source of low cost labor. However several Southeast Asia countries are growing their electronics industries rapidly.
The table below shows major Asian electronics production countries with labor force, literacy rate, GDP per capita, exports of computer and telecom equipment and economic freedom rank. Each country has been assigned an outlook based on our assessment at Semiconductor Intelligence.
The labor force size shows the upper limit on electronics production workers. The literacy rate suggest the education level of the labor force. The countries are ranked by GDP per capita, which is related to the labor cost in each country. Electronics exports reflect the overall electronics production of each country. The economic freedom rank connotes the ease of doing business.
Taiwan, Japan and South Korea have relatively high labor costs which makes growth in electronics manufacturing unlikely, thus they are assigned a down arrow (v) under Outlook. Malaysia’s GDP per capita is higher than most other Asian countries and its 14 million person labor force could limit growth, thus a flat (~) outlook. Thailand and Indonesia have labor costs similar to China. Thailand is limited by labor force size and questionable government stability. China’s growth rate is slowing, earning a flat (~) assessment. Indonesia is poised for growth with a labor force of 122 million people and low electronics exports, justifying its up arrow.
The Philippines, India and Vietnam have the lowest GDP per capita of the listed countries, about half of China’s. The Philippines has long been a major site for semiconductor assembly and test, but it is looking to diversify into more value added electronics production. India has a labor force of over 500 million, but only a 71.2% literacy rate and a low economic freedom rank of 123. Electronics exports are insignificant, with most production for domestic use. India is thus assigned a question mark. Vietnam has shown strong growth (see February 2015 post), has a 55 million person labor force and low GDP per capita – earning a positive assessment (^). Vietnam has a low economic freedom rank of 131, but it is higher than China’s 144. Vietnam is following China’s example as country with a Communist government and a capitalist economy.
The chart below show electronics production three-month-average change versus a year ago for select countries with available data.
China’s electronics production growth has been slowing from around 13% in early 2015 to about 10% recently. The latest data from Malaysia and India show strong growth of about 30%. India rebounded from declines of greater than 50% in late 2014 and early 2015. Vietnam’s electronics growth is around 20%. Some of the growth factors are short term, but it is a sign of strong growth in other Asian countries offsetting the slowing growth of China.
The shift in electronics production to emerging Asian countries will take several decades to play out. China’s dominance should continue over this period. However countries such as Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam are worth watching.
What the FBI is Saying about Connected Cars
The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, put out a written public service announcement (PSA) last week detailing the agency’s concerns regarding automotive cybersecurity and its recommendations for the driving and vehicle owning public. The PSA followed by four days the explosion of a Volkswagen Passat on Bismarkstrasse in Berlin, Germany, during the morning rush hour.
The explosion of the Passat which killed the driver, a suspected and previously convicted organized crime figure, was believed by investigators to be linked to organized crime, not terrorism. But given the recently expressed concerns regarding automobile cybersecurity, it was impossible to ignore the juxtaposition of the two events – the explosion and the PSA.
The impossibility of ignoring the connection between the two stories was made even more obvious by one of the recommendations in the FBI’s PSA:
“In much the same way as you would not leave your personal computer or smartphone unlocked, in an unsecure location, or with someone you don’t trust, it is important that you maintain awareness of those who may have access to your vehicle.”
This very sound advice follows descriptions, in the FBI/DOT PSA, of the various ways cars can be hacked wirelessly or via devices plugged into the car including smartphones and OBDII devices, such as Progressive’s Snapshot usage-based insurance device. The message from the FBI and the DOT is clear, that cars are highly vulnerable to hacking and that consumers should ensure that their software is up to date and that any outstanding recalls have been corrected.
http://tinyurl.com/jnaer5b – “Motor Vehicles Increasingly Vulnerable to Remote Exploits”
The four key warnings from the FBI include the aforementioned one to take care to prevent unauthorized access to one’s car. The other three are:
[LIST=1]
Interpreted more directly, I’d say the FBI and DOT were more or less seeking to put the kibosh on the entire OBDII aftermarket business. The PSA warns against using such devices or at least raises questions regarding their reliability and safety. What is missing is any process for establishing that reliability – so the FBI and DOT, at least, are warning consumers very directly to stay away from these devices.
The problem is that there is nowhere to go to get a warranty on the safety of using an aftermarket device in a car. This is very bad news for insurers, such as Progressive, depending on these devices. Other than Progressive, most insurers around the world have been quickly moving away from the use of OBDII devices after recalls (ie. American Family device recalled) and hacks have exposed their weaknesses. The FBI and DOT are also no fans of connected smartphones in cars.
But the FBI and DOT seem to also be raising questions regarding car sharing. If you share your car or use a car sharing service, how can you be sure the vehicle is safe, secure and clean? The bottom line is that you can’t.
The FBI isn’t saying not to use ZipCar or Car2Go or any of a dozen other car sharing services, but the agency is raising questions regarding the potential downside to connected car technologies – even as it tips its hat in the PSA to the virtues of using car data to reduce fuel consumption, emissions and traffic congestion and anticipate vehicle failures. Having read the PSA, the average consumer is going to think twice before hopping in a shared car.
The real concern regarding connected cars is the enhanced ability of thieves to use connectivity technology to steal the car or the driver’s identity or to steal control of the car remotely. Unlike the car bombing in Berlin, no malicious hacker has yet used remote control of a car for malicious purposes with any serious consequences. Most hacks, to date, have been white hat exploits with the hackers sharing the details of their work with the effected car maker – with a few notable, though unpublicized and exceptional, attempts by black hat hackers to blackmail car companies.
What the past two years’ worth of hacks have demonstrated is that cars are highly vulnerable and can be penetrated by determined hackers. Some hacks, such as the Skoda Wi-Fi gateway hack and the recent Nissan Leaf hack, have revealed gaping security holes largely the fault of careless developers. Hopefully the auto industry has learned some basic lessons from these exploits.
Of greater concern are malicious hackers in the world that have discovered the vulnerabilities of cars and for whom a ransomware attack on a car might be an appealing opportunity. It is not too much to imagine hackers requiring payment from a car owner to restore control of their vehicle.
The more immediate concern remains vehicle theft, which is currently at historic lows. A recent conversation with a senior security executive at the U.K.’s Thatcham Research Centre revealed that over the past 20 years, the steady enhancement and implementation of Thatcham’s security standards have contributed to reducing vehicle theft by 90% – but it is far from zero. The U.S. has no equivalent of Thatcham.
Vehicle theft is down in the U.S. as well, but the emergence of vehicle connectivity and its ability to create new pathways into opening up and starting cars could alter that trajectory. It seems the PSA from the FBI and DOT is just one way that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is seeking to keep the pressure on auto makers to take on and mitigate the current cybersecurity challenges. Presumably, the industry has gotten the message.
Roger C. Lanctot is Associate Director in the Global Automotive Practice at Strategy Analytics. More details about Strategy Analytics can be found here: https://www.strategyanalytics.com/access-services/automotive#.VuGdXfkrKUk
Webinar: A Tool for Process and Device Evaluation
Not only are foundries continuing to introduce processes at new advanced nodes, they are frequently updating or adding processes at existing nodes. There are many examples that illustrate this well. TSMC now has 16FF, 16FF+ and now 16FFC. They are also announcing 10nm and 7nm processes. In addition, they are going back to older nodes and adding ULP processes for IoT and RF designs.
Then there are other foundries that offer technically competitive processes. With all of this you have a large array of choices for a company contemplating the start of a design project. Operating voltages, leakage, switching speed, device characteristics and many other factors contribute to the final judgment on what process is best for a particular project. For many teams, collecting and comparing information on process trade offs and benefits becomes a huge exercise involving scripts, lots of spice runs, reams of reports, spreadsheets and some amount of guess work.
ProPlus, a leader in circuit simulation, has set about to change the way foundry processes and their PDK’s are evaluated. They have announced their Model Exploration and Platform Benchmark (MEPro) product to help improve the procedure and outcomes of foundry and process selection. MEPro can also help validate libraries and make sure that design errors are not made that eat up margins.
Once a design is started, MEPro offers useful features to ensure that optimal devices are selected for circuit needs. It comes with a large number of built in tests which can be run at the click of a button and the output is displayed in graphical form. It can also help designers plan for process corners.
ProPlus is well positioned to offer a product like this. They already offer a wide range of products dealing with semiconductor simulation, yield, and library development. They have a track record of offering high capacity, high performance solutions. ProPlus will be hosting a one-hour webinar that will go into greater detail on the capabilities and usage of MEPro for evaluating design processes.
The webinar will be held on March 31 at 11AM PDT. The presenter will be ProPlus CTO Bruce McGaughy, who will present a number of case studies, and also will include a demo of MEPro. This webinar is intended for circuit design teams that are using multiple process platforms from one or more foundries. Also process development and modeling engineers will find this session very informative.
Here is the list of topics:
- Browsing advanced model libraries from all leading foundries
- Exploring device characteristics and performance to assist designs
- Evaluating process platform performance with device/circuit targets
- Benchmarking process platforms from different foundries or nodes
- Monitoring process revisions and evaluate the impact to circuit designs
To sign up for this session, use this link. This should be a very informative session.
SystemC and Adam’s Law
At DVCon I sat in on a series of talks on using higher-level abstraction for design, then met Adam Sherer to get his perspective on progress in bringing SystemC to the masses (Adam runs simulation-based verification products at Cadence and organized the earlier session). I have to admit I have been a SystemC skeptic (pace Gary Smith) but I came away believing they may have a path forward.
Adam has a nice characterization for what a level of abstraction needs to become successful, which he modestly calls “Adam’s law”. You need tools to develop an abstract model, you need tools to verify the model and you need a path to the next lower level of abstraction, not just for the design data but also for verification. We have this for transistors/gates to GDSII, we have it for RTL to gates, and we are getting closer for SystemC, where we already have modeling and synthesis and we are starting to see a path for verification in the emerging portable stimulus standard and interoperability of SystemC, UVM and ‘e’.
One of the problems I had always had with SystemC was the apparent magical promise of converting software algorithms into hardware. In the earlier session Frederic Doucet of Qualcomm did a great job of dispelling the magic and showing that HLS was doing 3 very understandable (to an RTL-head) things:
- Managing latency by letting you parallel blocks of algorithm (run two additions in parallel rather than one after another)
- Letting you tradeoff resource-sharing versus parallelism (sharing one multiplier block versus parallelizing multiple blocks)
- Making it simpler to experiment though tool options rather than explicit structure, by removing sequencing choices from the abstract model
The Portable Stimulus Working Group (PSWG) is developing a standard which aims to address the verification need. I have talked more about this in other blogs so I won’t repeat that material here. Essentially the goal is to support stimulus which can interoperate or be easily moved between virtual modeling, HLS models, RTL simulation, emulation and hardware prototyping – to the greatest extent feasible. This should ease adoption of the verification part of Adam’s law. PSWG development is still underway and expected to produce a release in early 2017.
There was a good talk from Intel on the realities of using SystemC in production design. Bob Condon made several interesting points:
- Many teams in Intel are using SystemC HLS flows as a part of production design, both for algorithm-dominated and control-dominated designs
- Compelling reasons to switch from RTL to SystemC include time-pressure, a significant amount of new code, a line of sight to a derivative and an existing starting point with some kind of C/C++ model.
- Groups happiest using the approach don’t try to fool with the generated RTL and see a big compression in design and verification time. Groups most unhappy are those that do mess with the RTL. On a related note, satisfied groups felt absolute best QoR was less important (within reasonable bounds) than schedule, which was why they didn’t feel the need to tweak.
- Overall big pluses are faster time to validated RTL and ease of modifying the code. Less prominent are retargeting technologies and sharing code between VP and verification teams.
Dirk Seynhaeve of Intel/Altera gave an interesting talk. Their objective is to expand FPGA appeal to software developers who need to accelerate algorithms, obviously aiming to expand the accessible market. Software developers don’t want to learn hardware design but they do understand how to parallelize threads on multi-processor systems. So Altera is supporting software development in C or C++ with OpenCL for parallelization. Their view is that SystemC is just too big a step for software developers.
I wrapped up with Adam on directions and drivers for HLS flows. He said we’re still early in SystemC adoption – maybe 10% of the audience in the first session raised their hands when asked if they were users. Outside the Bay Area uptake has been stronger, but valley engineers have built a lot of expertise in RTL and will take them longer to change. Quite likely a driver will be power optimization with acceptable performance. Power is most impacted by software but the hooks for optimization have to be in hardware – connecting the two through high-level design is a logical step.
Design sizes and compressed schedules will help. And as Moore’s law slows down, focus on improving algorithm performance is increasing. That will force more experimentation with parallelism which be easier in SystemC than in RTL. And he does believe that verification complexity will force more (verification) sharing across levels, again encouraging top-down approaches. Sounds like we should expect continued gradual transition.
To learn more about Cadence system-level design and verification solutions, click HERE.
What if this is as good as the iPhone gets?
How do I write about Apple so well? “I think of Steve Jobs, and I take away vision and creativity.” Please recognize that is a bit tongue in cheek, but I do think we are at a turning point where Apple is having a very hard time moving its loyal customers toward continued upgrades, and it is forcing them into unusual compromises. Continue reading “What if this is as good as the iPhone gets?”
Good bye and thank you, Andy Grove!
You are gone. And with you, gone is one of the greatest leaders of our times.
In the coming days many voices will speak about the ways in which you touched countless lives, inspired a generation of engineers to create and fuel the digital revolution, and demonstrated your own brand of leadership traits in pursuit of excellence. My voice is one such voice as I bid you farewell and thank you for all you did for humanity.
I was there when you were made Intel CEO and I was there when you retired from your chairman role. During your time you made Intel “my Intel,” for me. Moore’s Law was Gordon’s but its chief enforcer was you. Many of my management philosophies were shaped by watching you enact yours.
From you I learned how to make results more impactful with focus, discipline, and assumed responsibility. You showed what it means to be on top of the issues you managed. If there was a detail you did not know, it was because it was not important to the mission. If there was a detail that was important to the mission, you knew it. There was not an answer for which you did not have a good question. You were unapologetic about being on top of it. You were unafraid of being called a micro-manager. You were comfortable with discomfort. You were driven by, and to, quality results.
From your decision to get out of memories, I learned the concept of constancy of purpose and flexibility of paths to it. From that decision, I also learned what management courage truly is.
You introduced us to the practice of Constructive Confrontation. People like me who got to watch you perform understood what you meant by it. I taught it in Intel’s management classes in the 90s and tried to practice it in my Intel career. I used to explain that it is all about confronting and resolving issues head on and not about attacking and destroying persons involved. The practice of Constructive Confrontation resulted in intense efficiency with which Intel achieved amazing results during the 80s and 90s.
But this practice faded away as you faded away from Intel. I believe the word confrontation was too much for the post-Grove generation of managers to combine with the word constructive.
In 1989, I was part of a cross-section of mid-level managers at Intel attending a five day learning retreat called “Managing Through People” in Monterey California. Your Q&A session with us was the highlight of that retreat. During the 2 hours you spent with us I studied you as you tried to understand our questions with intense respect. Your answers were crisp, honest and insightful. We, the growing and hungry fibers in Intel’s management muscle (that is what you called us in that session), found your answers very useful. That day I promised myself to learn how to listen like you and how to think like you. I remember asking you how, when you were growing up in your management career, you handled the discomfort in your peers resulting from your intensity and focus. You seemed to understand exactly where I was coming from and said that you did not pay attention to any of that. Then, with a smile on your face, you said that I just need to make sure I am right more often than I am wrong.
You were infectious. You infected me and shaped me.
Good bye Andy. Peace to you and thanks to you.
Subscribe to my blog atwww.ReachForInfinity.com
Batman Vs Superman / Make IOT Data Security Talent your SuperPower
One of the biggest barriers to IOT success is a dearth of data security talent. Find supermen and –women to get your enterprise to the next level.
This week, Batman vs. Superman opens in theatres. Batman’s got his gadgets and Superman, his alien powers. What out-of-this-world powers will you need to get your IOT data security talent on board– up to speed?
There are so many challenges to sourcing IOT talent, it seems like you need superpowers to simply suss out the best candidates. Experts agree –finding talent remains one of the biggest barriers to getting value out of the IOT—and data security experts are often the most in demand.
David Weldon’s recent article in Information Management pointed to some disturbing trends in IOT security—as in, will security issues remain the biggest hurdle IOT practitioners face in getting projects off the ground?
The study from TEK in that article boldly stated that: “While 55% expect IoT initiatives to have a ‘transformational’ or ‘significant’ impact – just 22% of IoT initiatives have progressed to the implementation stage.”
That’s a huge gap! So what is standing in our way? Survey respondents from 200+ companies said that security and ROI are the biggest problems and that “information security experts are cited as the most difficult skill set to find.”
This same group of IOT leaders was asked where IOT initiatives would have the most impact in the next five years. We’ve used their responses to help you track the super skills you need for your data security team.
Survey respondents were very clear on where they expected IoT initiatives to impact their business on a long-term basis, factoring a five-year planning horizon. Top impacts expected were:
- 64 percent said creating better user and customer experiences – Here we have the data security expert who is often sourced from Cloud-based technology services that are outward facing, such as sales and CRM systems. A consumer-based data security pro will often help you check off your IOT bases faster than any other.
- 56 percent said sparking innovation – Data security experts who have done time protecting business development functions, start-ups, or tech product launches along the IOT can help you see the big picture. It doesn’t hurt to have an MBA-level degree in IT innovation (especially if they have worked as an IT innovations leader from within an executive committee in one of the industries your company serves.)
- 52 percent said creating new and more efficient working practices and business processes – One of the key differentiators among IT talent is their ability to lead process change and gain buy-in from key players in the company. In the field of IOT data security, make sure your security pros have spent time in the functional trenches of your industry. If they don’t understand the value levers in your particular business, they won’t know to protect them.
- 50 percent said creating new revenue streams, including new products and services – This is indeed the superpower to possess! Along with innovations experience, your data security leader should have new product experience—especially during launch, when experts agree, IOT start-up data is at the most risk. Commonly, “white hat hackers” in small- to- medium businesses fit the bill.
- 36 percent said an increased ROI on IT infrastructure – Too often data security is cut into two functions in large IT corporations—infrastructure and external. Your data security leader must be adept at identifying security challenges in both areas, or she won’t be able to calm the fears of your key investors or decision-makers when they ask what to build and how she will make it a safe platform for their IOT springboard.
- 35 percent said substantial cost savings and operational efficiencies—Our data security pro might seem too good to be true by now, but one thing we know he isn’t is a spendthrift. He should also be able to measure the value of what IOT data security leadership can do before any resources go into it—and clearly outline the risk of not spending enough on security to protect the whole shebang. A data security pro who is only concerned with the 1s and Os and not with the dollars and cents will cost more than he or she is worth.
If you want to make sure your IOT initiatives get off the ground, track where they will make the most difference to your business and then find data security professionals with IT experience in those areas
A word of caution: The popular “Security as a Service” (SECaaS) outsourcing model for security management might not work, according to another guru, Stephanie Ibo, at IM. “The irony lies within the fact that SECaaS will use the cloud as a mainstream deployment platform, when part of its own reason for existence is to enhance the protection of…the cloud!
I would argue that “large security service providers (who) integrate their products into a corporate infrastructure on a subscription basis, making security more cost effective to large corporations” will have a difficult time reaching “the ultimate objective of security implementation – “Security at the Core” – even if popular outsourced services like authentication and security event management get the enterprise a few steps closer.
The Apple FBI Battle: Laws and Ethics Simply Can’t Keep Up With Technology
The battle between the FBI and Apple over the unlocking of a terrorist’s iPhone will likely require Congress to create new legislation. That’s because there really aren’t any existing laws which encompass technologies such as these. The battle is between security and privacy, with Silicon Valley fighting for privacy. The debates in Congress will be ugly, uninformed, and emotional. Lawmakers won’t know which side to pick and will flip flop between what lobbyists ask and the public’s fear du jour. And because there is no consensus on what is right or wrong, any decision they make today will likely be changed tomorrow.
This is a prelude of things to come, not only with encryption technologies, but everything from artificial intelligence to drones, robotics, and synthetic biology. Technology is moving faster than our ability to understand it and there is no consensus on what is ethical. It isn’t just the lawmakers who are not well-informed, the originators of the technologies themselves don’t understand the full ramifications of what they are creating. They may take strong positions today based on their emotions and financial interests but as they learn more, they too will change their views.
Imagine if there was a terror attack in Silicon Valley — at the headquarters of Facebook or Apple. Do you think that Tim Cook or Mark Zuckerberg would continue to put privacy ahead of national security?
It takes decades, sometimes centuries, to reach the type of consensus that is needed to enact the far-reaching legislation that Congress will have to consider. Laws are essentially codified ethics, a consensus that is reached by society on what is right and wrong. This happens only after people understand the issues and have seen the pros and cons.
Consider our laws on privacy. These date back to the late 1800s, when newspapers first started publishing gossip. They wrote a series of intrusive stories about Boston lawyer Samuel Warren and his family. This led his law partner, future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, writing a Harvard Law Review article “The Right of Privacy” which argued for the right to be left alone. This essay laid the foundation of American privacy law, which evolved over 200 years. It also took centuries to create today’s copyright laws, intangible property rights, and contract law. All of these followed the development of technologies such as the printing press and steam engine.
Today, technology is progressing on an exponential curve; advances that would take decades now happen in years, sometimes months. Consider that the first iPhone was released in June 2007. It was little more than an iPod with an embedded cell phone. This has evolved into a device which captures our deepest personal secrets, keeps track of our lifestyles and habits, and is becoming our health coach and mentor. It was inconceivable just five years ago that there could be such debates about unlocking this device.
A greater privacy risk than the lock on the iPhone are the cameras and sensors that are being placed everywhere. There are cameras on our roads, in public areas and malls, and in office buildings. One company just announced that it is partnering with AT&T to track people’s travel patterns and behaviors through their mobile phones so that its billboards can display personalized ads. Even billboards will also include cameras to watch the expressions of passersby.
Cameras often record everything that is happening. Soon there will be cameras looking down at us from drones and in privately owned microsatellites. Our TVs, household appliances, and self-driving cars will be watching us. The cars will also keep logs of where we have been and make it possible to piece together who we have met and what we have done — just as our smartphones can already do. These technologies have major security risks and are largely unregulated. Each has its nuances and will require different policy considerations.
The next technology which will surprise, shock, and scare the public is gene editing. CRISPR–Cas9 is a system for engineering genomes that was simultaneously developed by teams of scientists at different universities. This technology, which has become inexpensive enough for labs all over the world to use, allows the editing of genomes — the basic building blocks of life. It holds the promise of providing cures for genetic diseases, creating drought resistant and high-yield plants, and new sources of fuel. It can also be used to “edit” the genomes of animals and human beings.
China is leading the way in creating commercial applications for CRISPR, having edited goats, sheep, pigs, monkeys and dogs. It has given them larger muscles, more fur and meat, and altered their shapes and sizes. Scientists demonstrated that these traits can be passed to future generations, thereby creating a new species. China sees this as a way to feed its billion people and provide it a global advantage.
China has also made progress in creating designer babies. In April 2015, scientists in China revealed that they had tried using CRISPR to edit the genomes of human embryos. Although these embryos could not develop to term, viable embryos could one day be engineered to cure disease or provide desirable traits. The risk is that geneticists with good intentions could mistakenly engineer changes in DNA that generate dangerous mutations and cause painful deaths.
In Dec. 2015, an international group of scientists gathered at the National Academy of Sciences to call for a moratorium on making inheritable changes to the human genome until there is a “broad societal consensus about the appropriateness” of any proposed change. But then, this February the British government announced that it has approved experiments by scientists at Francis Crick Institute to treat certain cases of infertility. I have little doubt that these scientists will not cross any ethical lines. But is there anything to stop governments themselves from surreptitiously working to develop a race of superhuman soldiers?
The creators of these technologies usually don’t understand the long term ramifications of what they are creating and when they do, it is often too late, as was the case with CRISPR. One of its inventors, Jennifer Doudna wrote a touching essay in the December issue of Nature. “I was regularly lying awake at night wondering whether I could justifiably stay out of an ethical storm that was brewing around a technology I had helped to create”, she lamented. Shehas called for human genome editing to the “be on hold pending a broader societal discussion of the scientific and ethical issues surrounding such use.”
A technology that is far from being a threat is artificial intelligence. Yet it is stirring deep fears. AI is, today, is nothing more than brute force computing, with superfast computers crunching massive amounts of data. Yet it is advancing so fast that tech luminaries such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Stephen Hawking worry it will evolve beyond human capability and become an existential threat to mankind. Others fear that it will create wholescale unemployment. Scientists are trying to come to a consensus about how AI can be used in a benevolent way, but as with CRISPR, how can you regulate something that anyone, anywhere, can develop?
And soon, we will have robots that serve us and become our companions. These too will watch everything that we do and raise new legal and ethical questions. They will evolve to the point that they seem human. What happens then, when a robot asks for the right to vote or kills a human in self-defense?
Thomas Jefferson said in 1816, “Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.” But how can our policy makers and institutions keep up with the advances when the originators of the technologies themselves can’t?
There is no answer to this question.
For more, visit my website: www.wadhwa.com and follow me on Twitter: @wadhwa.