Think you’re locked into a mobile OS now? Wait until it runs your car

Apple’s going to reveal more about the Apple Watch on March 9, but CEO Tim Cook has already started dropping hints during a trip to Europe. The latest tidbit comes from The Telegraph: The Apple Watch will be able to start a car.

Which cars? That’s a good question that the Telegraph article and Cook didn’t address. It’s possible that Apple doesn’t know yet, and it hinges on deals with automakers who may be generally resistant to Apple or its rivals taking over in-car computing.

But for people who are considering purchasing new cars today, Apple getting into the key fob game could end up having a significant effect on your resale value. After all, if your car’s ignition only works with iOS — or has no smartphone integration at all — it’s going to be significantly less attractive to Android users who are considering buying your car secondhand. And if your mobile hardware not only powers features on your dashboard interface like mapping or music but basic automotive functions like starting the car then it only becomes more important for the vehicle’s valuation going forward.

A recent report from Glass’s — the British Kelley Blue Book — concurred. “If you are a car manufacturer that has chosen to go with Android, can you still sell your car to a committed Apple smartphone user?” head of valuations Rupert Pontin wrote. “Backing the wrong horse could see their models become not just less attractive to a growing group of buyers but also see their residual values hit.”

The two big players at the moment for in-car software from Silicon Valley are Google, with Android Auto, and [company]Apple[/company], with CarPlay, both of which will roll out on new cars this year. Neither company appears to be going anywhere, but it was possible to say something like that about BlackBerry in 2007 when my family purchased its most recent car.

Your car choice could end up having an even more powerful lock-in effect on your mobile platform choice than, say, an app store. After all, even if you’re a huge app user, you don’t usually spend thousands of dollars on apps that you expect to keep for years. And you can’t sell your old apps when you want to upgrade to new ones.

To be clear: It’s entirely possible — almost certain — than some of the entertainment systems rolling out this year will support both Android Auto and CarPlay. Car makers and chip companies like Nvidia have no incentive to lock drivers in to a brand they don’t make. But anyone who follows mobile app development knows that often new features and bug fixes don’t come to both platforms at the same time — and sometimes never make it to the third and fourth place platforms. For now, CarPlay and Android Auto manage maps and music in your car, but when features are as eventually as critical as keyless fob-free ignition — or one day, autopilot — you probably will want to have the phone or smartwatch that updates come to first.

It’s already possible to start a car with an iPhone. Hyundai, which is supporting both CarPlay and Android Auto, mused about NFC ignition two years ago. A firmware update pushed to the pricey electric Tesla Model S back in September enabled the feature, but the changelog, highlighting the issue, said that the feature was coming to Android “in a few weeks.” Unofficial developers have already started working on Tesla apps for Apple Watch. (There are also unofficial Android Wear apps.)

What’s clear is that as car development cycles inch closer to the more rapid and iterative software and hardware development processes favored by Silicon Valley firms, it’s going to wreak havoc on secondhand values. The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that some electric cars — except for Teslas — have seen their resale values tumble.

Of course, if you believe the rumors, Apple might solve this problem for iPhone and future Apple Watch users when it releases the car it’s supposedly working on. But for anyone purchasing a new vehicle before 2020, that doesn’t help very much.

Charlie Hebdo murders are no excuse for killing online freedom

There’s been a predictable split in the reactions to Wednesday’s slaughter of the staff of French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, along with others including police who were trying to protect them. On the one hand, hundreds of thousands of people have rallied in France and across Europe in defiance against those behind this attack on free speech…

… while others have taken a decidedly different tack, using the outrage as a justification for the rolling-back of online civil liberties. This approach was taken by Dan Hodges in the Telegraph, and by the Sun in an editorial arguing that “intelligence is our best defense… yet liberals still fret over the perceived assault on civil liberties of spooks analyzing emails.”

Here’s what Hodges (a well-known admirer of Tony Blair, the British prime minister who was no friend of civil liberties) wrote:

We hear a lot about freedom, and threats to our freedom. We heard about it, for example, when the government asked the Guardian to stop publishing the Snowden files because of the risk to national security. We heard about it last year, when David Cameron announced he was bringing back plans to allow the security agencies to monitor, and retain data on, our electronic communications – the so-called ‘snooper’s charter’. We heard about it in the wake of the Lee Rigby killing, where we [were] told the state would use the murder as an excuse for a further erosion of our liberties.

But those are not real assaults on our freedom. Switch on your TV. You will see and hear what an assault on freedom really looks like…

If one way of stopping obscenities like today is providing the security services a bit more access to our e-mails, we must give it to them. If it means internet providers handing over their records, the records must be handed over. If it means newspapers showing restraint the next time an Edward Snowden knocks on their door, then restraint will have to be shown. Because look who came knocking at the door today.

Hodges must be given credit for at least calling himself a “coward” in that piece, saving time for the rest of us.

I’m not going to go into the rights and wrongs of Charlie Hebdo’s content, much of which I personally found grossly offensive. That, after all, is the publication’s aim – to make points offensively (to a multitude of targets, it should be noted) and to meet calls for restraint with more proud offense. Freedom of expression is an essential civil liberty, not only in France, but across much of the democratic world. It was set out in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which emerged from the French Revolution in 1789, and it is today enshrined on an international level in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) .

The ICCPR’s signatories, including France, the U.K. and most of the world, have also pledged to ensure that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.” Yes, this is a right that needs to be balanced against others, most notably the right to security, but arguably no calculation of that balance can justifiably permit mass surveillance.

To quote last year’s report on online mass surveillance by Ben Emmerson, the U.N.’s special rapporteur on the protection and promotion of human rights while countering terrorism:

International human rights law require States to provide an articulable and evidence-based justification for any interference with the right to privacy, whether on an individual or mass scale. It is a central axiom of proportionality that the greater the interference with protected human rights, the more compelling the justification must be if it is to meet the requirements of the Covenant. The hard truth is that the use of mass surveillance technology effectively does away with the right to privacy of communications on the Internet altogether. By permitting bulk access to all digital communications traffic, this technology eradicates the possibility of any individualized proportionality analysis.

Apart from the fact that mass surveillance hasn’t been shown to work – France’s extensive surveillance regime, expanded just weeks ago, clearly failed in this case – it is no way to protect freedom of expression. It is a tool for chilling free speech, of dissuading people from speaking their minds, and the same British government that wants to introduce the “snooper’s charter” is also working to stop its citizens from seeing extremist material online, by getting ISPs to filter out such content. It is cracking down on free expression on social media, leading the police there to tweet things like this:

It forced the Guardian‘s editors to destroy computers holding copies of the Snowden cache with angle grinders, for whatever that was worth. And the Sun, so keen on Blair’s Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) this week, recently made an official complaint about the police using the mass surveillance law to spy on its journalists and their sources in a case that was embarrassing the government.

After a cartoon featuring Mohammed led to the firebombing of Charlie Hebdo’s offices in 2011, editor Stéphane “Charb” Charbonnier famously said: “It perhaps sounds a bit pompous, but I’d rather die standing than live on my knees.”

On Wednesday, Charb died for liberty. To suggest that the correct response is the curtailment of liberty — to effectively argue that terrorism should be met with fearful capitulation — is more offensive than anything he ever published.

Was 2011 the year of the great paywall? Not exactly

Some newspaper websites made a little ground with their paywall strategies over the past year. But the media industry should be very careful about over-interpreting the successes of a handful over the struggles of the multitude.