Daniel Castro and Alan Mcquinn (IoT)

 
Internet of Things
The Internet of Things refers to an interconnected environment where all manner of objects are embedded with sensors and transmitters that enable a digital presence and the ability to communicate with other objects and people. The potential for this trend is huge: the number of “things” connected to the Internet is expected to rise to 50 billion by 2020, and to include a vast number of devices from connected cars to intelligent light bulbs and smart trash cans. But since 2009, when the number of connected devices surpassed the number of people, a growing number of privacy fundamentalists have begun talking about this technology. The Internet of Things is in the Rising Panic stage, where the public has begun to express privacy concerns about the Internet of Things without fully understanding its benefits.
This stage, as previously discussed, is punctuated by privacy advocates crying wolf, hyperbolic media stories, and policymakers perpetuating needless alarm. This has led the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue a report focusing more on the privacy risks than on the benefits of connected devices. As the technology continues to weave its way into society, people will likely become less concerned about the privacy implications and more comfortable with the technology.

4 thoughts on “Daniel Castro and Alan Mcquinn (IoT)

  1. shinichi Post author

    PRIVACY PANIC CYCLES OF CURRENT TECHNOLOGY

    Many technologies go through the privacy panic cycle. This section will briefly highlight where 10 technologies reside on the privacy panic cycle.

    Gene Sequencing

    Gene sequencing is a relatively nascent technology, and it has only recently become affordable for consumers. In early 2014, the human genome sequencing company Illumina announced it would begin shipping a device capable of sequencing the human genome for under $1,000—a significant drop from a decade earlier when the cost was $10 million. Consumer privacy concerns for this technology are still minimal, as this technology is late in its Trusting Beginnings stage. To be sure, the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues has published extensively on the privacy issues involved with gene sequencing. Several experts and a few media outlets have also published on this issue. But partly because no one has been able to bring this technology to scale and partly because of its obscurity, these concerns have not been elevated to the public consciousness yet. This technology has yet to hit its Point of Panic, at which point these concerns will likely become more widespread.

    Drones

    Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), commonly referred to as drones, have captured the public’s attention, first when Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, announced in 2013 that he envisioned drones delivering packages to people. Since then, there has been a lively debate about the integration of drones into the U.S. airspace. This debate has been punctuated by a series of events where drones were used in questionable ways, including incidents involving drones flying over the White House grounds and a device laced with radiation landing on the Japanese Prime Minister’s office. Wide-spread commercial drone use is likely still some years away.

    However, this has not stopped privacy fundamentalists from raising the alarm over the potential abuse of this technology—by the government or other actors. The American Civil Liberties Union argued, “The prospect of routine aerial surveillance… if unchecked by appropriate legal protections, brings our country a large step closer to a ‘surveillance society’ in which every move is monitored, tracked, recorded, and scrutinized by the authorities.” These fears have started to build outside the realm of privacy fundamentalists, and there has been rapid growth in high-profile press coverage devoted to the privacy concerns associated with drones. Indeed, the Point of Panic with this emerging technology is reflected in President Obama’s executive order directing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to conduct a multistakeholder working group on this technology’s privacy issues. The NTIA had conducted one of these meetings at the time of this writing. When the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the agency that handles safety issues with all U.S. flights, deferred to the president’s order and decided not to include privacy rules as part of its UAS rulemaking, one privacy group sued the FAA asking the regulator to consider privacy rules as part of its rulemaking, instead of only focusing on safety. Furthermore, at least 26 states have passed laws restricting in some way how law enforcement or private citizens can use these devices, often in ways that many drone users call “heavy-handed.”

    Given the prevalence of privacy advocates in the debate, the use of privacy rhetoric by policymakers when they discuss the technology, and the frequency of commercial drone coverage by the media, this technology has moved into its Rising Panic stage. Indeed, a 2014 survey found that nearly three-fifths of U.S. adults have privacy concerns about drones, despite only 3 percent of respondents having actually operated one. The privacy fears coalescing around this technology will continue to build until the technology is integrated into society and commonsense legislation is crafted to mitigate actual harms while protecting innovation.

    Connected Vehicles

    Many car manufacturers have begun to equip their vehicles with Internet connectivity and sensors to allow a host of “infotainment” features such as real-time traffic and weather information, hands-free voice calling, and navigation assistance. These features will not only make travel more comfortable and convenient, they will also improve vehicle safety. For example, a connected vehicle may automatically alert dispatchers in the event of an accident so that first responders can arrive sooner. AT&T has predicted that by 2017, 10 million connected vehicles will be on the roadways. But despite these expected benefits, privacy fundamentalists and some lawmakers have started to raise the alarm over potential privacy issues.

    Many privacy fundamentalists have objected to routine collection of data about drivers, especially geolocation information. When California approved Google to operate its autonomous vehicles on the state’s highways, one consumer-protection group opposed the approval, saying Google would likely use the opportunity for “collection and use of voluminous personal information about us and our movements…” Similarly, some privacy fundamentalists worry that vehicle data would be a rich new stream of personal information for governments to generate tickets or prosecute drivers after accidents. In 2015, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) released a report saying that the increased connectivity of vehicles is putting the privacy of drivers at risk. As a result, Sen. Markey and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) introduced the Security and Privacy in Your Car Act of 2015, (SPY Car Act), to direct federal officials to create IT security and privacy standards for all vehicle electronics and in-vehicle networks.

    Based upon how the media, policymakers, and privacy fundamentalists are reacting to this technology, connected vehicles are in the Rising Panic stage.

    Internet of Things

    The Internet of Things refers to an interconnected environment where all manner of objects are embedded with sensors and transmitters that enable a digital presence and the ability to communicate with other objects and people. The potential for this trend is huge: the number of “things” connected to the Internet is expected to rise to 50 billion by 2020, and to include a vast number of devices from connected cars to intelligent light bulbs and smart trash cans. But since 2009, when the number of connected devices surpassed the number of people, a growing number of privacy fundamentalists have begun talking about this technology. The Internet of Things is in the Rising Panic stage, where the public has begun to express privacy concerns about the Internet of Things without fully understanding its benefits.

    This stage, as previously discussed, is punctuated by privacy advocates crying wolf, hyperbolic media stories, and policymakers perpetuating needless alarm. This has led the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue a report focusing more on the privacy risks than on the benefits of connected devices. As the technology continues to weave its way into society, people will likely become less concerned about the privacy implications and more comfortable with the technology.

    Wearables

    Wearables are one subset of the Internet of Things that has advanced past other connected systems in terms of public awareness, privacy concerns, and integration into society. Wearables are on the rise: the number of shipments of wearable devices is expected to grow to 138 million in 2018. Wearable networked devices have surged into the public eye with such notable devices as Apple Watch, Fitbit, Jawbone, and Google Glass. These devices are expected to benefit consumers. For example, one clinician devised a program that offered the Pebble+ fitness tracker to employees who met activity goals, which resulted in reduced medication costs, emergency room visits, and sick days. Similarly, Apple Watch sends warning messages to its wearers when they have been sitting too long, reducing the risk of cancer and high blood pressure associated with prolonged sitting. Google Glass offers opportunities for health care and education, such as live streaming routine surgery for medical students to actively learn.

    Privacy fundamentalists have argued that these technologies create serious privacy concerns. For example, I Am The Cavalry (IATC)—a cybersecurity research nonprofit focused on reducing risks related to the Internet of Things—has raised concerns about how these devices are used. Josh Corman, the co-founder of IATC said, “I think what will happen is that there is going to be enough people spied upon by ex-girlfriends or boyfriends, or distrust their government, or get hurt from IoT devices, and we’re gonna realize we did too much.” Privacy advocates are also concerned that in the rush for cheaper, faster, and smaller devices, companies will not consider the privacy implications of the technology. Adam Tomvim, the CEO of TrustLayers Inc., a Massachusetts-based security company said, “[2015] is going to be the year of privacy by disaster. Instead of everything being designed properly, it’s going to be the year where we see quantified-self data leak, and that’s when the data-gathering companies are going to realize they need to care for the misuse of the data they collect at the same scale that they analyze the data.” These privacy concerns, buoyed along by media coverage devoted to the privacy concerns of wearables have raised the issue into the public consciousness. Indeed, PricewaterhouseCoopers, a multinational professional services network, found in a 2014 survey that 82 percent of U.S. adults were concerned that wearable technologies would invade their privacy. As this evidence shows, wearables are in the Rising Panic stage.

    One wearable technology elicited greater privacy panic than most: Google Glass. Many people mistakenly believed that Google Glass constantly records video (which is not feasible with today’s batteries). Privacy groups formed to combat this technology. One group, called Stop the Cyborgs, offered free anti-Google Glass signs and art on its website for businesses to notify customers the technology is prohibited. Several states examined whether or not to ban Google Glass behind the wheel or limit the locations in which these devices could be worn or used. Soon several restaurants and bars started to ban them. One such restaurant, the Lost Lake Café & Lounge in Seattle, banned the use of Google Glass while inside, yet encouraged patrons to post photos taken at the business from their smartphones to Instagram and tag them #LostLake. People even began to refer to wearers of this technology as “glassholes,” a phrase that harkens back to the “Kodak fiends” of the late 1800s. However, over the last decade, wearables have been increasingly accepted into society as people interact positively with them.

    Facial Recognition

    Facial recognition is a subset of image recognition computer-based technology that is able to automatically detect and identify human faces. This technology, first developed in the 1960s, presents a difficult challenge for computer scientists, because while humans are very good at identifying faces, teaching a computer to do the same is much more difficult. To their credit, since 1960 computer scientists have gotten much better at using technology to recognize similar faces with algorithms. However, throughout it all, privacy fundamentalists have continued to oppose this technical advancement, regardless of the benefits it brings, such as increased security or modest productivity gains on social networks.

    Facial recognition technology hit its Point of Panic during the 2001 National Football League’s Super Bowl XXXV. The FBI used cameras to take photos of 100,000 fans as they entered the turnstiles of the event, matching them to known criminals in law enforcement databases and alerting the FBI if there was a match. This event—dubbed the “snooper bowl” by privacy fundamentalists—succeeded in elevating this technology to the national consciousness. In recent years, privacy fundamentalists, helped by the media, have also been concerned with the use of this technology by private companies. For example, Facebook faced their ire when it incorporated this technology into its service to help streamline the photo tagging experience—in which users “tag” or identify their friends in the pictures they post to their profile.

    Indeed, policymakers have also delved into this technology. The FTC conducted a workshop and subsequently issued a list of best practices for companies that use facial recognition, including designing their products with security in mind and considering the sensitivity of information when they collect it (e.g., not setting up cameras in places where children play). Similarly, NTIA has organized a stakeholder working group to develop a voluntary code of conduct around the use of facial recognition in many commercial contexts. For example, NTIA set a voluntary code for facial recognition in mobile apps in 2013. In 2015, several consumer privacy groups abandoned the working group because they felt the proposed code of conduct would not do enough to protect privacy.

    Facial recognition systems are still in their Rising Panic stage where the media, policymakers, and privacy fundamentalists continue to foment concerns. As the businesses and consumers adopt the technology, people see the convenience offered by this technology, and as it is used to improve security, concerns over its abuse will decrease.

    Online Advertising

    Online advertising is the predominant funding mechanism of the digital economy, allowing users to enjoy an unlimited amount of free content and services. In order to place the best possible advertisements for individual users and therefore increase their ad revenue and improve their services, websites often track their users’ behavior and advertise based on that behavior. However, privacy fundamentalists have consistently railed against the practice, proclaiming that people are both losing their privacy and being hurt by free services that require personal data to properly function.

    Privacy fundamentalists argue that companies are guilty of harm simply by gathering personal data, ignoring the facts that these users opt-in to these services and that this information is often used for innocuous purposes. As Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center has said, “Businesses will often treat such information as assets. Companies won’t say it directly in their privacy policies, but they want people to concede that when you give the company your information, the company owns it and can do what it wants with it.” To stop this technology, in 2007, a coalition of consumer privacy groups proposed “Do Not Track”—a single mechanism to opt-out of all online profiling for targeted advertising.

    Responding to the concerns, the FTC released a proposed set of rules for industry selfregulation, and the online advertising industry created its own set of principles. By 2010, the Digital Advertising Alliance, a group that represents the online advertising industry, had codified these rules into an enforceable code of conduct for the industry. With this agreement, the FTC can hold online advertisers responsible for their stated advertising practices and sanction infringing companies.

    Despite this, privacy fundamentalists and the media continue to agonize over the information that companies collect on customers. Indeed, government watchdogs from Spain, Italy, France, and Germany, have recently begun investigating the way in which Facebook collects data on its users to deliver relevant advertisements. Behavioral advertising is in its late Rising Panic stage.

    Search Engines

    Search engines use automated software to index websites, harvesting information as they go. When a user makes a query, the search engine delivers a list of websites ranked in order of relevance to the keywords used in the search. Search engines, such as Google and Bing, make finding information easy and convenient, and allow users to harness the potential of the Internet. However, privacy activists are worried that search engines make consumer information too accessible, while others are uneasy with how long these search engines retain individual search histories. Fears about the records kept by search engines have been around for a long time. The Point of Panic happened when Google introduced a personal search tracker in 2005 that keeps a history of each user’s search. In 2006, the Department of Justice asked Google to turn over a week’s worth of searches, further sparking outcry from privacy advocates. Privacy fundamentalists and regulators soon began to focus on how long search engines retained their data on individual search histories. In 2007, under pressure brought by European privacy officials and the Federal Trade Commission (the latter of which was spurred to act by complaints from privacy groups), search engines changed the length of time they retained that data. Google changed its policy to anonymize search data that it collects after 18-24 months. Microsoft and AOL also implemented measures to obfuscate user identifying information from search results after 13 to 18 months. Despite these efforts, some privacy groups continued to push for federal legislation to reduce the time companies held this data. In 2008, under pressure to reduce this period from European regulators, Yahoo reduced it to 90 days.

    Privacy fundamentalists have raised concerns over the permanence of search listings. Whether due to a youthful mistake or embarrassing photographs, some people want to edit their online past. In May 2014, the European Court of Justice ruled that Europeans have the “right to be forgotten,” e.g., the ability to protect their online privacy by requesting search engines to remove links from queries associated with their names if those results are irrelevant, inappropriate, or outdated. Google has since complied with the order on its European domains, reviewing over a quarter of a million removal requests and honored roughly 41 percent of them as of May 2015. Recently, France’s privacy regulator called for Google to expand these results to be wiped from every domain worldwide. Privacy advocates have raised these concerns in the United States. In July 2015, Consumer Watchdog, a privacy advocacy organization, sent a letter to the FTC demanding that the government force Google to extend the right to be forgotten to U.S. citizens.

    While concerns over search engines have bubbled to the surface recently in Europe, search engines are well understood and frequently used by the majority of Americans. Therefore, because much of the panic cycle has already passed, these fears are less likely to spread. Indeed, as FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez has indicated, the right to be forgotten is unlikely to “pass constitutional muster” in the United States due to First Amendment issues. Search engines are likely in their Deflating Fears stage.

    Google Street View

    Google started gathering imagery for its Google Maps service back in 2007 to allow users to explore Google’s online maps as high-resolution panoramic pictures, allowing people to take street-level tours of specific locations from the comfort of their own home. The project, dubbed Street View, initially launched in several cities throughout the United States, but has since expanded to both cities and rural areas globally. Before launching the service, Google put in place easily accessible mechanisms for users to flag inappropriate or sensitive imagery for Google to review and remove. However, the project immediately elicited privacy concerns when it depicted several unedited photographs of people going about their lives: a man picking his nose, protestors outside of an abortion clinic, a couple sunbathing, and men leaving a strip club. Privacy fundamentalists reacted to Google’s new service, saying the company had gone too far. For example, in response to Street View, an analyst with the EFF said, “Everyone expects a certain level of anonymity as they move about their daily lives.” To be sure, these images were taken on public property and are no different than if a person had captured them on a personal camera while walking down the street.

    In 2008, in an attempt to balance user privacy with the online ability to navigate the world, Google introduced a face-blurring technology that obfuscates the identities of people captured in Street View. In addition, Google responded to concerns by blurring license plate numbers, removing personally identifiable details, and even lowering the height of its cameras to avoid capturing photos of people in compromising situations through the windows of their home. Nevertheless, Google continued to face privacy pushback as it rolled out this service worldwide. For example, when Google brought Street View to Europe in 2010, several countries asked the company to purge its unblurred photographs from its databases and post its image-capturing schedule online.

    While many concerns over Google’s use of real-world imagery have subsided since 2010, some concerns remain. Google’s Street View mapping technology is currently in its Deflating Fears stage.

    E-Prescribing

    Until recently, most doctors would write prescriptions on paper to be delivered by hand or fax, or call them in to a pharmacy. Electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) allows doctors to send a prescription to a pharmacy electronically, thereby improving prescription legibility, boosting efficiency, increasing convenience, and reducing prescription errors. The Institute of Medicine has estimated that 1.5 million preventable adverse drug events— those that result from medical errors—occur in the United States each year and more than 7,000 of those deaths are linked to poor handwriting and prescription filling errors. A 2010 study found that e-prescribing significantly reduced prescription errors, from 37 errors per 100 prescriptions among non-adopters to 7 errors per 100 prescriptions among those who used an e-prescribing system. Furthermore, by sending the prescription directly to pharmacies, e-prescribing improves the rate at which patients take their medicine as prescribed, a costly problem which in the United States contributes to nearly 125,000 deaths per year and $177 billion annually in the form of increased hospitalizations and other complications.

    E-prescribing increased following the Medicare Modernization Act, which created standards for e-prescribing that went into effect on January 1, 2006, and established eprescribing pilot projects. By 2008, health care providers sent approximately 78 million e-prescriptions, more than double the 2007 total of 35 million. Despite the medical community’s support for e-prescribing, privacy fundamentalists began opposing these efforts. The Coalition for Patient Privacy, a network of organizations created by the privacy advocacy group Patient Privacy Rights, mounted an opposition movement to vocally denounce e-prescribing as a flagrant attack on patient privacy. For example, Deborah Peel, founder of Patient Privacy Rights, argued fervently that consumers should rally against e-prescriptions because it would allow employers to find out sensitive information about their employees, such as that “they take an anti-anxiety medication or that they are being treated for an STD.” She further said, “Would you sit there and watch a house burn down, or let somebody bleed to death before your eyes and do nothing? Or would try to stop those harms? Now that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the systemic theft and misuse of personal data is occurring, why wouldn’t we do all we can to stop it now, starting with e-prescribing?” Similarly, Tim Sparapani, the former senior legislative counsel for the ACLU, said standardizing patient records into an electronic format would make it easier for pharmacies to sell and trade electronic records, potentially violating patient privacy rights.

    These concerns did not stop the rollout of e-prescribing. In 2008, Congress overrode a presidential veto to enact a new Medicare law that, in addition to changing the coverage program, encouraged doctors to write e-prescriptions by increasing payments to physicians using e-prescriptions for their patients. Then, in 2010, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration cleared another hurdle by legalizing the e-prescribing of controlled substances. Eventually every state changed its prescribing regulations to develop eprescription systems that complied with these rules. In 2015, Vermont became the last state to change its rules allowing for the e-prescription of controlled substances.

    Privacy concerns over e-prescriptions have declined in recent years, and this technology is currently in the Moving On stage.

    CONCLUSION

    Newer and better technologies have continued to evolve, but often more slowly than they should because of the objections of privacy fundamentalists and the actions policymakers take on their behalf. Recognizing the privacy panic cycle helps put these fears into perspective. Overblown fears about technology often cloud the judgement of those seeking to understand it, use it, or regulate it. If policymakers do not understand the privacy panic cycle they are more likely to advocate for policies that have a deleterious effect on innovation.

    To be sure, privacy will always continue to be an important consideration as technologies continue to be developed and utilized by both the public and private sector. Concerns for loss of privacy are as valid today as they were with the introduction of the Kodak camera in the late 1800s. However, as policymakers, members of the media, and the population approach new technologies, they should do so with a healthy skepticism of the anticipated downsides and risks the technology will bring. As history has shown, many of the overinflated claims about loss of privacy have never materialized. Policymakers should not get caught up in the panics that follow in the wake of new technologies, and they should not allow hypothetical, speculative, or unverified claims to color the policies they put in place. Similarly, they should not allow unsubstantiated claims put forth by privacy fundamentalists to derail legitimate public sector efforts to use technology to improve society.

    There are a number of reasons that these privacy concerns are rarely realized. First, technologies are often not as powerful as the hype around them suggests. For example, RFID technologies were not used to orchestrate a surveillance society for many reasons, not least because their limited range would make this dystopia infeasible. Second, social norms dissuade many practices that are feasible but undesirable. In addition, businesses are unlikely to surreptitiously gather or use the personal information about their customers in invasive ways if doing so would alienate their consumers and hurt their business. In fact, privacy organizations can do the most good by watching out for real abuses, as opposed to perceived ones, so that organizations know that if they abuse the public’s trust, this will likely be widely known. Despite the amount of overblown rhetoric associated with a technology, both public and private institutions have a duty to create commonsense rules that allow the technology to flourish while protecting the public from potential abuse. This means that if applications of these technologies become problematic, regulators and lawmakers will step in to curtail this abuse.

    As policymakers and regulators alike look at solving the complex privacy issues brought by emerging technology, they should approach all privacy issues with caution. It is difficult, after all, if not impossible, to predict the pace of technology innovation and how it will affect society. When they do act to limit technology, policymakers should enact narrowly targeted laws and regulations that prevent the privacy abuse of new technologies. This is why—from the Kodak camera to the Internet—most of the most beneficial technologies in history have come from times when entrepreneurs had the freedom to experiment. Heightened fears can often encourage policymakers to propose stifling regulations and to shrink from proactively advancing technological innovation, particularly in sectors with heavy government involvement, such as energy or transportation. As this report has documented, the privacy concerns that emerge from most technological innovations are fleeting at best, and policymakers should consider this as they craft rules and policies in response.

    Reply
  2. shinichi Post author

    The privacy fears coalescing around drones will continue to build until the technology is integrated into society and commonsense legislation is crafted to mitigate actual harms while protecting innovation.

    **

    People began to refer to Google Glass wearers as “glassholes,” a phrase that harkens back to the “Kodak fiends” of the late 1800s.

    Reply
  3. shinichi Post author

    Internet of Things

    The Internet of Things refers to an interconnected environment where all manner of objects are embedded with sensors and transmitters that enable a digital presence and the ability to communicate with other objects and people. The potential for this trend is huge: the number of “things” connected to the Internet is expected to rise to 50 billion by 2020, and to include a vast number of devices from connected cars to intelligent light bulbs and smart trash cans. But since 2009, when the number of connected devices surpassed the number of people, a growing number of privacy fundamentalists have begun talking about this technology. The Internet of Things is in the Rising Panic stage, where the public has begun to express privacy concerns about the Internet of Things without fully understanding its benefits.

    This stage, as previously discussed, is punctuated by privacy advocates crying wolf, hyperbolic media stories, and policymakers perpetuating needless alarm. This has led the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue a report focusing more on the privacy risks than on the benefits of connected devices. As the technology continues to weave its way into society, people will likely become less concerned about the privacy implications and more comfortable with the technology.

    **

    モノのインターネット

    モノのインターネットとは、あらゆる種類のオブジェクトにセンサーと送信機が組み込まれている相互接続された環境を指します。これにより、デジタルプレゼンスと、他のオブジェクトや人との通信が可能になります。この傾向の可能性は非常に大きいです。インターネットに接続される「モノ」の数は2020年までに500億に増加し、コネクテッドカーからインテリジェント電球やスマートゴミ箱まで膨大な数のデバイスが含まれると予想されます。しかし、接続されたデバイスの数が人の数を超えた2009年以降、ますます多くのプライバシー原理主義者がこのテクノロジーについて話し始めています。モノのインターネットは台頭するパニックの段階にあり、一般の人々はモノのインターネットの利点を完全に理解することなくプライバシーの懸念を表明し始めています。

    前に説明したように、この段階は、オオカミを泣くプライバシー擁護者、双曲線のメディアストーリー、および不必要な警戒を永続させる政策立案者によって中断されます。これにより、連邦取引委員会(FTC)は、接続されたデバイスの利点よりもプライバシーリスクに焦点を当てたレポートを発行するようになりました。テクノロジーが社会に浸透し続けるにつれて、人々はプライバシーへの影響についての懸念が少なくなり、テクノロジーに慣れることができるでしょう。

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.