Scenario 2: Mashup Misuse

2006
Some people realised that mashups that were created could be a potential threat to the internet and thus the world. Mashup producers did not take issues like copyright, privacy, security or integrity serious, they just developed mashups with whatever data they could. Most of the world was not aware of the existence of mashups or similar ways to expose data. Some articles were written on the potential threat these new developments in technology could pose and the level of awareness is raised, but no measures are taken to secure this data. As a warning it was shown how easy it was to implement data from Amazon wishlists into maps, showing where people live that have certain book titles on their wishlists.

Late 2006
More mashups were created, some just for fun, showing, for example, where celebrities live, some for creating profits, but also some were used for more illegal purposes. For example maps were created showing where weapons and/or drugs were sold. Google was simply able to block these sites from being able to use their API’s.

Early 2007
The minor misuses of mashups of late 2006 increased and also more serious misuse of data took place, for example by hackers who hacked the feed of data from an API going to a mashup and then fed false data to that website. Other illegal implications followed and some law suites were conducted. More litigation followed because of the violations of privacy, for example the mobile phones of some celebrities were hacked and their locations were shown on maps real-time, and thus invading their privacy. Mashups were used to implement viruses in their data source by using a mashup worm to track back to the source of the information. Due to the increased misuse some sites that initially opened their API's to be used in mashups, closed them again and websites that were considering to open their APIs did not. Many mashups no longer worked as they were using the interfaces that were open, but were now closed. Application service providers were also warned by the misuse; therefore the competition between the different providers decreased and they did not further push or promote their services to be used in mashups. As everyone was very protective of their products, it was no longer promoted to create better technology standards. Browsers came up with stronger security options that disallowed mashup websites to combine different services from different sources. Standard setters implemented new rules that insisted API producers to use unique standards and support high-level encryption etc in order to communicate between other API’s.

Mid 2007
In spite of the protective measures taken, misuse of mashups continued and more creative ways to mashups were found. The media heard about the misuse and litigation and jumped in. The mashup misuse became front page news, which made the general public aware about the problems and possible further threads. As the illegal practices continued to occur, more sites had to be blocked from being able to use interfaces and more lawsuits were conducted, Google and eBay decided to close their API’s and increased security to prevent their interfaces from being hacked to be used anyway. The media sent the message out that if even Google and eBay closed their interfaces, something must be really wrong. Mass paranoia followed. All websites that still had their interfaces open also closed them from usage. Up to then, free software was heavily promoted all around the globe, but from mid 2007 more software was protected by copyright. Many mashup producers, that were creating mashups for fun, faced too many hurdles to create more. The usage of mashup sites encounters significant declines, and the change is attributed to the risk of being exposed to possible threats. Companies that had created mashups to increase business value, were either no longer able to exist, or were forced to seek alternative ways to service their customers.

Late 2007
Due to the raised awareness of existing threats and violations, companies protected their data more as they were afraid that by revealing information to be used to create mashups, they might also reveal their core competences. They feared that further development of mashups and similar technologies would make them vulnerable and an easy target for the competition. Consumers took a more conservative approach, which led to a negative effect on the development of technology and the availability of information. No longer was information readily placed on the internet, less consumers ordered products through the internet, they did not want to send their personal data as they feared more violation of privacy. Governments also took measures by keeping tighter controls. Misuse was higher fined and some misusers were even sentenced to jail. In America and Japan software patent directives had already been in place for years. Such directives were rejected in Europe and India in 2005, but because of the negative attitude of the public and governments these directives were again promoted and in 2008 they were accepted. This gave industry and society more tools to protect their information and products.

2008-2010
Even though technology like consumer hardware did continue to develop, no more mashups or similar technologies were produced. The whole world had adapted a much more protective attitude towards their information and privacy, which decreased the demand for mashups to non-existing. The technologists that were originally creating mashups, now faced to many hurdles and as there was no demand for mashups, they were no longer created.

References
'Mashup' websites are a hacker's dream come true
Data Mining 101: Finding Subversives with Amazon Wishlists
Free Software Foundation
No Software Patents!