Internet of
Things
August
3, 2013 Posted in Internet of Things – Smart Systems and Dumb Policy
could be a Dangerous Combination in a Dynamic Global Arena
Steve
Bell, President, KeySo Global LLC
Introduction
As
a result of a recent C-PET Internet of Things (IoT) round table teleconference
and the recent 3rd Annual Internet of Things Europe 2011 conference in
Brussels it was thought appropriate to share the following paper. This report
is a summary extract of the key points discussed at a C-PET IoT conference held
in December 2009. It is based on a comprehensive report developed by KeySo
Global (available on request) of the meeting that examined these points in
light of a number of trends and developments of the IoT during 2010. In
order to keep this document fresh and relevant, the opportunity was taken to
carry out a hindsight/foresight review of the material and to test the
temperature of the conclusions in the light of IoT developments in Europe, and
the progress being made.
Hindsight & Foresight
Two
years ago, the consensus appeared to be that the EU had first mover advantage
on IoT but now it appears that China is clearly in the forefront of the
countries developing the Internet of Things. Some of the issues that this
observation surfaces are the cultural and philosophical differences between and
amongst the eastern and western societies and governments.
The
goal for IoT & Internet in the EU by 2020 is “smart,
sustainable, inclusive” with values like privacy built in from the start on the
assumption that it will fail otherwise. Peter Hustinx, European Data Protection
Supervisor makes the point that “fundamental to the successful deployment is
trust”. Privacy of data and trust of the consumer will be critical components
to success of the Internet of Things. While the rhetoric on “right to silence”
may be “hyperbole” it starts the global conversation on privacy by design.
Does
an equivalent statement exist for the US and should it? Does Washington even
understand the profound implications that the IoT will have on the U.S and
global economy? These were some of the areas touched upon in the recent
roundtable where Michael Nelson identified 3 Tech Cultures: W. Coast, Prototype
Principle; E. Coast, Profit Principle; Europe, Precautionary Principle. As Dan
Caprio & Mike concluded, the issue is not which is the right principle but
how to embrace all 3 in a horizontal approach across the EU and the US,
and at the same time recognize that China and Asia are moving at a rapid pace
of development as well. There are a lot of moving parts and players involved in
assessing multiple international policy issues but it is essential to start
addressing them.
The
paradox is about protecting a fragile and evolving Internet and those who want
control over this and the emerging IoT technology. Today’s Internet policy
framework is “elegant in its restraint” and has enabled extraordinary
innovation, according to the OECD, but they see trends that
threaten to balkanize the Internet, creating mini national Internets that will
destroy economic and social potential.
M2M
communications only become the true IoT when interfaces & data
open up & everything talks globally. The sensors are the means not the end;
they are ambient and do not need “modal” interfaces that require human
attention. The Internet of Things is really about data management and the
privacy implications that arise from this built environment. The IoT will
indirectly enable the observation and understanding of human behavior in
buildings and places. Where this information can be mashed together to create
swarm behavior analysis, it raises the interesting issue of who owns the data
and knowledge.
Open
data will drive the Internet of Things. As Meglena Kuneva, European Consumer
Commissioner, said in March 2009 “personal data is the new oil of the Internet
& the new currency of the digital world.” It seems reasonable to anticipate
that this complex global environment will spawn many different privacy
solutions rather than a single “privacy by design” solution and that the focus
should be on the transparency of the systems that hold the data, not
necessarily on the transparency of the data itself.
This
is why, instead of the Internet of Things, it should potentially be renamed the
“Cloud of Everything”. This would be comprised of billions of people
controlling the use of open data generated by billions of devices for millions
of apps & services, which in turn utilize the data made available by the
Cloud for the purposes of sharing and analysis.
The
“Cloud of Everything” is the classic double power conundrum; it is the biggest
opportunity and the biggest challenge to everything that individual societies
and cultures hold absolute.
Impact of the Internet of Things
In
December 2009 the Center for Policy on Emerging Technologies (C-PET), a non
partisan think tank for the 21st century, held a roundtable discussion in
Washington DC hosted at the offices of McKenna Long & Aldridge. The small
but broad cross section of participants and experts brought a wealth of
knowledge and perspectives. They facilitated a better understanding of the
potential, the impact and the implications of the Internet of Things (IoT), both
in the U.S.A and globally. One general conclusion arising from the C-PET panel
was that competing visions exist for the IoT and that the general public does
not yet have a clear and compelling sense of what it is or of the benefits that
it could potentially provide. The C-PET panel recommended definition was much
simpler and attempted to address the need for a clear, compelling,
benefit-driven definition that could be understood by consumers. The C-PET
panel’s vision emphasizes “connecting the things that matter to make life
better”.
The
Internet of Things (IoT) is the ultimate paradox; by definition its lineage is
clear (Moore’s Law, Internet, cellular, RFID and the web) but the implications
of what it yields or unleashes are truly unknown at this time.
Elements
grounded in science are predictable but as you move up the software and
services stack, second and third order derivatives are more difficult to
predict, and their implications on society even less so.
A
recent article in the Economist magazine on the Internet of Things highlights
four main areas of concern for society
Privacy:
an increasing number of sensors will mean that offline data can be mixed with
online data, creating enhanced digital footprints
Control:
the risk of abuse by a malevolent government using Orwellian ways to keep
people under control
Security:
the fear that smart systems might be vulnerable to malfunctioning or attacks by
hackers – the Stuxnet scenario
Elitism:
the concern that those with access to smart systems could be vastly better
informed than those without, which could lead to control by a few
One
challenge identified by the C-PET panel was how to unlock the latent value of
the Internet of Things in order to unleash human creativity; specifically to
ensure that it truly remains an Internet of Things and that, through policy,
its potential is not limited to an “internet of fewer things”.
Enabling the Internet of Things
During
the C-PET session consideration was given to what was needed to enable the
Internet of Things to flourish.
The
following enabling elements were explored and discussed during the meeting:
- IT and
broadband networks for backhaul, coupled with robust layers of wireless
data networks, are essential for the provision of ubiquitous access
anywhere, any time
- These
networks need to be scalable globally and have the ability for
communicating with billions of billions of addresses (IPV6 adoption) and a
domain name standard that allows devices to be traced
- Spectrum
management needs to address the future requirements of networks of smart
systems, with billions of devices continuously refreshing their status and
needing control guidance
- The
networks need to be robust, resilient, flexible and probably redundant if
they are to interface, link and service utility and health systems. Denial
of service and threat of cyber attack cannot be acceptable on critical
infrastructure
- Architectural
and policy recognition that, unlike the Internet, the IoT is not a
singular or totally open system but is in fact comprised of overlapping
networks of open, closed and partially open systems. Standards and
interfaces will be needed to ensure companies can protect proprietary
supply chain information, but on the other hand have the ability to track
and recall goods (food & drugs) across multiple systems when necessary
- With
the ability to gather data 24/7 from potentially billions and billions of
devices, there is a need for heuristic software capability and
deterministic rules
- New
data storage concepts need to be considered: despite the continually
lowering cost of this, there is a distinct possibility of running out of
storage
- New
capabilities in smart pattern recognition will be required to handle
current and historic data, and to then determine how best to use this data
effectively
- Business
processes need to adapt, and companies need to be able to see the economic
benefit of investing in IoT. The lesson from RFID is that, even if the
cost of sensors and chips continues to fall to extremely low levels, the
issue becomes the total cost of the system as a whole
- Equally,
if the overall proposition is not attractive, easy to use and can be
seamlessly adopted into consumers’ lives, they too will reject it
- Provision
needs to be made for security, privacy policy and mechanisms that address
a new set of paradigms; where access, storage, usage and ownership of data
related to someone or something are not necessarily under the control of
an individual or corporate entity, and where national boundaries have
little meaning
- Consideration
for regulation of smart grids where there is more than one owner, the
owner is outside the national border or the grid is part of an
international network
- Global
collaboration between governments and industry on consumer security and
privacy service level agreements, and opt in rules regarding silent chips
and surveillance
- Policing
and enforcement to address the federated crime syndicates that are already
emerging and that recognize no borders, generating a shadow economy that
is already more than a trillion dollars
- The
consideration of industry partnerships and stimulus funding to accelerate
development of technical, economic and social capabilities; to ensure that
IoT based structural change positions the U.S. to take a leadership role
in what could be the next industrial revolution
Concluding comment
During
this last 12 months C-PET has consistently raised the concern that Washington
has not cultivated an innovation mindset. In this environment where will the
cradle of innovation be for the IoT in the U.S. and how will it be encouraged?
In fact, with the increasing emphasis on short term results, can it really be
nurtured in the U.S. and can these enabling elements be addressed?
