Future computing: The Internet of Things

Topic

New Reply

	TOP STORY Future computing: The Internet of Things
	By Doug Spindler Some thirty years ago, the personal computer revolution began — and no other technology has evolved more quickly. Now there a new revolution, often referred to as the Internet of Things. Here’s what you need to know about it.[/SIZE]

---

The full text of this column is posted at windowssecrets.com/top-story/future-computing-the-internet-of-things (paid content, opens in a new window/tab).

Columnists typically cannot reply to comments here, but do incorporate the best tips into future columns.[/td]

[/tr][/tbl]

Reply | Quote

Replies

Onboard cameras and computers can now prevent unsafe lane changes,

So I see a roadside tree falling in my path, but the software stops me swerving because it has seen the car behind me already swerving out (as if to overtake – but possibly because its driver has seen the tree).

Consequently I am hit by the tree and am killed.

Should my life insurance pay-out, should the software developers of my car have their liability insurance pay out (because it was incapable of choosing the lesser crash), or possibly should the other car’s software developers’ liability insurance pay out (because they inhibited my car from pulling out by reacting too fast)? Or should the owners of the tree pay out for not fitting a “rot sensor” to their tree?

I think I am going back to school – law school. I will never be out of work again (assuming that tree does not get me first).

Reply | Quote

Onboard cameras and computers can now prevent unsafe lane changes,

So I see a roadside tree falling in my path, but the software stops me swerving because it has seen the car behind me already swerving out (as if to overtake – but possibly because its driver has seen the tree).

Consequently I am hit by the tree and am killed.

Should my life insurance pay-out, should the software developers of my car have their liability insurance pay out (because it was incapable of choosing the lesser crash), or possibly should the other car’s software developers’ liability insurance pay out (because they inhibited my car from pulling out by reacting too fast)? Or should the owners of the tree pay out for not fitting a “rot sensor” to their tree?

I think I am going back to school – law school. I will never be out of work again (assuming that tree does not get me first).

What you said. I will never, if I can help it, buy a vehicle that makes driving decisions for me. I’ve been driving long enough, including performance driving for a living, so if the car doesn’t allow me to actually do the driving, I’m not interested. Might as well take the bus or a cab.

To pile on a bit – say I have a self-driving car (or computer assisted car), and I’m trying to parallel park (gee, there’s a skill that seems to be dying off). The car stops moving because it’s afraid I’m going to hit the car I’m backing towards. But wait a minute, I have to get close so I can get into the spot…

No way, not buying one of those. I’ll stick to older vehicles.

Reply | Quote

What you said. I will never, if I can help it, buy a vehicle that makes driving decisions for me. I’ve been driving long enough, including performance driving for a living, so if the car doesn’t allow me to actually do the driving, I’m not interested. Might as well take the bus or a cab.

To pile on a bit – say I have a self-driving car (or computer assisted car), and I’m trying to parallel park (gee, there’s a skill that seems to be dying off). The car stops moving because it’s afraid I’m going to hit the car I’m backing towards. But wait a minute, I have to get close so I can get into the spot…

No way, not buying one of those. I’ll stick to older vehicles.

Ditto!
One more reason to stay with my motorcycle. 😉

Reply | Quote

What you said. I will never, if I can help it, buy a vehicle that makes driving decisions for me. I’ve been driving long enough, including performance driving for a living, so if the car doesn’t allow me to actually do the driving, I’m not interested. Might as well take the bus or a cab.

To pile on a bit – say I have a self-driving car (or computer assisted car), and I’m trying to parallel park (gee, there’s a skill that seems to be dying off). The car stops moving because it’s afraid I’m going to hit the car I’m backing towards. But wait a minute, I have to get close so I can get into the spot…

No way, not buying one of those. I’ll stick to older vehicles.

Totally agree with you on driving. I’ve survived 47 years of driving a motorcycle in addition to a million+ miles in cars and trucks. And my 23 times being stopped for speeding says it ain’t cause I drive slowly. What drivng a motorcycle does for me is not just focusing on what’s around me, but seeing potential accident situations developing, giving myself more reaction or evasive time. I wonder if a driverless car sees that woman playing with her phone (or her dash mounted screen!) approaching a yield sign? I can, and I do. Too many times.

Reply | Quote

I was recently told that doctors have imbedded Windows 10 computers into patients.

Question would you allow a computer with a new operating system to be embedded in your body?

I dread to think what might happen if a masseur should accidentally Ctrl-Alt-Delete whilst trying to ease some muscle?

Reply | Quote

I was recently told that doctors have imbedded Windows 10 computers into patients.

Question would you allow a computer with a new operating system to be embedded in your body?

I dread to think what might happen if a masseur should accidentally Ctrl-Alt-Delete whilst trying to ease some muscle?

I wouldn’t allow anything that says Microsoft inside my body. I shuddered when I saw “Powered by Microsoft” low on the dashboard of my Ford Escape (it’s the Sync system). One thing I’ve always considered in going about my job as a software developer is that nothing I work on is so critical that anybody is going to die as a result of an error on my part (I’m a business programmer). I don’t write aircraft software, medical device software, etc. And I wouldn’t trust Microsoft with any kind of medical device software (especially not with their track record of bugs and security lapses), I’d do without and look for old fashioned alternatives.

Reply | Quote

Whoever ever told you that was just plain wrong.

Reply | Quote

Whoever ever told you that was just plain wrong.

You really need to quote so we what the heck you are responding to, unless it is the immediately preceding post or other wise obvious.

:cheers:

🍻

Just because you don't know where you are going doesn't mean any road will get you there.

Reply | Quote

I was recently told that doctors have embedded Windows 10 computers into patients.

Question would you allow a computer with a new operating system to be embedded in your body?

I dread to think what might happen if a masseur should accidentally Ctrl-Alt-Delete whilst trying to ease some muscle?

The situation you wrote about certainly IS dangerous! On the other hand, I think you would probably agree that there are some people living on our planet who we would wish could be given an ‘operating system update’.

But, to site another danger that wasn’t mentioned in the article: With this type of control and monitoring, what politician will be able to resist the possibility of a “1984 scenario”. If you live in the United States, think deeply about this question: Of those currently seeking power, which would you want to give the possibility of ‘crowd control’ or ‘population control’ that this technology is capable of?

Finally, what privacy will we have left?

Reply | Quote

Finally, what privacy will we have left?

Aw, c’mon. You know perfectly well that anyone who uses the internet has no privacy!!

Reply | Quote

Aw, c’mon. You know perfectly well that anyone who uses the internet has no privacy!!

You’re right, of course. What I was referring to though is that, even now, if you drive down the street in any large city, Big Brother is watching you. If you walk down the street in any large city, Big Brother is watching you. Soon, with IoT, if you open your refrigerator and take out a beer, Big Brother will know what brand beer and how big the bottle. If you go back for a second one, He will know how fast you drank it. If you drink say, 5 beers, and run out. If you go out to start your car to go to the store to buy more, Big Brother may make sure it won’t start for you because you drank them too fast and your blood alcohol level is higher than what He wants to allow driver’s to have. That may prevent many accidents, and many deaths (especially here in Houston), but, now do you understand the level of privacy you will NOT have?

Reply | Quote

You’re right, of course. What I was referring to though is that, even now, if you drive down the street in any large city, Big Brother is watching you. If you walk down the street in any large city, Big Brother is watching you. Soon, with IoT, if you open your refrigerator and take out a beer, Big Brother will know what brand beer and how big the bottle. If you go back for a second one, He will know how fast you drank it. If you drink say, 5 beers, and run out. If you go out to start your car to go to the store to buy more, Big Brother may make sure it won’t start for you because you drank them too fast and your blood alcohol level is higher than what He wants to allow driver’s to have. That may prevent many accidents, and many deaths (especially here in Houston), but, now do you understand the level of privacy you will NOT have?

The utter lack of liberty in the scenario you describe is what frightens me. The manipulation of behavior in that situation is scary, because it is done under the guise of “the public good”.

Big data is more than just a giant spreadsheet of data. In order to parse such huge amounts of information, algorithms must be used – and algorithms could be described as “assumptions”. That means that some ONE or some GROUP gets to determine the parameters of how the data is crunched, thus affecting the outcome.

Reply | Quote

You’re right, of course. What I was referring to though is that, even now, if you drive down the street in any large city, Big Brother is watching you. If you walk down the street in any large city, Big Brother is watching you. Soon, with IoT, if you open your refrigerator and take out a beer, Big Brother will know what brand beer and how big the bottle. If you go back for a second one, He will know how fast you drank it. If you drink say, 5 beers, and run out. If you go out to start your car to go to the store to buy more, Big Brother may make sure it won’t start for you because you drank them too fast and your blood alcohol level is higher than what He wants to allow driver’s to have. That may prevent many accidents, and many deaths (especially here in Houston), but, now do you understand the level of privacy you will NOT have?

So, guess i’ll have to send my girlfriend to the store to buy more beer …. Or, we can just continue to drink red wine which was never in the fridge to begin with! Or scotch, or cognac, or … well, you get the idea. 😎

Reply | Quote

You’re right, of course. What I was referring to though is that, even now, if you drive down the street in any large city, Big Brother is watching you. If you walk down the street in any large city, Big Brother is watching you. Soon, with IoT, if you open your refrigerator and take out a beer, Big Brother will know what brand beer and how big the bottle. If you go back for a second one, He will know how fast you drank it. If you drink say, 5 beers, and run out. If you go out to start your car to go to the store to buy more, Big Brother may make sure it won’t start for you because you drank them too fast and your blood alcohol level is higher than what He wants to allow driver’s to have. That may prevent many accidents, and many deaths (especially here in Houston), but, now do you understand the level of privacy you will NOT have?

That should make solving crimes simple; witnesses to everything, right? Maybe even preventing them, too.

Reply | Quote

Aw, c’mon. You know perfectly well that anyone who uses the internet has no privacy!!

Not everyone Marvin.:cheers:

🍻

Just because you don't know where you are going doesn't mean any road will get you there.

Reply | Quote

I can be accused of quibbling but the Apple II came out in 1977 programmed in BASIC thus accessible to the public code writers and was followed by the Commodore PET, Atari 8-bit family and Tandy Corporation’s TRS-80 so I’d say closer to 40 years.

Reply | Quote

not only that but another consideration is, given the unreliability of electronics, cramming ore and more into a vehicle means many times more chances of the car breaking down and not working, or having sensors break down and the car not passing inspection until it’s fixed, the sensors conflicting with vital electronics in the vehicle when they malfunction etc- Them ore layers of complexity you add, them ore potential for something to go wrong

Reply | Quote

We all saw how well these systems worked with Volkswagen!!

Reply | Quote

But tech companies are working on new forms of computer memory (RAM) and data storage

I’ve been hearing and reading that for almost the last ten years! Stanford researchers this, MIT researchers that … And yet, here we are in 2015 with nothing more than evolved RAM technology on the same old (evolved) slots doing the job in the same old way.

Reply | Quote

IPv6 is being implemented for the sole purpose of supporting IoT. The “we’re running out of addresses” line is bogus. Yes, there are 4 billion IPv4 addresses, but each of those addresses can have up to 4 billion addresses through the use of NAT. Why does every node need a unique address as will happen under IPv6? Tracking – IPv6 addresses are the new UUID.

The statement in the article: “For the most part, the information is cleaned, sorted, and combined with other data to build models of our online behavior” misses the mark. With IoT, ALL behavior could be online, and those who analyze the data may be able to predict that behavior. That would make it easier to manipulate our behavior.

There really needs to be some controls around data – what can be collected, who can collect it, and what can be done with it.

Reply | Quote

a unique address sure makes it easier for my bank to know it is me taking my money out and not someone else.

Reply | Quote

a unique address sure makes it easier for my bank to know it is me taking my money out and not someone else.

Or maybe the other way around. Two factor authentication trumps weak easily spoofed methods.
:cheers:

🍻

Just because you don't know where you are going doesn't mean any road will get you there.

Reply | Quote

Actually, in North America, it’s not…

http://www.wired.com/2015/09/north-america-just-ran-old-school-internet-addresses/

The fact that all IPv4 addresses are allocated isn’t relevant to my point. Many providers allocate unique addresses to each customer (for example, in my area Comcast and AT&T assign unique IP addresses to each customer). That isn’t necessary with the use of address translation.

Reply | Quote

The biggest issue with IoT is that stuff breaks and fixing it can get really, really expensive. Electronics in cars are not new and the ability to connect those electronics to something that can be accessed by a computer was going to happen. But that doesn’t solve some fundamental issues.

Cars are wired up with all kinds of sensors and controllers and there are more every year. What do you think the chances are that this stuff is going to work 100% all the time. How many here have a little light that stays on because some stupid $3 sensor is broken but will take 2 hour of labor to get to and replace? What do you think the odds are that some stupid wire will come loose or something little thing fail and render your car inoperable until it can be towed someplace?

Now, add a complicated computer interface to that. What fun!

Reply | Quote

Right now, I wouldn’t have any use for an internet connected household item. Too many security risks, including data collection. I’m not sure I would trust the reliability either.
By coincidence I just saw a line from Kaspersky, calling it “The Internet of Threats”, so I agree with that!

Reply | Quote

Don’t It’s unfair being so literal or so out of context critical. Every little statement doesn’t have to be pinned down to the last detail. The actual situation with IPv.4 addresses has been covered in the computing press innumerable times, including in Windows Secrets. The article wasn’t about IPv.4 vs. IPv.6. The “running out of address” statement was just a brief intro to the sheer number of IPv.6 addresses available for IoT, and most Windows Secrets readers are probably aware that ICANN has sold all its IPv.4 addresses, whether or not any individual company, ISP, country, etc, has run out.

Reply | Quote

“And it was recently shown that hackers could take control of cars remotely.”

Windows Secrets needs to do an article on this to put the exploit in perspective. The simple statement is too misleading. The actual hack, a DARPA research project, took a great deal of effort (a heck of a lot more effort than pwning an individual computer), was specific to one vehicle from one manufacturer, and the vulnerability that allowed the exploit was quickly fixed by the manufacturer.

Reply | Quote

Just ran across this and found it rather germane to the topic.
https://bluebox.com/hello-barbie-app-hello-security-issues/

Reply | Quote

Well, at least the manufacturers addressed a number (most, a few, one?) of the issues. But would this happen in the future…?

Eliminate spare time: start programming PowerShell

Reply | Quote

Well, at least the manufacturers addressed a number (most, a few, one?) of the issues. But would this happen in the future…?

If you’re referring to the Barbie thing, then sure, it’ll happen again. It just seems like such an either ignorant or irresponsible thing to do. Anybody with the tech knowledge to include those capabilities into a toy should know all about the possible consequences.
I don’t trust very much on the internet, and haven’t had any “infections” or identify theft, etc. either. Obviously no coincidence.

Reply | Quote

In case no one remembers, there was an incident a few years ago where the cameras on school issued laptops could be accessed remotely by the IT staff. The stated reason was to help track the laptop if it was stolen.

Of course, there was no chance anyone would use that just to “check in” on the students to make sure they were doing their homework. And of course, there was no way anyone could hack into that.

Reply | Quote

I have never understood this thing “privacy” Is there a need for law abiding citizens to be “secretive” ???
I don’t think so — Well maybe some things should not be done in public out of decency but not for privacy — every city block needs several cameras. Just last week 3 would-be robbers were apprehended here in Vegas when a video of them attempting to escape after a break-in went viral. Thanks to an observing neighbor.

If you appear in a public place you should expect (and want) to be photographed.

Warren

Reply | Quote

I have never understood this thing “privacy” Is there a need for law abiding citizens to be “secretive” ???
I don’t think so — Well maybe some things should not be done in public out of decency but not for privacy — every city block needs several cameras. Just last week 3 would-be robbers were apprehended here in Vegas when a video of them attempting to escape after a break-in went viral. Thanks to an observing neighbor.

If you appear in a public place you should expect (and want) to be photographed.

Warren

Is there a reason for law abiding citizens not to be secretive, if they so choose? A desire not to be monitored or tracked should not result in immediate condemnation that that person’s actions are nefarious.

There is a big difference between monitoring citizens’ public activities and monitoring citizens’ private activities. There is also a big difference between government monitoring and corporate monitoring.

The question is where is the line drawn to ensure the information is not misused by corporations OR governments.

Reply | Quote