# data[].attributes.headline
Rise of the Machines: Who is 'The Internet of Things' Good For?

# data[].attributes.subject
Rise of the Machines: Who is 'The Internet of Things' Good For?

# data[].attributes.body
Erica Noye
I found this article to be interesting because it made me think about my every day life. The article explains how technology continues to become more advanced and will continue to keep changing. It goes on to explain how things such as our smartphones track our every move such as location and whereabouts. It almost made me feel like my privacy had been violated after reading the article when in reality, I've done it all to myself. We rely on technology for so many different aspects in our lives that it's easy to forget how invasive it can really be.
This article relates to our lectures because it was talking about technology and how it connects so many things in this world.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/06/internet-of-things-smart-home-smart-city

# data[].attributes.headline
Rise of the Machines: Who is 'The Internet of Things' Good For?

# data[].attributes.subject
Rise of the Machines: Who is 'The Internet of Things' Good For?

# data[].attributes.body
John Shuler
This article offers several examples of how companies are evolving, changing the ways we shop and intereact with businesses. The amazon Dash button is mentioned as a perfect example, allowing a customer to set up fa

# data[].attributes.headline
73% Are Using Internet Of Things Data To Improve Their Business

# data[].attributes.subject
73% Are Using Internet Of Things Data To Improve Their Business

# data[].attributes.body
Ryan Pierce

This article posted on Forbes.com, talks about how more and more businesses are starting to use the Internet of Things to improve their business. The article gives data from a study performed by Cisco. It gives the different areas that the Internet of Things has positively affected and the frequency it makes a difference. The article also gives the percent it is successful and at the end it tells what the business owners really think of the implementation of the Internet of Things.

This article gives very good insight on how effective the Internet of Things really is. It gives real-world data on the impact IoT really has. Rather than just reading/learning about what it can do it shows what it is doing and the various areas it impacts. It tells about how businesses are using IoT to gather data and information then to make improvements.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2017/06/30/73-are-using-internet-of-things-data-to-improve-their-business/#1de038fb5806

# data[].attributes.headline
The promise and the reality of interoperability in the internet of things

# data[].attributes.subject
The promise and the reality of interoperability in the internet of things

# data[].attributes.body
Giang Nguyen

The article was stating that “the internet of things (IoT) promises a utopian, interconnected world where physical and digital converge to make our lives easier through increased productivity in industry, efficiency at home or by providing more touchpoints between consumers and brands.” But there is a real difficulty in achieving true benefits of IoT is the lack of interoperability among all the devices, and networks. To solve the problem a company called Chirp has emerged to enable increased interconnectivity between them through the universal language of sound.

Its data-over-sound technology encodes data into a series of audible or inaudible, near ultrasonic tones on a sending device before transmitting it over the air to a receiving device, or group of devices where it is decoded. Chirp is used to simplify the device onboarding process, removing the need for pairing or password entry, to extend existing network infrastructures by creating data-over-sound links between individual devices and a network, enabling legacy devices with audio capabilities to join the IoT ecosystem. Devices without native audio can be connected through a simple audio-capable companion device.

The article is somehow related to our lecture since it was talking about a technology that helps connect all the devices more efficiently and easily.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The internet of things (IoT) promises a utopian, interconnected world where physical and digital converge to make our lives easier through increased productivity in industry, efficiency at home or by providing more touchpoints between consumers and brands.

However, as more devices, networks and platforms come to market, the lack of interoperability between them has emerged as an obstacle to achieving true benefit.

While many players in the market seek to differentiate not only through service offerings but also hardware, software and networks, a company called Chirp has emerged to enable increased interconnectivity between them through the universal language of sound.

Its data-over-sound technology comes packaged as a suite of interoperable software development kit (SDKs) that encode data into a series of audible or inaudible, near ultrasonic tones on a sending device before transmitting it over the air to a receiving device, or group of devices where it is decoded.

Any device with a speaker can emit a Chirp and most devices with a microphone can receive and decode it.

Chirp's technology was and continues to be developed by some of the world's leading scientific minds and leading acoustic technologists and engineers and is used globally in interactive gaming and toys, transportation, industrial IoT and robotics by clients including Activision Blizzard and Shuttl.

Chirp does not compete with existing networking technologies. Rather it is used to simplify the device onboarding process, removing the need for pairing or password entry.

It is also used to extend existing network infrastructures by creating data-over-sound links between individual devices and a network, enabling legacy devices with audio capabilities to join the IoT ecosystem. Devices without native audio can be connected through a simple audio-capable companion device.

Harnessing sound to create a widely compatible, low-friction method for old and new devices and networks to connect, Chirp will perhaps fulfil the promise of utopia after all.

Chirp is the first or last three feet of a connection between a device and its destination - be that another device, a group of devices, a system or network.

Chirp uses sound to deliver the benefits of IoT in a seamless, scalable and cost-effective way. To find out how to harness data-over-sound to realise the true benefit of IoT, go to chirp.io
* This article was originally produced and published by Business Reporter. View the original article at business-reporter.co.uk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is the internet of things all it's cracked up to be?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The internet of things (IoT) promises a utopian, interconnected world where physical and digital converge to make our lives easier through increased productivity in industry, efficiency at home or by providing more touchpoints between consumers and brands. However, as more devices, networks and platforms come to market, the lack of interoperability between them has emerged as an obstacle to achieving true benefit.

# data[].attributes.headline
Rise of the Machines: Who is the 'Internet of Things' good for?

# data[].attributes.subject
Rise of the Machines: Who is the 'Internet of Things' good for?

# data[].attributes.body
Jorge Lorenzo

Adam Greenfield, a writer for 'The Guardian', explains in his article "Rise of the Machines: Who is the 'Internet of Things' good for?" that interconnected technologies are becoming an inescapable reality in modern times.

Adam delves into the notions that technologies are becoming more advanced and are starting to operate with each other in terms of sensors, transactions, and consumer-ads. Although these new techs are useful in their own way, they are starting to become, in a way, invasive to our buying habits, location, and likes or dislikes. He talks about the Amazon Dash button that allows you to order a favorite item of yours, at a touch of a button. Which sounds great and convenient, but at a deeper level it provides people the means to buy certain items with as little thought as possible.

This article wasn't a "hate speech" for technology by any means, but it does warn that as much as we enjoy and imagine a world with technology/automation at our every step, we should also be wary as to what this implies to our privacy and conscious decisions.

This article relates tremendously within the last few chapters. More specifically with the idea of big data and what companies do with that information to target consumers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In San Francisco, a young engineer hopes to "optimise" his life through sensors that track his heart rate, respiration and sleep cycle. In Copenhagen, a bus running two minutes behind schedule transmits its location and passenger count to the municipal traffic signal network, which extends the time of the green light at each of the next three intersections long enough for its driver to make up some time. In Davao City in the Philippines, an unsecured webcam overlooks the storeroom of a fast food stand, allowing anyone to peer in on all its comings and goings.

What links these wildly different circumstances is a vision of connected devices now being sold to us as the "internet of things". The technologist Mike Kuniavsky, a pioneer of this idea, characterises it as a state of being in which "computation and data communication [are] embedded in, and distributed through, our entire environment". I prefer to see it for what it is: the colonisation of everyday life by information processing.

Though it can often feel as if this colonisation proceeds of its own momentum, distinct ambitions are being served wherever and however the internet of things appears. The internet of things isn't a single technology. About all that connects the various devices, services, vendors and efforts involved is the end goal they serve: capturing data that can then be used to measure and control the world around us.

Whenever a project has such imperial designs on our everyday lives, it is vital that we ask just what ideas underpin it and whose interests it serves. Although the internet of things retains a certain sprawling and formless quality, we can get a far more concrete sense of what it involves by looking at how it appears at each of three scales: that of our bodies (where the effort is referred to as the "quantified self"), our homes ("the smart home") and our public spaces ("the smart city"). Each of these examples illuminates a different aspect of the challenge presented to us by the internet of things, and each has something distinct to teach us.

t the most intimate scale, the internet of things is visible in the form of wearable biometric sensors. The simplest of these are little more than networked digital pedometers, which count steps, measure the distance a person has traversed, and furnish an estimate of the calories burned in the course of this activity. More elaborate models measure heart rate, breathing, skin temperature and even perspiration.

If wearable biometric devices such as Fitbits and Apple Watches are, in theory, aimed at rigorous self-mastery, the colonisation of the domestic environment by similarly networked products and services is intended to deliver a very different experience: convenience. The aim of such "smart home" efforts is to short-circuit the process of reflection that stands between having a desire and fulfilling that desire by buying something.

Right now, the perfect example of this is a gadget being sold by Amazon, known as the Dash Button. Many internet-of-things devices are little more than some conventional object with networked connectivity tacked on. The Dash Button is the precise opposite, a thing in the world that could not have existed without the internet. I cannot improve on Amazon's own description of this curious object and how it works, so I'll repeat it here: "Amazon Dash Button is a Wi-Fi-connected device that reorders your favourite item with the press of a button. To use Dash Button, simply download the Amazon app from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store. Then, sign into your Amazon Prime account, connect Dash Button to Wi-Fi, and select the product you want to reorder. Once connected, a single press on Dash Button automatically places your order."

In other words: single-purpose electronic devices, each dedicated to an individual branded item, that you press when you're running low. Pressing a Dash Button specific to your preferred pet food, washing powder or bottled water automatically composes an order request to Amazon for that one product.

I don't for a second want to downplay the value of such a product for people who have ageing parents to look after, or kids to drop off at daycare, or for whom simply getting in the car to pick up some cat food may take an hour or more out of their day. But the benefit to the individual customer is tiny compared with what Amazon gains. Sure, you never run out of cat food. But Amazon gets data on the time and place of your need, as well as its frequency and intensity, and that data has value. It is an asset, and you can be sure that Amazon will exploit it in every way its terms and conditions permit - including by using it to develop behavioural models that map our desires in high resolution, so as to target them with even greater efficiency in the future.

Again, the aim of devices such as the Dash Button is to permit the user to accomplish commercial transactions with as little conscious thought as possible - not even the few moments it takes to tap out commands on the touchscreen of a phone or tablet. The data on what the industry calls "conversion" is as clear as it is unremitting: with every box to tick or form to fill, the percentage of users that make it all the way to checkout tumbles. The fewer steps there are in a transaction, the more likely people are to spend their money.

Manufacturers, enticed by the revenue potential of conquering the domestic environment, keep trying to eliminate these steps, in the hope that one of their connected products will become as essential to everyday life as the smartphone. The recent industry push toward the "smart home" is simply the latest version of this.

For the moment, this strategy is centred on so-called smart speakers, a first generation of which have now reached the market. These products include the Amazon Echo and Google Home, each of which is supposed to function as the command hub of a connected domestic environment. Amazon's Echo is a simple cylinder, while the Google Home is a bevelled ovoid. But the physical form of such speakers is all but irrelevant, as their primary job is to function as a branded "virtual assistant", providing a simple, integrated way to access the numerous digital controls scattered throughout the contemporary home - from lighting and entertainment to security, heating, cooling and ventilation systems.

Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Apple each offer their own such assistant, based on natural-language speech recognition. Most are given female names, voices and personalities, presumably based on research indicating that users of all genders prefer to interact with women. Apple's is called Siri and will, according to reports, soon be getting its own device, Amazon's Alexa, and Microsoft's Cortana, while one simply addresses Google's Home offering as "Google."

t first, such devices seem harmless enough. They sit patiently and quietly at the periphery of our awareness, and we only speak to them when we need them. But when we consider them more carefully, a more problematic picture emerges.

This is how Google's assistant works: you mention to it that you're in the mood for Italian food, and then, in the words of one New York Times article, it "will then respond with some suggestions for tables to reserve at Italian restaurants using, for example, the OpenTable app".

This example showsthat though the choices these assistants offer us are presented as neutral, they are based on numerous inbuilt assumptions that many of us would question if we were to truly scrutinise them.

Ask restaurateurs and front-of-house workers what they think of OpenTable, for example, and you will swiftly learn that one person's convenience is another's accelerated pace of work, or worse. You'll learn that restaurants offering reservations via the service are, according to the website Serious Eats, "required to use the company's proprietary floor-management system, which means leasing hardware and using OpenTable-specific software", and that OpenTable retains ownership of all the data generated in this way. You'll also learn that OpenTable takes a cut on reservations per seated diner, which obviously adds up to a significant amount on a busy night.

Conscientious diners have therefore been known to bypass the ostensible convenience of OpenTable, and make whatever reservations they have to by phone. By contrast, Google Home's frictionless default to making reservations via OpenTable normalises the choice to use that service.

This is not accidental. It reflects the largely preconscious valuations, priorities and internalised beliefs of the people who devised Google Home. As throughout the industry, that is a remarkably homogeneous cohort of young designers and engineers. But more important than the degree of similarity they bear to one another is how different they are from everyone else.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Illustration: Getty/Guardian Design

Internet-of-things devices are generally conceived by people who have completely assimilated services such as Uber, Airbnb and Apple Pay into their daily lives, at a time when figures from the Washington DC-based Pew Research Center suggest that a significant percentage of the population has never used or even heard of them. For the people who design these products, these services are normal, and so, over time, they become normalised for everyone else.

There are other challenges presented by this way of interacting with networked information. It's difficult, for example, for a user to determine whether the options they are being offered by a virtual assistant result from what the industry calls an "organic" return - something that legitimately came up as the result of a search process - or from paid placement. But the main problem with the virtual assistant is that it fosters an approach to the world that is literally thoughtless, leaving users disinclined to sit out any prolonged frustration of desire, and ever less critical about the processes that result in gratification.

Virtual assistants are listening to everything that transpires in their presence, and are doing so at all times. As voice-activated interfaces, they must be constantly attentive in order to detect when the "wake word" that rouses them is spoken. In this way, they are able to harvest data that might be used to refine targeted advertising, or for other commercial purposes that are only disclosed deep in the terms and conditions that govern their use. The logic operating here is that of preemptive capture: the notion that companies such as Amazon and Google might as well trawl up everything they can, because no one knows what value might be derived from it in the future.

This leads to situations that might be comical, were it not for what they imply about the networking of our domestic environments. These stories circulate as cautionary tales: one of the best-known was the time the US National Public Radio network aired a story about the Amazon Echo, and various cues spoken on the broadcast were interpreted as commands by Echos belonging to members of the audience, causing domestic chaos.

Put aside for one moment the question of disproportionate benefit - the idea that you as the user derive a little convenience from your embrace of a virtual assistant, while its provider gets everything - all the data about your life and all its value. Let's simply consider what gets lost in the ideology of convenience that underlies this conception of the internet of things. Are the constraints presented to us by life in the non-connected world really so onerous? Is it really so difficult to wait until you get home before you preheat the oven? And is it worth giving away so much, just to be able to do so remotely?

ost of us are by now awarethat our mobile phones are constantly harvesting information about our whereabouts and activities. But we tend to be relatively ignorant of the degree to which the contemporary streetscape has also been enabled to collect information. This development is often called the "smart city". If the ambition beneath the instrumentation of the body is ostensible self-mastery, and that of the home is convenience, the ambition at the heart of the smart city is nothing other than control - the desire to achieve a more efficient use of space, energy and other resources.

A broad range of networked information-gathering devices are increasingly being deployed in public space, including CCTV cameras; advertisements and vending machines equipped with biometric sensors; and the indoor micropositioning systems known as "beacons" that, when combined with a smartphone app, send signals providing information about nearby products and services.

The picture we are left with is that of our surroundings furiously vacuuming up information, every square metre of seemingly banal pavement yielding so much data about its uses and its users that nobody yet knows what to do with it all. And it is at this scale of activity that the guiding ideology of the internet of things comes into clearest focus.

The strongest and most explicit articulation of this ideology in the definition of a smart city has been offered by the house journal of the engineering company Siemens: "Several decades from now, cities will have countless autonomous, intelligently functioning IT systems that will have perfect knowledge of users' habits and energy consumption, and provide optimum service ... The goal of such a city is to optimally regulate and control resources by means of autonomous IT systems."

There is a clear philosophical position, even a worldview, behind all of this: that the world is in principle perfectly knowable, its contents enumerable and their relations capable of being meaningfully encoded in a technical system, without bias or distortion. As applied to the affairs of cities, this is effectively an argument that there is one and only one correct solution to each identified need; that this solution can be arrived at algorithmically, via the operations of a technical system furnished with the proper inputs; and that this solution is something that can be encoded in public policy, without distortion. (Left unstated, but strongly implicit, is the presumption that whatever policies are arrived at in this way will be applied transparently, dispassionately and in a manner free from politics.)

Every aspect of this argument is questionable. Perhaps most obviously, the claim that anything at all is perfectly knowable is perverse. However thoroughly sensors might be deployed in a city, they will only ever capture what is amenable to being captured. In other words, they will not be able to pick up every single piece of information necessary to the formulation of sound civic policy.

Other, all-too-human distortions inevitably colour the data collected. For instance, people may consciously adapt to produce metrics favourable to them. A police officer under pressure to "make quota" may focus on infractions that she would ordinarily overlook, while conversely, her precinct commander, under pressure to present the city as ever-safer, may downwardly classify a felony assault as a simple misdemeanour. This is the phenomenon known to viewers of The Wire as "juking the stats," and it is particularly likely to occur when financial or other incentives depend on achieving a performance threshold.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Illustration: Getty/Guardian Design

There is also the question of interpretation. Advocates of smart cities often seem to proceed as if it is self-evident that each of our acts has a single, salient meaning, which can be recognised, made sense of and acted upon remotely by an automated system, without any possibility of error. The most prominent advocates of this approach appear to believe that no particular act of interpretation is involved in making use of any data retrieved from the world in this way.

But data is never "just" data, and to assert otherwise is to lend inherently political and interested decisions an unmerited gloss of scientific objectivity. The truth is that data is easily skewed, depending on how it is collected.Different values for air pollution in a given location can be produced by varying the height at which a sensor is mounted by a few metres. Perceptions of risk in a neighbourhood can be transformed by slightly altering the taxonomy used to classify reported crimes. And anyone who has ever worked in opinion polling knows how sensitive the results are to the precise wording of a survey.

The bold claim of "perfect" knowledge appears incompatible with the messy reality of all known information-processing systems, the human individuals and institutions that make use of them and, more broadly, with the world as we experience it. In fact, it is astonishing that any experienced engineer would ever be so unwary as to claim perfection on behalf of any computational system, no matter how powerful.

The notion that there is one and only one solution to urban problems is also deeply puzzling. Cities are made up of individuals and communities who often have competing preferences, and it is impossible to fully satisfy all of them at the same time.

That such a solution, if it even existed, could be arrived at algorithmically is also implausible. Assume, for the sake of argument, that there did exist a master formula capable of balancing the needs of all of a city's competing constituencies. It certainly would be convenient if this golden mean could be determined automatically and consistently. But the wholesale surrender of municipal management to an algorithmic toolset seems to place an undue amount of trust in the party responsible for authoring the algorithm.

If the formulas behind this vision of future cities turn out to be anything like the ones used in the current generation of computational models, life-altering decisions will hinge on the interaction of poorly defined and subjective values. The output generated by such a procedure may turn on half-clever abstractions, in which complex circumstances resistant to direct measurement are reduced to more easily determined proxy values: average walking speed stands in for the "pace" of urban life, while the number of patent applications constitutes an index of "innovation", and so on.

Quite simply, we need to understand that creating an algorithm intended to guide the distribution of civic resources is itself a political act. And, at least for now, nowhere in the current smart-city literature is there any suggestion that either algorithms or their designers would be subject to the ordinary processes of democratic accountability.

And finally, it is difficult to believe that any such findings would ever be translated into public policy in a manner free from politics. Policy recommendations derived from computational models are only rarely applied to questions as politically sensitive as resource allocation without some intermediate tuning taking place. Inconvenient results may be suppressed, arbitrarily overridden by more heavily weighted decision factors, or simply ignored.

As matters now stand, the claim of perfect competence that is implicit in most smart-city rhetoric is incommensurate with everything we know about the way technical systems work. It also flies in the face of everything we know about how cities work. The architects of the smart city have failed to reckon with the reality of power, and the ability of elites to suppress policy directions that don't serve their interests. At best, the technocratic notion that the analysis of sensor-derived data would ever be permitted to drive municipal policy is naive. At worst, though, it ignores the lessons of history.

So, yes: the internet of things presents many new possibilities, and it would be foolish to dismiss those possibilities out of hand. But we would also be wise to approach the entire domain with scepticism, and in particular to resist the attempts of companies to gather ever more data about our lives - no matter how much ease, convenience and self-mastery we are told they are offering us.
This is an adapted extract from Radical Technologies: The Design of Everyday Life by Adam Greenfield, published this week by Verso.
* Follow the Long Read on Twitter at @gdnlongread, or sign up to the long read weekly email here.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rise of the machines: who is the 'internet of things' good for?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The long read: Interconnected technology is now an inescapable reality - ordering our shopping, monitoring our cities and sucking up vast amounts of data along the way. The promise is that it will benefit us all - but how can it?

# data[].attributes.headline
The internet of things: industry's digital revolution

# data[].attributes.subject
The internet of things: industry's digital revolution

# data[].attributes.body
Eric McGuigan

This article from Financial Times discusses how IooT is being used to revamp industries like railways, oil refineries and wind turbines.
Amtrak's northeast corridor is the busiest railway in North America, but one in five trains experienced a significant delay last year.

Now Siemens, who manufactured some of the locomotives used on these lines, is using the IooT to monitor and analyse data from about 900 different sensors to determine the nature of failures and recommend interventions. Per Rick Shults, the Amtrak project manager for the Siemens locomotives, delays were down 33 percent year-over-year. "They are able to introduce a concept for change well before we have even noticed there is a problem."

https://www.ft.com/content/99399b86-59c3-11e7-9bc8-8055f264aa8b

# data[].attributes.headline
8 Internet Of Things Products Making Life Safer

# data[].attributes.subject
8 Internet Of Things Products Making Life Safer

# data[].attributes.body
Morgan Blaine

The article explains that there are a large number of technological devices that are being created in order to help us have a better piece of mind. It specifically explains different technology devices that are advancements in the health care field. A few of the things that the article talks about are a health monitor for infants and a tracking device for dogs. The health monitor for infants allows parents to have a piece of mind and allows them to track the babies heart rate, blood pressure, etc. while the infant is sleeping. The tracking device for the dogs is similar to the infants, it allows the dog owner to track its location, sleeping patterns, and daily activities.
This article relates to what we learned in the chapters by how much technology is advancing. Technology is constantly expanding, some ways better than others. Advances can be seen as good things, while others could cause a breach in our security.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Capital OneVoice: 8 Internet of Things Products Making Life Safer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
IoT links "things"-everyday objects, animals or people-to the internet and each other. And whether you realize it or not, you're already using IoT devices daily.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Internet of Things is far bigger than anyone realizes by Daniel Burrus

# data[].attributes.subject
The Internet of Things is far bigger than anyone realizes by Daniel Burrus

# data[].attributes.body
Cierra Hodge
The article The Internet of Things is far bigger than anyone realizes by Daniel Burrus is a very interesting article on how there is just more than just machine to machine contact covering The Internet of Things. Burrus details that sensor to machine will be a better way to make things smarter. Burrus idea is to put sensors in everyday materials like cement to help prevent disasters like cracks in bridges. The main key to these advancements are cloud based applications to interpret and transmit the data coming from the sensors.

This article teaches us more on how setting up servers for cloud based information can relay more information for machine to machine talking. It also shows you new ways that the internet can be used and how it can be used to help make are lives easier pass the ones that everyone relies on today. The article by Burrus also showed some exciting ways that sensors can be used like smart cement and its applications for machine to machine talking and sensor to machine talking.
https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/11/the-internet-of-things-bigger/

# data[].attributes.headline
Internet of Things, Sarah Moore-Ar-Rasheed

# data[].attributes.subject
Internet of Things, Sarah Moore-Ar-Rasheed

# data[].attributes.body
In the editorial Internet and Things by Feng Xia et al. a number of phenomena concerning IoT is the focus. The article is a good overview of the literature discussed in Internet of Things research. In the article, IoT is defined as "the networked interconnection of everyday objects, which are often equipped with ubiquitous intelligence" (1101).    The article explored areas: radio frequency, channel assignment, collision and interference, experimentational infrastructure and security.

This article goes into more detail than the course text about some of the specific technologies associated with IoT. One thing that was discussed in both areas were the security concerns. This article discuss some possible counter measures to address security threats as a result of IoT.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Simple Explanation of the "Internet of Things" 

# data[].attributes.subject
A Simple Explanation of the "Internet of Things" 

# data[].attributes.body
Chassie Moore

The world is moving forward faster than we all think and has done so faster in recent years. The more people are learning about how and what can be connected, they will find a way to do it. This article basically tells you that the world has so many things connected to the internet and it probably will never stop. There are so many things are have been connected to the internet to make our lives easier and the more ways they can find to do so, will happen.

This article connects to what we are learning in class because we are learning about how and why our data and certain places are being hacked. A big part of that is the Internet of Things. If we weren't so technologically advanced, there may be less places being hacked. But because the US especially is moving forward so quickly in the technology world, everyone else wants to learn our secrets or better yet steal them. By doing so, it will just make us work harder to make our data less capable of being stolen or hacked.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2014/05/13/simple-explanation-internet-things-that-anyone-can-understand/#133b78ed1d09

# data[].attributes.body
Michelle Harrigan
The Internet of Things is defined as the interconnection via the Internet of computing devices embedded in everyday objects, enabling them to send and receive data. This article discusses the growing pains of IoT, one of largest being security hazards. Because the market is developing so quickly, manufacturers are rushing to get their products on the market, and often the security of these products doesn't receive adequate attention. The author goes on to state that undoubtably the growth of insecure IoT devices will increase fraud, and gives a recent example where several thousands of smart security cameras were infected with malware which resulted in the inexcessability of several high profile websites. The article is concluded by stating that todays cybercriminals are extremely organized and well equipped, and that they have the resources to infect millions of IoT devices. The only way to combat these attacks is to remain knowledgable and stay up to date on the most advanced fraud and security prevention tools.

This article made me take a closer look at chapter 10.5 of our textbook. This section takes a look at wireless security and the 4 major threats to wireless networks. I also prompted me to read Plug IT in 7 which covers how to protect your assets to reduce your risk of fraud or identity theft. Until I read this article, I mainly thought of security hazards involving things like credit cards and social security numbers being stolen, or sensitive information being compromised from a company. Now I have a broader understanding of all the possible security risks of having everything connected to a network, such as hacking security cameras, baby monitors, or even the computer in your car.
http://www.networkworld.com/article/3206164/internet-of-things/fraud-and-the-internet-of-things.html

# data[].attributes.headline
The Internet of Things is Far Bigger Than Anyone Realizes

# data[].attributes.subject
The Internet of Things is Far Bigger Than Anyone Realizes

# data[].attributes.body
Keegan Bailey

This article outlines that people often underestimate the extent of 'The Internet of Things'. Despite heavy focus on connection via devices (such as between smartphones), people tend  to leave-out 'sensors', which is a large component. The article then discusses the importance of 'clouds', which help store and transmit data without a mechanical intermediary, such as those utilized by smart cement sensors (the example from the article), which detect cracks/weak points and send-out alerts.

This article connected to what we learned in this course due to the fact that technology is ever expanding and that companies must utilize these expansions in order to stay relevant and afloat in today's society of progress. Those who cannot stay up-to-date fall by the wayside, while those who utilize new technology in a productive manner reap the benefits.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When people talk about "the next big thing," they're never thinking big enough. It's not a lack of imagination; it's a lack of observation. I've maintained that the future is always within sight, and you don't need to imagine what's already there.

Case in point: The buzz surrounding the Internet of Things.

What's the buzz? The Internet of Things revolves around increased machine-to-machine communication; it's built on cloud computing and networks of data-gathering sensors; it's mobile, virtual, and instantaneous connection; and they say it's going to make everything in our lives from streetlights to seaports "smart."

But here's what I mean when I say people don't think big enough. So much of the chatter has been focused on machine-to-machine communication (M2M): devices talking to like devices. But a machine is an instrument, it's a tool, it's something that's physically doing something. When we talk about making machines "smart," we're not referring strictly to M2M. We're talking about sensors.

A sensor is not a machine. It doesn't do anything in the same sense that a machine does. It measures, it evaluates; in short, it gathers data. The Internet of Things really comes together with the connection of sensors and machines. That is to say, the real value that the Internet of Things creates is at the intersection of gathering data and leveraging it. All the information gathered by all the sensors in the world isn't worth very much if there isn't an infrastructure in place to analyze it in real time.

Cloud-based applications are the key to using leveraged data. The Internet of Things doesn't function without cloud-based applications to interpret and transmit the data coming from all these sensors. The cloud is what enables the apps to go to work for you anytime, anywhere.

Let's look at one example. In 2007, a bridge collapsed in Minnesota, killing many people, because of steel plates that were inadequate to handle the bridge's load. When we rebuild bridges, we can use smart cement: cement equipped with sensors to monitor stresses, cracks, and warpages. This is cement that alerts us to fix problems before they cause a catastrophe. And these technologies aren't limited to the bridge's structure.

If there's ice on the bridge, the same sensors in the concrete will detect it and communicate the information via the wireless internet to your car. Once your car knows there's a hazard ahead, it will instruct the driver to slow down, and if the driver doesn't, then the car will slow down for him. This is just one of the ways that sensor-to-machine and machine-to-machine communication can take place. Sensors on the bridge connect to machines in the car: we turn information into action.

You might start to see the implications here. What can you achieve when a smart car and a smart city grid start talking to each other? We're going to have traffic flow optimization, because instead of just having stoplights on fixed timers, we'll have smart stoplights that can respond to changes in traffic flow. Traffic and street conditions will be communicated to drivers, rerouting them around areas that are congested, snowed-in, or tied up in construction.

So now we have sensors monitoring and tracking all sorts of data; we have cloud-based apps translating that data into useful intelligence and transmitting it to machines on the ground, enabling mobile, real-time responses. And thus bridges become smart bridges, and cars smart cars. And soon, we have smart cities, and....

Okay. What are the advantages here? What are the savings? What industries can this be applied to?

Here's what I mean when I say people never think big enough. This isn't just about money savings. It's not about bridges, and it's not about cities. This is a huge and fundamental shift. When we start making things intelligent, it's going to be a major engine for creating new products and new services.

Of all the technology trends that are taking place right now, perhaps the biggest one is the Internet of Things; it's the one that's going to give us the most disruption as well as the most opportunity over the next five years. In my next post in this two-part series, we'll explore just how big this is going to be.
Daniel Burrus is considered one of the world's leading technology forecasters and innovation experts, and is the founder and CEO of Burrus Research. He is the author of six books including the New York Times best seller "Flash Foresight."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Internet of Things Is Far Bigger Than Anyone Realizes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When people talk about "the next big thing," they're never thinking big enough. It's not a lack of imagination; it's a lack of observation. I've maintained that the future is always within sight, and you don't need to imagine what's already there. Case in point: The buzz surrounding the Internet of Things.

# data[].attributes.headline
LaShonda Dailey - Internet of Things Reality Check

# data[].attributes.subject
LaShonda Dailey - Internet of Things Reality Check

# data[].attributes.body
In the article, Internet of Things Reality Check, by Florian Michahelles, whether IoT will create more jobs than it destroys and will IoT be “good” or “evil” is discussed.  According to the article companies “use the term IoT to market hardware and software platforms that let you connect physical devices and machines to the world of data, glued together by standardized internet and web protocols” (p90).  An interesting concept that the article explores is rather humans will maintain control.  IoT allows communication that breaks norms, there are no boundaries associated with distance and reasoning.

In the Wiley text, IoT is defined as “a scenario which objects, animals, and people are provided with unique identifiers and the ability to automatically transfer data over a network without requiring human - to - human or human – to - computer interaction.”  One contradiction to the article is when the IoT technology originated.  The article states the technology started in 1999 with the RFID technology and the text dates IoT technology to the 1980’s.  But one consistent concept is the concern of privacy and data security.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Internet of Things Connectivity Binge: What Are the Implications?

# data[].attributes.subject
The Internet of Things Connectivity Binge: What Are the Implications?

# data[].attributes.body
Tara Habeck

Humans are social creatures. We are wired to connect, and now that connection is occurring wirelessly. The Internet of Things creates a connected life, full of convenience. While there are privacy and security risks, most of us will get on board because we will not believe it will happen to us. Some of us who resist connection will end up connecting as businesses penalize us for not connecting. Some of us who consider the risks too great will choose to disconnect entirely. Legislators will need to be brought into the connectivity discussion to reduce the risks.

This article helped me understand the topic of big data. The Internet of Things is going to create enormous amounts of data, and now I have an idea of where that data will be stored and how it will be analyzed. While some jobs will be lost from our connected devices, jobs to manage these devices and data will grow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Despite wide concern about cyberattacks, outages and privacy violations, most experts believe the Internet of Things will continue to expand successfully the next few years, tying machines to machines and linking people to valuable resources, services and opportunities

Connection begets connection. In 1999, 18 years ago, when just 4% of the world's population was online, Kevin Ashton coined the term Internet of Things, Neil Gershenfeld of MIT Media Lab wrote the book " When Things Start to Think," and Neil Gross wrote in BusinessWeek: "In the next century, planet Earth will don an electronic skin. It will use the internet as a scaffold to support and transmit its sensations. This skin is already being stitched together. It consists of millions of embedded electronic measuring devices: thermostats, pressure gauges, pollution detectors, cameras, microphones, glucose sensors, EKGs, electroencephalographs. These will probe and monitor cities and endangered species, the atmosphere, our ships, highways and fleets of trucks, our conversations, our bodies - even our dreams."

He was right. Today, 49% of the world's population is connected online and an estimated 8.4 billion connected things are in use worldwide.

The Internet of Things (IoT) is in full flower. The expanding collection of connected things goes mostly unnoticed by the public - sensors, actuators and other items completing tasks behind the scenes in day-to-day operations of businesses and government, most of them abetted by machine-to-machine "computiction" - that is, artificial-intelligence-enhanced communication. The most public items in the burgeoning IoT are cars, voice-activated assistants, appliances and other home systems, physician-prescribed or recommended health-monitoring devices, road sensors, public-safety and security devices, smart meters and personal fitness and health trackers for people and animals - dogs, cats, horses, cows and more. And then there are emerging IoT products that show how the urge to create connectivity extends to such prosaic items as toothbrushes, dental floss, hairbrushes, pillows, egg trays, wine bottle sleeves, baby monitors and changing tables, silverware, umbrellas, all manner of toys and sporting goods and remote-controlled pet food dispensers, to name a few.

The very connectedness of the IoT leaves it open to security and safety vulnerabilities. Every connected thing is susceptible to attack or misuse. In September 2016 at DEF CON, one of the world's largest security conferences, 47 vulnerabilities affecting 23 IoT-enabled items (door locks, wheelchairs, thermostats and more) from 21 manufacturers were disclosed. Soon after, there was a massive distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack on Oct. 21, 2016, against Dyn, an internet performance management company. The attack was accomplished when tens of millions of IoT-connected devices like printers, DVRs, cable set-top boxes, webcams and baby monitors were used to launch the DDoS and block Dyn's ability to connect internet users to the web addresses they hoped to access, such as Twitter, Amazon, PayPal, Spotify, Netflix, HBO, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. A simple software program called Mirai was used to create the botnet that initiated the attack.

After the Dyn attack, a report in The New York Times called the IoT a " weapon of mass disruption." While that assault amounted to nothing more than a short-lived slowdown of a large portion of the internet, it showed how vulnerable connected devices are to hacking and exploitation. In recent weeks, a ransomware attack named WannaCry affected computers in 150 countries, and its creators demanded payments from those whose computers were compromised before releasing their files. Experts pointed out how dramatically this attack highlighted the vulnerabilities of the IoT.

Researchers have been showing how easy it is to hack cars, voting machines and power plants. They have demonstrated ransomware exploits against home thermostats and exposed vulnerabilities in implanted heart pacemakers. In one paper, "IoT Goes Nuclear," analysts showed how a flaw in the design of smart lightbulbs could be used for a "bricking attack" that kills all of a city's traffic lights. Within the past year Bryan Johnson (Kernal), Elon Musk (Neuralink) and Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook's Building 8) have announced initiatives to create an effective consumer-grade brain-computer interface thus, of course, hacking a person's brain could also be a future security issue.

All of this has prompted concern among internet security experts, including Bruce Schneier, who delivered a fiery speech at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Digital Economy Ministerial Meeting in Cancun, Mexico, in June 2016. He predicted that unless technology-based businesses and governments address these problems, there might be a flight from connectivity - that is, people could start retreating offline as risks mount. "My guess is we are reaching the high-water mark of computerization and connectivity," he said, "and in a few years we are going to be deciding what to connect and what to disconnect and become more realistic about what can work. We are creating a society by which a totalitarian government can control everything. Right now it's more power to the powerful. And we are living in a computerized world where attacks are easier to create than defenses against them. This is coming faster than we think. We need to address it now. People up to now have been able to code the world as they see fit. That has to change. We have to make moral, ethical and political decisions about how these things should work and then put that into our code. Politicians and technologists still talk past each other. This has to change."

Thus, the question: Could security vulnerabilities that become evident as the IoT rolls out prompt people, businesses and government to avoid or withdraw from certain online connectivity options? In summer 2016, Pew Research Center and Elon University's Imagining the Internet Center conducted a large canvassing of technologists, scholars, practitioners, strategic thinkers and other leaders, asking them to react to this framing of the issue:
As billions more everyday objects are connected in the Internet of Things, they are sending and receiving data that enhances local, national and global systems as well as individuals' lives. But such connectedness also creates exploitable vulnerabilities. As automobiles, medical devices, smart TVs, manufacturing equipment and other tools and infrastructure are networked, is it likely that attacks, hacks or ransomware concerns in the next decade will cause significant numbers of people to decide to disconnect, or will the trend toward greater connectivity of objects and people continue unabated?
Some 1,201 responded to this nonscientific canvassing: 15% of these particular respondents said significant numbers would disconnect and 85% chose the option that most people will move more deeply into connected life. (See " About this canvassing of experts " for further details about the limits of this sample.)

Participants were asked to explain their answers and were offered the following prompts to consider:

What is the most likely kind of physical or human damage that will occur when things are networked?

How might governments and technologists respond to make things more secure and safe?

Is it possible to network physical objects in such a way that they will generally remain safe for the vast majority most of the time?

Several broad assertions and assumptions underpinned many respondents' answers:

Connection is inevitable: Most of these experts argued that humans crave connectivity, and they will seek more of it due to its convenience and out of necessity because it will simply be embedded in more and more things. One thoughtful framing of this idea came from Dan McGarry, media director at the Vanuatu Daily Post. "Connection is inevitable," he wrote. "It's what [Terry] Pratchett, [Ian] Stewart and [Jack] Cohen call extelligence. So much of human experience is based outside of the human being these days, you can't be a functioning adult and remain unconnected." An anonymous respondent put it this way: "The stickiness and value of a connected life will be far too strong for a significant number of people to have the will or means to disconnect."

Further, these experts note there is commercial incentive to add this feature to as many gadgets and aspects of life as possible. A sharp description of this dynamic came from Ian O'Byrne, assistant professor of literacy education at the College of Charleston, who said, "More people will become connected because device manufacturers will make it far easier and acceptable to purchase and use these devices. In the same fashion that we added electricity to every device possible with advances in technology, manufacturers will 'add the internet' to all devices in the attempt to make them better ... but also possibly sell more product. In short, more people and devices will be connected."

Connectivity has many exploitable flaws: Many respondents, including those arguing the case that more connectivity will unfold, outlined downsides to hyper-connectivity. They maintained that defects and vulnerabilities are a natural part of quickly evolving networks, and software and hardware and security responses are always a step behind. Many believe that ongoing attacks are inevitable in all networked digital systems, and there will be large-scale problems in coordinating various elements of the IoT to get them to work together. While these experts expect that living an IoT-dependent life will be scary at times and often frustrating, most do not expect this will be enough to deter most people from diving deeper into connectivity.

For instance, an anonymous professor of information and history at a state university explained, "People can get used to anything, and - just as with terrorism - the inevitable occasional damage from deliberate or inadvertent failures in highly networked systems will become routine. Occasional terrorism using Internet of Things connections is very likely, shutting down infrastructure, hospitals, businesses, etc. Hackers will always find vulnerabilities in highly networked systems, and technical fixes will not change that." An anonymous professor at MIT observed, "We will live in a world of ambivalent participation."

This new connectivity jeopardizes humans and physical infrastructure, not just communication: A recurring refrain in these experts' answers is that the IoT poses significant new problems because messing with IoT-linked devices can cause real-world damage. Schneier has described it this way: "With the advent of the Internet of Things and cyberphysical systems in general, we've given the internet hands and feet: the ability to directly affect the physical world. What used to be attacks against data and information have become attacks against flesh, steel and concrete."

Barry Chudakov, founder and principal at Sertain Research and StreamFuzion Corp., wrote, "We are witnessing the advent of what the brilliant scholar and media theorist Derrick de Kerckhove (years ago) called 'connected intelligence' - but on a scale unimaginable before the 21st century. ... De Kerckhove called it a 'change of being,' which captures the breadth and depth of what is happening daily as our physical and digital objects intertwine. So not only will the trend toward greater connectivity of people and objects continue, it will continue to change boundaries and dynamics of all sorts - personal, social, moral, political. ... The IoT reality represents both huge opportunity and huge vulnerability. They go hand in hand. We cannot be proactive until we educate ourselves and continue to educate others about what is required to secure IoT and what secure IoT practices entail."

Many participants in this canvassing wrote detailed elaborations explaining their positions. Some chose to have their names connected to their answers; others opted to respond anonymously. These findings do not represent all possible points of view, but they do reveal a wide range of striking observations. Respondents collectively articulated seven major themes that are introduced and explained below and expanded upon in sections that begin later in this report.

The following section presents a brief overview of the most evident themes extracted from the written responses, including a small selection of representative quotes supporting each point. Some responses are lightly edited for style or due to length.

Theme 1: People crave connection and convenience, and a tech-linked world serves both goals well

The vast majority of expert respondents to this research study, as well as to a previous study on attitudes about the future of the Internet of Things by Pew Research Center and Imagining the Internet, agree that the IoT will continue apace, expanding vastly in size and influence over the next decade. They say businesses expect to reap large dividends from the advancement of the IoT and that people are naturally driven to connect to other people, information and services. Further, they argue that society reaps benefits from connected infrastructure and objects - from transportation, communications and business and industrial systems to individual products and services. Additionally, as modern life becomes more complicated, these respondents argue that people count on convenience to conquer chaos and they enjoy experimenting with magical new tools. Their desire for new gadgetry often outweighs any perceived risks.

It's only human to connect, and there are many advantages. It's magical, even addictive

Robert Bell, co-founder of the Intelligent Community Forum, wrote, "Because connected life offers so many opportunities in terms of cost savings, entertainment, news and public participation, people will keep moving into it."

David Clark, senior research scientist at MIT and Internet Hall of Fame member, replied, "Unless we have a disaster that triggers a major shift in usage, the convenience and benefits of connectivity will continue to attract users. Evidence suggests that people value convenience today over possible future negative outcomes."

Jim Warren, longtime technology entrepreneur and activist, replied, "From the beginning of any kind of 'connectivity' between humans (both biological and corporate 😉 - from primitive Man to the present - we have almost always favored and pursued increased connectivity. It is the essence of society, culture, productivity, improved living and lifestyle alternatives (et al.) and will continue. Probably the largest deterrents to the speed and pervasiveness of its development will be largely, perhaps mostly, how much it costs its users, both financially and functionally."

Mark Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School, commented, "There will definitely be hacks and other problems, just as there are with credit cards and financial information online today. But the advantages of connectivity are just too great for people to forgo it. We may see greater local control over when connected devices are enabled, allowing people to turn connectivity off at will."

Peter Morville, president of Semantic Studios, said, "We have a deep need and desire to connect. Everything in the history of communication technology suggests we will take advantage of every opportunity to connect more richly and deeply. I see no evidence for a reversal of that trend."

Bart Knijnenburg, an assistant professor in human-centered computing at Clemson University, responded, "The immediate and concrete benefits of connectivity, however small, will outweigh the uncertain future threats, so people will choose connectivity over security. Insurance firms may capitalize on insuring against digital threats to physical devices. The only thing that may cause people to disconnect is a widespread terrorist attack against the digital infrastructure. Even if such an attack is inconsequential for people's TVs and fridges, it may change the narrative enough that people will disconnect."

Some respondents pointed out that people are attracted to shiny new tech tools, services, platforms and systems even at times when this could become fatal attraction. There are people of all ages who find that connectivity "is addictive," one anonymous respondent and others argued. Richard J. Perry, a respondent who did not share additional identifying details, commented, "Great damage is possible and governments and vendors will strive to improve security but will fail. Internet insecurity will be the rule, not the exception. But we are addicted and will not surrender this."

David Wuertele, a software engineer at Tesla Motors, replied, "The magical behaviors that the new devices will provide will be too strong for people to resist. Even though many of these IoT devices have no real need to be connected to the cloud, and even though connecting them to the cloud presents a real risk to people, there is not enough of a force to 'clean up' the implementations. The desire by people for these magic devices is so strong that they will sign away their own personal data as well as their families' (and sometimes their friends') data to get the goodies."

An anonymous respondent observed, "People are influenced by gee-whiz gizmos, frequently at the expense of safety."

As life increases in complexity, convenience is the default setting for most people

Many respondents pointed out that people generally opt for what appears to be the best route to efficiency and expediency as they adopt technology. Paul Jones, clinical professor and director at the University of North Carolina, optimistically predicted, "The Law of Least Effort applies to the Internet of Things. Short of massive social and political changes, we will become more connected, more networked and happier that we are."

An anonymous respondent who is concerned about the downsides of connectivity responded, "People will trade their safety for convenience. They always have. They always will." And Nathaniel Borenstein, chief scientist at Mimecast, said, "There are few examples in human history of people making rational decisions about privacy or security."

Matt Bates, a programmer and concept artist at Jambeeno Ltd., commented, "I expect the following are and will always be true with regard to internet connectivity: Convenience > privacy. Convenience > statistically infrequent health consequences. Convenience > statistically infrequent financial problems. For a minority, one or more of the above will be reversed and they will stand out as oddities in an increasingly connected world (note, e.g., code and security expert Dan Geer, part of the CIA apparatus, who doesn't use a cellphone). ... I think most networked physical objects are 'safe for the vast majority most of the time.' It's what happens with the aggregation of networked objects that is most concerning, and then it will usually be most deleterious to a minority of the population. There's probably no way to get around this short of not networking things. Convenience will out. Sadly."

Sunil Paul, entrepreneur, investor and activist at Spring Ventures, observed, "Convenience and 'magic' will overwhelm concerns. The history of technology is clear on this front - ATMs, e-commerce, credit cards, the list is endless."

Julie Gomoll, CEO of Julie Gomoll Inc., wrote, "Hacks and ransomware won't matter. We have those now, and very few people disconnect as a result. There will be lots of junk things - 'We need a networked thing!' will be the new 'We need an app!' There will be new kinds of hacks and attacks, and we'll figure out how to stop them. We'll discover unintended consequences, attribute them to growing pains. And we will never, ever disconnect."

The always-on younger generation can't imagine being anything but connected

A number of respondents said they expect the younger generation, accustomed from the start to trust in technology with few doubts, is likely to adopt the IoT, warts and all. Jan Schaffer, executive director of J-Lab: The Institute for Interactive Journalism, said youth will stay connected because they are too invested in the IoT to leave it. "Young people will continue to deeply connect until they have assets and identities that they care about and don't want to put at risk," she wrote.

Lisa Heinz, doctoral student at Ohio University, observed, "Young people are perpetually connected to each other, so much so they might not know how to exist without the internet that enables that connection. As our homes become a part of that connection in even the tiniest of automated ways, we will no longer care how it works, just that it works as expected. Thus, a mass migration away from a connected society is unlikely."

Some respondents said most younger people don't know how to live any other way. An anonymous respondent commented, "The individuals who will be using this technology are the teens of today. It will be second-nature for them to use and interact daily across many devices and modalities." Another anonymous respondent replied, "Generations now take the internet for granted. They can't cope without it."

Another anonymous respondent wrote, "If today's adults don't get more connected, the next generation will. To today's 10-year-old the idea of a watch that can't take basic health information is like a 20-year-old trying to understand what the hell a cassette tape is."

Theme 2: Unplugging isn't easy now, and by 2026 it will be even tougher

Many respondents made the argument that disconnecting resigns people to relative isolation and some level of deprivation. They say it is not a realistic option for most people to live this life. An anonymous respondent replied, "It is becoming increasingly difficult to disconnect, even in the midst of threats and distrust. To be an active, engaged member of society, it is now virtually impossible to be completely unplugged." Another anonymous respondent said, "There will be an increasing attempt to remain unconnected or disconnect, but it will be increasingly impossible to live that way." And an anonymous chairman and CEO at a nonprofit organization observed, "We will continue to become more connected without realizing our critical growing dependence."

They also made the case that the marketplace for non-connected devices will shrink in the future, often leaving consumers with little choice but to accept an IoT presence in their lives. And they pointed out that even now people are often using connected devices, tools or services without knowing they are connected. An anonymous participant observed, "It will be increasingly difficult to unplug, as more and more aspects of ordinary daily life are plugged in. Unplugging will require a religious level of commitment."

Resistance is futile: Businesses will penalize those who disconnect; social processes reward those who connect. Fully withdrawing is extremely difficult, maybe impossible

A number of respondents observed that the usefulness and "stickiness" of IoT platforms and services plus the corporate imperative to strive for constantly rising profits will drive IoT decision-making, causing businesses to operate in such a fashion as to make it increasingly difficult if not impossible for people to choose to opt out and still access services and functions.

Andrew Walls, managing vice president at Gartner, replied, "The benefits of IoT to the vendors of products and services will overwhelm the objections of the few consumers who fear security issues. Pricing models will penalize those who attempt to disconnect and reward those who connect. ... If IoT enhances performance against consumer variables for selection/purchase, IoT integration will expand massively."

Adam Nelson, chief technology officer at Factr, commented, "People won't be able to disconnect. Manufacturers won't build in the functionality to do it."

Mary K. Pratt, a freelance technology journalist, commented, "Even if individuals are concerned about the risks, they'll find it difficult or impossible to opt out of these connections if they want to continue with the products or services they want and/or need." An anonymous law professor at a state university observed, "There is no choice but to become ever more networked and connected: Capital will demand it."

Several respondents likened those adopting IoT products and services to livestock. An anonymous respondent observed, "'Moo,' say the cattle." And an anonymous professor at a state university said, "Those who want to fleece the sheep will get the sheep to come on in." An anonymous chief scientist emeritus for one of the top technology innovation companies in the U.S. said, "Think sheep."

An anonymous economist at Yale University observed, "A century ago the luddites tried [to disconnect]. They failed."

Joseph Turow, a communications professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said, "Despite hacks and privacy issues, people will feel a need to keep connected, partly because companies will reward them for doing so (or make life difficult if they don't). People will feel resigned to navigating an environment where data are key coins of exchange."

Respondents resoundingly agreed that people are already dependent upon this vastly growing network, as it enables so many systems and helps so many people in successfully getting through each day. The IoT becomes more complex, more important and more difficult to disconnect from every day.

An anonymous respondent said, "People will have to be networked, because to be otherwise will mean difficulties getting employment, health care and other services that are necessary." Randy Albelda, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, agreed: "At this point I see no way out. If I disconnect, I in effect lose my job and/or pay a lot more money and/or spend an enormous amount of time living my daily life. The toothpaste is out of the tube."

Erik Johnston, associate professor and director of the Center for Policy Informatics at Arizona State University, observed, "Trying to disconnect in the future will be increasingly difficult. Only those who are either very privileged or unprivileged will find themselves in a situation where the majority of their lives are not connected in a meaningful way. As the default becomes ... to opt in (unless there is a sea change in regulation) it will be very costly and time consuming to disconnect from each phase of life. And that is for the places where they know they are connected. It would be impossible to opt out of public surveillance, the TSA [Transportation Security Administration] and many other essentials of navigating a normal life."

Michael Whitaker, vice president of emerging solutions at ICF International, replied, "The inevitable march to a more-connected life will continue unabated for two reasons. 1) An increasing amount of technology will emerge that is connected by default and the onus will be on users to disconnect (rather than connect). Most users, even if concerned about vulnerabilities, will not proactively disconnect across all of their devices. 2) The general understanding of the public related to the vulnerability of connected devices will remain low. They will be sold on the benefits (of which there are many) with few voices echoing the risks. Barring an awareness-altering event, people will generally think less and less about their connectivity over the next decade and will come to expect connectivity as the default state."

Naomi Baron, a linguistics professor at American University, commented, "The issue is less about what choices individuals wish to make than about the choices that institutions or other individuals make for them. If my bank only lets me access my account online, if my telecommunications company only lets me do business online, if my doctor only makes my lab results available online, then to disconnect from the internet would mean disconnecting from the individuals, institutions and services I need for everyday life."

Some are concerned with people in certain segments of society being unable to choose to fully or partly opt out as they wish. An anonymous senior research scholar at a U.S. university's digital society lab said, "Both statements are likely to be correct. Most people - the poor, vulnerable, dependent - won't have the means to disconnect. Social and political systems - education, employment, government services - will require them to stay connected. Those educated, independent and privileged enough to prioritize their rights and liberties over public systems will increasingly disconnect or manage their connectedness. Privacy and liberty will become ever more the province of those with economic means."

You can't avoid using something you can't discern. So much of the Internet of Things operates out of sight that people will not be able to unplug completely

A number of these experts raised the point that as connectivity is becoming built into everything, people often do not know what is connected, what is collecting data, who sees the data that are collected and why, and how all of these things are linking to other things. Andrew Walls of Gartner said, "People will remain largely unaware of the degree of connectedness present in the products they select and will merely pick products and services based on personal preferences for comfort, convenience, value for money, etc."

Jamais Cascio, distinguished fellow at the Institute for the Future, wrote, "More people will be more deeply connected, but will likely be less aware of it. Think of it as the 'electricity' effect. It's rare today to see something called out as being run on electricity (vehicles are the main exception); we just assume that a device or building or system is electricity-enabled. The default 'guitar' is electric, and acoustic guitars must be labeled. Similarly, in this decade we'll be moving quickly into a world where networked/'smart'/internet-enabled will be the default assumption, enough so that many people will stop thinking of it as new or different. You'll have people extolling the virtues of being 'unplugged' because they don't have any computers in the house and keep their mobile devices shut off, but [they'll] forget that the household appliances and carpeting and home solar power array are all deeply networked, because they don't have to think about or worry about those systems."

Bob Frankston, internet pioneer and software innovator, replied, "A significant number will have the illusion of being disconnected [when they actually are not]."

Theme 3: Risk is part of life. The Internet of Things will be accepted, despite dangers, because most people believe the worst-case scenario could never happen to them

Many of these respondents point out that optimism bias generally moves people to perceive a potential risk as highly unlikely to harm them. When people ask themselves, often subconsciously, "Do the benefits outweigh the risks?" the answer is generally, "Yes - go for it!" - especially when connection and convenience are the result. The majority in this canvassing predicts that the general public expects that any problems tied to their connectedness will fall primarily upon others, not themselves.

An anonymous computer software sales engineer replied, "Most people aren't aware of the complexities of online security and assume it will happen to someone else."

Daniel Berleant, author of "The Human Race to the Future," said, "All change comes with risks. You don't see people moving away from cars (with occasional individual exceptions) because cars are dangerous. The dangers of using digital technologies are lower than for cars and while these dangers will be a continuing concern, they won't stop the overall digitization trend."

An anonymous respondent said, "People uncritically accept new things: Drones, self-driving cars, corporate exploitation, terrorist incursions are routed through the internet, control over nuclear reactors. The TV show 'Mr. Robot' is extreme and entertaining, but it is pointing to issues that are real."

An anonymous web developer commented, "Pickpocketing hasn't made people stop carrying wallets, has it? Unless there is a major attack, affecting literally billions of people ... in the near future, more people will be connected. As the number of connected people grows, individual cyberattacks and fraud will probably grow as well. Increased attacks probably will not cause massive disconnect, because the positives greatly outweigh the risks."

Maria Pranzo, director of development at the Alpha Workshops, replied, "Wow. I'm trying to remember how it was before we were all connected. Before the world knew what was going on everywhere at once. It's a frightening thought, all of this going away. And yet it's one that I could be completely comfortable with. But that's my privilege showing. Online security is, by and large, an illusion. And I think we all agree to the illusion together. We count on good people on the front lines: the makers of our hardware and software. We count on their continuing to advance slightly faster than the bad guys. Most of us do so blindly. Why would that change? I certainly don't check the plane engine before I get on a flight."

Stephen Downes, researcher at National Research Council Canada, said, "It is true that attacks, hacks or ransomware concerns impact our enjoyment of modern technology. But it's important to note that what they impact is almost exclusively our enjoyment of modern technology. A person choosing to disconnect from modern technology suffers the same fate as the person who has been hacked. They lose the enjoyment of modern technology. So disconnecting from technology isn't a viable response to attacks, hacks and the rest. People won't be looking to withdraw from modern technology, they will be looking for better and more secure modern technology (to a point; as people's choices of passwords such as '123456' show, they are willing to sacrifice a certain amount of security for a certain amount of convenience. Indeed, if anything forces people off new technology, it will be the security measures, not the crimes)."

Theme 4: More people will be connected and more will withdraw or refuse to participate

A share of the experts in this canvassing think that the future will bring far greater connectivity for most users and that - at the same time - a notable number of people will cut back their ties to connected things or withdraw from that world. They also imagine scenarios where people try to modulate their level of connectivity, being embedded to some degree in the connected world and, to some degree, also withdrawing from it.

Some will embrace it and some will 'opt out before it happens'

Jeff Johnson, consultant at UI Wizards and Wiser Usability, replied, "My actual answer is 'both.' Most people will move more deeply into connected life, but significant numbers will disconnect (or remain disconnected)."

Adrian Schofield, an applied research manager, observed, "Both answers apply. Millions will connect because they are at low risk and the convenience factor is high. Thousands will disconnect because they become targets or they fear becoming targets. However, fear of losing wealth has never stopped the relentless pursuit of wealth."

Wendy M. Grossman, an independent writing and editing professional based in London, said, "As we become more sophisticated about and used to these technologies, we will (I hope) make better-informed decisions about which ones we use and how. ... As I watch the way IT is developing, I'm increasingly dubious about how far I want to let it - and the concomitant exposure to potential surveillance - penetrate into my home life. Some of this is because I've been online for 25 years and I write about security - I'm distrustful enough that I do almost no online banking and don't use my smartphone for anything that would expose any of my financial accounts. I'm in the fortunate position of not needing to do these things, so I don't. I think in the short to medium term we're in for a lot of grief as legacy manufacturers who know nothing about security add wireless connections and computational power to everyday objects; there's going to be a big mess one day soon when governments start demanding that the data collected by smart TVs, robots, etc., be retained for use by law enforcement and security services. It's simpler (to me) to opt out of that before it happens."

An anonymous employee of the U.S. National Science Foundation wrote, "Both answers are true, since 5% to 10% disconnecting is a significant number."

An anonymous respondent said, "All devices will become connected by default. It will take an effort to disconnect. But more people will become distrustful of the IoT. It will cause a large culture clash." And an anonymous network architect observed, "I actually think both are true, possibly resulting in a bifurcation in our social structure."

John Paine, a business analyst, commented, "There will be a statistically significant number of people who will deliberately disconnect to the extent possible, but overall connections will increase. I expect that a premium will begin to come into play for purchasing 'disconnection' as a feature for goods/services in the future."

An anonymous respondent replied, "The answer is both/neither/it will balance out. Many will disconnect, but equally as many will double down. For every tin-foil-hatted neo-Luddite moving to an island with a telegraph, so to speak, there will be someone gleefully enjoying their networked toaster and toilet. The only thing that might tip the balance more toward disconnection would be an IoT-related infrastructural disaster."

Right now the IoT isn't that grand, so why worry either way?

A share of respondents expressed a low level of confidence that the IoT or the security of the networks will advance much in the next decade. Those whose responses generally referred to consumer-oriented applications such as "smart-home" items tended to find them to be less than worthy of sacrifice of one's privacy or safety. They don't think IoT uptake will live up to expectations, but they generally are not considering larger systems in the IoT such as transportation, environmental services and finance.

Grant Blank, a sociologist and survey research fellow for the Oxford Internet Institute, said, "The question seems to assume that most people own devices that are part of the Internet of Things. This is currently false. People will generally stay away. There are two reasons: 1) Security is being done badly on the Internet of Things. This seems unlikely to change quickly. 2) Companies are behaving in ways that discourage participation. Major case in point is that Nest recently decided to turn off the servers supporting a whole line of devices, making devices costing $100+ into useless bricks. The bottom line is that the Internet of Things is more useful for companies than for consumers. Consumers will generally stay away."

An anonymous respondent commented, "I don't believe the Internet of Things will really become reality. The infrastructure is not good enough and the high number of manufacturers will create lock-ins. The threshold for citizens will be too high - unless they commit to one manufacturer and buy everything from it."

An anonymous scientific editor replied, "It's hard to know/guess which way things will go. For me personally, I back away from this stuff as far and as fast as I can, but I'm not sure how many other people will be inclined to do the same. It's entirely possible that most people will find these ridiculous and dangerous new toys irresistibly compelling. Really though, it's beyond parody. 'Smart TV'? C'mon, you're having a laugh. How might governments and technologists respond to make things more secure and safe? Well, air-gap them, obviously. Very little of this stuff ever needed to be networked in the first place. Cellphones: Good. Highway traffic flow control: Good. An app that controls the light switches in your home: Not so much. As for an automobile controlled by a computer: If it's an autonomous self-driving car a la Elon Musk, then sure, recent fatality notwithstanding; if it's a regular car, then OK, there are pros and cons for digital vs. analog; if it's a regular car with a networked computer, hell no! There's absolutely no upside to that whatsoever."

An anonymous senior fellow at an organization that examines the future of privacy issues replied, "People may adopt, then disconnect based on experiences. For example, I don't see the point in a refrigerator with a 21-inch display in the door, and a lot of the other IoT features seem like overkill. For sensors, horror stories about surveillance may deter use. Connected and driverless cars present challenges with the first fatal crash. It will be interesting to see what happens."

Theme 5: Human ingenuity and risk-mitigation strategies will make the Internet of Things safer

Many respondents expressed confidence in the evolution of methods by which outside regulators, as well as developers of the software, hardware and networks undergirding the IoT, will build in some method of dealing with constantly emerging security, safety and civil liberties issues.

Indeed, regulators have just started to consider recommendations in this fast-evolving setting, moving slowly and not forcefully. The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) guidance for management of cybersecurity in medical devices was issued as a draft in January 2016 but not officially released until a year later. The recommendations are nonbinding - more like suggestions. And when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced in January 2017 an IoT "Challenge to Combat Security Vulnerabilities in Home Devices" some experts worried that the top prize for winning submissions was a modest $25,000.

An anonymous futurist wrote, "The vulnerability of networked devices is a technical issue. The original inventors of the internet are basically good people, so they did not recognize all the ways that their devices can be exploited. As the bad actors expose more problems, they will be fixed. I expect that networked devices will become as reliable as our electric power grid today. It will occasionally go out - and it will be a catastrophe. But we will survive."

Effective regulatory and technology-based remedies will emerge to reduce threats

Pamela Rutledge, director of the Media Psychology Research Center, commented, "The advances in technology will be accompanied by improved security. That is the only way companies and organizations can protect the economic investment in connected products and services; it is the only way connected services can continue to deliver value. There will always be some who choose to self-regulate by withdrawal, but most will learn new skills of self-management and be willing to exchange the currency of personal data and privacy to get the most value from the products available."

Patrick Tucker, technology editor at Defense One and author of "The Naked Future," wrote, "Biometric authentication and IoT military research programs such as the HACMS [High-Assurance Cyber Military Systems] program will make the Internet of Things more secure. That plus new services that spring up out of the Internet of Things ecosystem will shift the cost-benefit analysis of staying engaged and deepening engagement toward deepening."

Jon Lebkowsky, CEO of Polycot Associates, said, "It's an arms race, for sure, but I'm confident that we will evolve better security. And I'm pretty sure the negatives along the way will not diminish trust to the point that people disconnect in a big way."

Michael Wollowski, associate professor of computer science at the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, explained how advances will allow systems to be self-monitored and self-protected. "I am not concerned about vulnerabilities of the Internet of Things," he said. "In addition to improvements of security tools [thanks] to advanced analytics devices [used in] factories will become what might be called 'self-aware,' i.e., they will 'know' when something is not right. In those cases, the devices will enter different levels of self-protection based on the perceived threat. Better communication among security experts and systems will also provide for quicker responses to threats, isolating or eliminating them."

An anonymous respondent commented, "It feels like an inevitability that some series of high-profile ransomware attacks, e.g., turning off an IoT pacemaker to take out a U.S. senator or CEO, will happen, because human greed is not a force we're likely to eliminate in the near term. That said, I doubt the backlash against that kind of attack will be disconnection, it'll be the solidification of security standards and 'trusted' brands of devices. There will always be both greedy bastards and the tinfoil hat brigade, but my hunch is that both sets will remain on the fringes, with the middle 90% opting to make smarter decisions about who/what has access to certain information/devices."

Governments should be doing more to regulate negligent companies, punish bad actors

As citizens become more educated about the network and how things are connected, more pressure will rise to provide safe and secure spaces.
Anonymous staff member at
a state university

An anonymous tech ops lead replied, "We've seen this movie before. 'Don't ever put your credit card on the internet.' 'The internet isn't secure enough for banking.' Etc. If enough people trust it, it becomes imperative to fix it, and it gets fixed. But some of the early pioneers randomly get arrows in their backs. People already share their entire lives with (fairly insecure) laptops and tablets. There is an entire antivirus industry focused on the wrong part of security. There will be many massive problems where houses, toasters, video feeds get taken over because nobody knows what is secure and what is not. But, over time, best practices will emerge (just like most sites encrypt their passwords with a salt [random data used as an additional input], but soon they will use two-factor authentication). Governments can help by making sure customers who are harmed can sue and get money from negligent companies. Toyota didn't care about software best practices, but was forced to pay a billion dollars and given a wakeup call: They are a software company now. It's best for consumers if products are self-updating. But that requires 1) trust and 2) laws. Without laws, companies would rather focus on selling a new product rather than fixing an old one. Hopefully the law will say, 'Either fix the bugs or open-source so anyone can fix the bugs.'"

An anonymous staff member at a state university said, "We have had great moments of mistrust, which have stemmed largely from an underestimation of threats and a misunderstanding of the network and how they work. As citizens become more educated about the network and how things are connected, more pressure will rise to provide safe and secure spaces. However, organizations that exploit the data and the network should be found and swiftly punished instead of being tacitly ignored as we see so often."

Demian Perry, director of mobile at NPR, observed, "The problem with IoT devices is not that these devices are inherently less secure, but that the space is too new to have a mature security infrastructure. The market is likely to weed out insecure products over the long term, but it might also be helpful to have regulatory review over certain product categories, similar to the way the FDA manages food safety, or the role the National Transportation Safety Board is now playing in autonomous vehicles."

Jason Hong, associate professor at Carnegie Mellon University, commented, "In the short term, we will see a lot more IoT-based attacks, especially ransomware attacks. However, organizations are already taking steps toward improving the situation. For example, the FTC has issued reports on IoT security and is asking the top manufacturers about their cybersecurity practices. Over time, I expect there to be more centers of excellence to help disseminate best practices for coding and managing IoT systems. Researchers will also come up with better ways for managing collections of devices as well as protecting low-end devices. It's also likely that insurance companies will help improve the state of the art by having higher premiums for IoT companies that don't have good cybersecurity practices. Most importantly, cybersecurity is a known issue, and both IoT manufacturers and consumers are becoming savvier about the risks. So while there will be a lot of growing pains, I'm optimistic about the future of IoT."

Richard Forno, senior lecturer of computer science and electrical engineering at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, said, "As a career internet security professional, I continue witnessing people rushing to embrace the latest and greatest thing or gadget or service without thinking about the possible ramifications to their security, privacy or resiliency. And it's not just about security or privacy - what if the product vendors for your IoT-enabled things go out of business or decide to make their product incompatible with others in the same space? (Which is happening already.) What will users do then? Accordingly, security practitioners and educators at all levels will constantly struggle to inform the public about these risks in ways it can understand easily and potentially address in their respective lives."

Theme 6: Notable numbers will disconnect

Some 15% of the respondents in this canvassing expect that perceived and real vulnerabilities of the IoT will move people to disconnect. They noted the escalating security and privacy risks posed by connected devices and the complications that occur when fast-changing, fast-growing complex systems are built and networked. Many among this share of respondents seem to have little to no confidence that the builders of the IoT will make security, safety and individuals' civil liberties their first priority because profit, power and efficiencies always come first, leaving far less investment in the crucial, difficult, expensive and perpetual work of minimizing threats.

Lack of trust, safety and privacy issues and more may move those with fears to withdraw

Expressions of concern, disappointment and resignation are evident in the responses from those who say it is likely there will be some who choose to disconnect in some manner from the IoT. Mistrust is the big factor in these answers, especially when it comes to other humans. Their worries are generally tied to 1) their expectation of harm from criminals and other bad actors; 2) their suspicions about the primary motivations behind the acts of the corporate and governmental bodies they must depend upon to operate these networks and 3) their lack of faith that people can get it all together to plan, regulate, build, monitor, update and maintain such complex systems.

An anonymous senior researcher at Microsoft wrote, "Most people will move more deeply into connected life. Then there will be some catastrophe - some enormous hack that costs thousands and [takes] lives - and then people will try to disconnect. For example, self-driving cars take off and then someone figures out how to hack them, causing an enormous loss of life in one fell swoop."

An anonymous respondent replied, "I expect that within 20 years it will be very difficult or impossible to buy non-IoT versions of many common items (this is already rapidly becoming the case with televisions). The current norm of poorly engineered, non-updatable, easily exploited IoT 'security' will continue, further opening the surveillance window for governments and corporations and creating an even vaster, botnet-armed cybercriminal underground."

An anonymous respondent said, "More, and more serious, data breaches are likely to push people away from the Internet of Things. Stalkers using home webcams to collect information, breaches of medical records that are used to blackmail thousands and subverted automobiles will drive educated consumers away from insecure systems."

Joel Barker, futurist and author at Infinity Limited, said, "Disconnection is the only solution to the size of the risk."

An anonymous respondent said, "Short-term [there will be disconnection]. This stuff has happened, and is happening. An electronic cold war. It might be revealed. Long-term, electricity will be a memory for most people. Have you read " The Road "? We are on that road."

Corporate intransigence, shortsightedness and misguided thinking create vulnerabilities

Jennifer Zickerman, an entrepreneur, replied, "Sadly, people will continue to connect devices without demanding better security design. Shiny new technology will trump big, dumb security vulnerabilities. Institutions are particularly vulnerable, as they stand to reap the greatest benefit from 'smart' devices. We will see situations where hospital equipment, utility systems, even entire buildings are held for ransom. It is most definitely possible to improve security - however, that would involve settling on a common, open-source security standard, which tech corporations are loath to do. (Witness the fragmentation of single sign-on systems.) As long as tech companies continue to look at security as a 'feature' rather than as a fundamental operating characteristic, they will be unable to cooperate to build proper security infrastructure. As long as society continues to allow tech companies to reap vast profits in spite of the damage they do to users through a lack of effective security, tech companies will have little incentive to improve."

An anonymous systems engineer replied, "Corporate greed prevents things from being done well, thus the Internet of Things is a horrifically stupid idea that will drive people back to using technology that can't be corrupted by corporate greed."

Jesse Drew, cinema and digital media professor at the University of California, Davis, replied, "There is a limit to the trust people put into their machines."

An anonymous advocate for international freedom of expression wrote, "I don't feel confident about the state of data security at the moment, and I fear that putting more data in the hands of reckless corporations will endanger us. Consider the impact of a leak of health-related information - what's to stop predatory insurance companies from denying coverage?"

An anonymous chief technology officer commented, "Until security improves, a significant number of sophisticated users will disconnect. I'm not going to install a Nest, my next TV will not run apps, even if it costs me more, and I'm not going to get a Samsung internet-connected refrigerator. I will willingly give up convenience until the developers get it right. If they ever manage to."

A call for open-source processes and standards came from Alexander Halavais, director of the master's degree program in social technologies at Arizona State University. "We will see the same battles we already have between closed infrastructures and open, interoperable ones," he wrote. "We are already seeing the early days of this with wearables. Your Withings devices all talk to one another, but talking across makers becomes more difficult. Services like ifttt [ If This Then That] are fighting against these new walled gardens. The future of these systems requires open standards. It took a long time for web browsers and operating systems to learn this lesson, and government regulation has played a role in making such exchange even more difficult, but it is likely a question of when, not if; eventually makers will come to understand that open standards improve user experiences and lead to greater adoption."

'TMI' and less-than-stellar performance from complex IoT systems will drive dropouts

Some respondents wrote that people might simply withdraw from connectivity because they are overwhelmed. Among the contributing factors would be information overload; poorly made or overly complex IoT tools and systems; products that do not perform well, lack support and/or are in constant need of updates and patches; and IoT products that are given to new owners without the manufacturer knowing of the switch. As a result, some of these respondents say, people will disconnect to a certain degree or never consciously connect.

Timothy C. Mack, managing principal at AAI Foresight, wrote, "At present, the Internet of Things is more a series of missteps than a grand design, if for no other reason than many of the large players are competitors versus cooperators and accepted protocols are still not agreed upon. As well, the 'gold rush' quality of such areas as 'smart homes' has led to shoddy design and poor construction of the physical and the digital aspects of this brave new world. As for the loss of critical safety and security through networks trying to interconnect and protect and the same time (with largely the same tools), we should expect many more disappointments in the IoT development saga."

Ryan Sweeney, director of analytics at Ignite Social Media, commented, "We're going to see two groups start to emerge within the next decade: those connected and those unplugged. Being connected can be burdensome to users as they face information fatigue. Bret Easton Ellis wrote a book titled 'Lunar Park' that provided a fascinating take on the concept. (Spoiler alert!) Ellis depicts a world where kids are so saturated with information they become bored with and numb to technology so they run away and start a community of their own. In Dave Egger's book 'The Circle,' (spoiler alert) a character strives to escape the oppressive nature of an omni-connected dystopian future and finds death to be the only way out. Exaggerated? Yes. Conceptual plausibility? Definitely. Meanwhile, as algorithms become more efficient and technology more omnipresent and accepted, there will be continued growth of plugged-in users. Governments will need to focus on protecting the connected user, as acts of terrorism will likely shift to the digital when the damage potential is great enough. When everything is connected and relies on said connectivity of other sources, disconnecting one system could result in a significant freeze of efficiency. If, for instance, within this decade automated cars become standard that system could become compromised resulting in anything from an economic shock to massive loss of life by collision. The sci-fi nerd in me wonders if, in several decades, this will result in a new type of class system."

Pete Cranston of EuforicServices.com said the machines will manage the complexity, observing, "There will be scares, genuine disasters, but the potential gains from interconnectivity are so great that we will continue to lurch into a future where we will have to confront issues of independent machine-machine decision-making (aka machine intelligence, but actually more to do with interlocking algorithms exponentially increasing the complexity of machine response patterns) much more actively."

Theme 7: Whether or not people disconnect, the dangers are real. Security and civil liberties issues will be magnified by the rapid rise of the Internet of Things

Many respondents to this canvassing said the dangers of the IoT are real and present a daunting challenge. They are certain that in the future there will be more attacks with more devastating results as billions more things and people become interconnected online and systems become more complex and difficult to manage. Many have deep concerns about the protection of civil liberties in a world in which so much granular data is continuously collected and databased, especially considering the fact that the "threat environment" created by this complex networking is high.

Threats are likely to turn into attacks and other acts, possibly some violent

An anonymous engineer at Cisco commented, "It is inevitable that more people will be connected more and more, but we do not expect the security, which is a cat-and-mouse game, to significantly improve relative to the number of things getting connected. People will lose their lives due to criminal exploits of vulnerabilities."

An anonymous programmer and data analyst wrote, "Most people are totally oblivious to the fragile and easily pierced nature of the Net and the total lack of protection of their medical/financial information. They will continue to not care or understand the issues and will move more deeply into connectivity. Attacks on power infrastructure, automated vehicles, airplanes, food supplies are all unfortunate consequences of the IoT."

Jerry Michalski, founder at REX, replied, "Aside from climate change and clowns having their fingers on the nuclear trigger, the IoT is one of the larger menaces we face. Any device that's been in the field over five years is highly likely to be p0wn3d [a gamer term meaning "beaten handily"] by the darknet. All of which sounds like I should have answered that people will withdraw from the IoT, but within the next decade I believe people will just dive in merrily, because we're in the uptake period of this new technology and the big flaws won't show up within the decade. We would do well to rethink entirely the structures of the vaunted Internet of Things."

John Howard, creative director at LOOOK, a mixed-reality design and development studio, commented, "The growth of IoT, along with 3D printing and VR, will further erode the digital/physical divide. Physical peril (real or imagined) will put greater emphasis and opportunity on network security. ... As physical attacks become more public, people will understand the need to take greater responsibility for their own cybersecurity."

The rise of the IoT and security concerns amplifies worries over civil liberties

Some respondents expect that because the risks associated with the IoT are high, that will compel greater surveillance by governments. Advanced artificial intelligence tools will be able to monitor, analyze and pass judgment upon nearly every detail of any individual's life via the data collected by the IoT. Sentiment analysis can be applied to create a profile of people's character and intentions; experts say such programs will enhance security and endanger civil liberties. A number of these experts worry that those who control the algorithms will begin to even more deeply exploit the constantly multiplying ways in which they can monitor users' behaviors and emotions and even predict and/or manipulate how people behave. Some experts say if the brain-to-internet interface were to become a reality, this type of spying could possibly capture and process human thought. It is a sci-fi nightmare brought to life. An anonymous respondent described a worst-case scenario, writing, "It's the tragedy of the commons: The individual incentives are great (better health, more convenience, saving money) while the long-term consequences for society are grave (loss of privacy, autonomy, safety in one's own home)."

Marti Hearst, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, replied, "Just as the pervasiveness of cellphones forced the phasing-out of pay phones in public places, it will become impossible to opt out of the oncoming connected world. People's businesses, homes, cars and even their clothing will be monitoring their every move, and potentially even their thoughts. Connected cities will track where and when people walk, initially to light their way, but eventually to monitor what they do and say. The walls of businesses will have tiny sensors embedded in them, initially to monitor for toxins and earthquakes, and eventually to monitor for intruders and company secrets being shared. People currently strap monitors on their bodies to tell them how many steps they take. Eventually, all fluids in and out of bodies will be monitored and recorded. Opting out will be out of the ordinary and hugely inconvenient, just as not carrying a mobile device and not using a fast pass on the highway are today."

T. Rob Wyatt, an independent network security consultant, wrote, "Functionality trumps lack of security every time. We develop new function almost without regard to security and then discover we cannot retrofit it after the fact. A recent court ruling stated that we should no longer have any expectation of privacy in our internet-connected devices. Considering that we now have forks, toothbrushes, health monitors, mattresses, sex toys and more connected to the internet, this ruling has profound implications to personal life, privacy and checks and balances to government intrusion and control. The ruling went almost unreported and no public outcry was raised over it. No public backlash will occur so long as the toys are shiny."

An anonymous respondent observed, "It is a huge invasion of privacy. The Internet of Things is not something I want to participate in fully. Only in very limited ways that I can control. But I am older, and wary. Younger folks who have grown up with technologies may not care, so interconnection will grow. I'm still going to buy a TV monitor without a camera, because I don't want that part of my life camera-enabled. I don't want my fridge enabled. I don't really want much of anything enabled. I want privacy."

An anonymous computer science professor at a Swiss university wrote, "The main issue with connected objects is the potential to trace people, their actions and activities, or to hack objects and change their behavior. We should avoid having completely centralised systems where each event is recorded and sent to governments or surveillance bodies."

Mary Chayko, communications and information professor at Rutgers University, replied, "While cybersecurity has become a critical challenge for governments, psychological security - a sense of safety and rootedness - becomes perhaps the premier challenge for individuals. As we see our devices and world become ever more tightly networked and interconnected and recognize the inherent security vulnerabilities in such a system, we become more psychologically and emotionally vulnerable. My hope is that we will address this, as we have so many other issues in the digital age, in community with one another - coming together (often online) to better understand our common human responses, needs and frailties, and to develop stronger, more secure systems and selves."

Responses from additional key experts regarding the future of connectivity in the age of the Internet of Things

This section features responses by several of the many top analysts who participated in this canvassing. Following this wide-ranging set of comments, a much more expansive set of quotations directly tied the seven primary themes begins on page 40.

'Whose intelligence? Whose control? ... How can we monitor the monitors?'

Barry Chudakov, founder and principal at Sertain Research and StreamFuzion Corp., replied, "We can now unleash the power of all brains, all consciousness - both somatic and artificial - to solve problems and improve the human condition. This is truly a remarkable development. ... Bruce Schneier says the Internet of Things, with the computerization of everything, will be the world's biggest robot. This everything-everywhere 'robot' - a concatenation of connected things, sensors and actuators - will change the world in ways we cannot predict and will maximize profits for those who control the components. Physical or human damage might be contained ... or it could leave nations and governments more vulnerable to hacktivism and cyberterrorism targeting air monitoring, water and electrical infrastructure systems. ... Smart and networked also means malicious actors can hack these systems and create mischief and worse. ... The Internet of Things is a way of not only connecting objects, but also embedding intelligence into those objects. That intelligence is persistent and will soon be ubiquitous. Very quickly the question arises: How much intelligence? And how much decision-making, or control, can be embedded into those objects? ... The mostly likely physical or human damage that will occur when things are networked arises in this area: Whose intelligence? Whose control? How do we, if need be, circumvent it or turn it off? How can we monitor the monitors to ensure no bad actors are trying to harm us using IoT as a weapon?"

Fixes will arise because the cyberphysical space is the fastest-growing part of the economy

Glenn Ricart, Internet Hall of Fame member and founder and chief technology officer of U.S. Ignite, said, "There is tremendous latent potential in greater connectivity - enough potential to force providers and consumers alike to find ways of minimizing the inevitable downsides. Just as Underwriters Laboratories (the famous UL label) was started by insurance companies to minimize losses due to fire and other malfeasance of new electrical technology, I would expect that organizations like Mozilla and Electronic Frontier Foundation and others will create testing programs and labels that will have value in creating trust and reducing vulnerabilities. At some point, the National Institute of Standards and Technology will find that it must turn the majority of its activities to standardization and testing in the cyberphysical space because that is the portion of the economy growing most rapidly."

'The attacks will get much worse' but there are 'ways to mitigate them'

Cory Doctorow, writer, computer science activist-in-residence at MIT Media Lab and co-owner of Boing Boing, said, "The attacks will get much worse. There are a variety of ways to mitigate them. First, in the line of establishing more graceful failure modes: Eliminate Section 1201 of the DMCA [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, both of which are routinely used to suppress true facts about security defects in products we rely upon. The current model is that we learn about these facts not when they're discovered by a 'good guy' but when a 'bad guy' exploits them so horribly that their existence can no longer be suppressed. Second, use legislation to force firms to internalize the cost of breaches: Right now, losing a credit card record costs a firm something like $0.35, plus a six-month gift certificate for a credit-monitoring service. But the data from those breaches, combined with other breach data by crooks, can be used to pull off breathtaking identity theft crimes (last Christmas saw a rash of thefts of whole houses, accomplished by assembling enough identity data to successfully procure duplicate titles/deeds). If firms had to pay the entire likely lifetime losses from breaches (because of statutory damages and/or precedents) then no insurer would underwrite companies that were as sloppy as today's - data collection and retention would be priced accordingly by insurers, at a much higher price than today's. (Today, the major expense is hard drives, not liability insurance for all that potentially explosive material.) Third, eliminate the state mandates for collection and retention, especially those in the European Union, which press firms into service as proxies for law enforcement, and which simultaneously mandate the mass collection/retention of sensitive PII [personally identifiable information] that will eventually leak and be exploited by crooks."

A better evaluation and certification system for devices is needed

Henning Schulzrinne, professor at Columbia University and Internet Hall of Fame member, commented, "Consumers currently have no reasonable way to judge whether the devices they buy are designed according to common security practices, whether and how they are being tested, how security-related bugs are addressed and for how long after purchase. Nor do they generally know what kind of data the vendor stores where, shared with whom and for how long, and whether those systems are regularly tested by independent third parties. For higher-risk devices that can either do physical harm (cars) or can cause significant loss of privacy (in-home cameras) or endanger physical safety (door locks), some kind of certification that does not just consist of 10 pages of disclaimers seems necessary."

Technology has always inspired fears, but 'people found ways to use them effectively'

Jonathan Grudin, principal researcher at Microsoft, observed, "Previous hardware generations and major software advances gave rise to fears, but people found ways to use them effectively, warranting measures to prevent serious misuse or negative consequences. Why would this be an exception?"

People will demand solutions to problems in the cyber-enabled world

Jim Hendler, professor of computer science at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, observed, "Automobile accidents have not kept people from driving, burglary doesn't keep people from owning houses with nice things in them and workplace violence doesn't keep people from holding jobs. Society finds ways to control these things, by a combination of social and technical means, and while none are completely removed, they are kept to a level people can tolerate - locks are put on doors, laws are passed, policemen are hired and society adjusts. The cyber-enabled world will need to create analogous mechanisms, which will happen as awareness of threat increases, and impacts will be controlled. There will be a period of adjustment (as bad things happen), followed by a demand for change, and that will motivate (through financial incentives and/or legal penalties) change."

Risk is a part of life and IoT security will improve

Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, observed, "Most adults in the U.S. drive cars even though it entails risks. Most adults will use IoT devices even though they involve risks because the benefits will vastly outweigh any potential risks. Moreover, as IoT progresses security will improve."

People will have little choice but to participate in the Internet of Things

Alice Marwick, a fellow at Data & Society, wrote, "Opting out of the Internet of Things will become increasingly difficult, as devices from automobiles to alarm clocks will be equipped with proprietary internet-enabled software. The ability of people to tinker with their own devices, choose whether they want internet connectivity and select non-connected devices will decrease, making opting out onerous, expensive and disadvantageous. This is similar to the body scanners in airports, where one can opt out, but it has a cost. Currently, data breaches are widespread, but the cost of opting out (of, for instance, credit cards) generally outweighs the risk. People will have little choice but to participate in the Internet of Things.''

Opting out is not viable: How does one 'disconnect' from a home, city, airport, health care?

Kate Crawford, a well-known internet researcher studying how people engage with networked technologies, said, "This question assumes that disconnecting remains a socially and economically viable option. For many millions of people, it simply won't be. Quite apart from the individual use of devices and platforms, the infrastructure of everyday life will be networked. How does one 'disconnect' from your home, city, airport or health care system?"

Fixes are hard to conceive, but people might not have a choice

Rebecca MacKinnon, director of New America's Ranking Digital Rights initiative, wrote, "Innovations in governance, accountability, security and industry coordination (without collusion) are going to need to advance in ways that are hard to conceive at this point in time. People with real security concerns are going to want to disconnect but the question is whether they will have a choice. In some parts of the world, perhaps not."

'The likely consequence will be more catastrophic events'

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said, "The essential problem is that it will be impractical for people to disconnect. Cars and homes will become increasingly dependent on internet connectivity. The likely consequence will be more catastrophic events."

The cost and severity of lapses and breaches will be 'a constant, ongoing burden for all'

Anil Dash, entrepreneur, technologist and advocate, observed, "People will continue to connect out of necessity, but the cost and severity of lapses and breaches will increase until it's a constant, ongoing burden for all."

Newly empowered users will prevail; it is an 'Age of Amateurs'

David Brin, author of "The Transparent Society" and "Existence" and a leader at the University of California, San Diego's Arthur C. Clarke Center for Human Imagination, wrote, "Both are true [there will be more connection and some will disconnect]. We seldom note a major recent trend, an Age of Amateurs. Already we are in an era when no worthwhile skill is ever lost if it can draw the eye of some small band of amateurs. Today there are more expert flint-knappers than in the Paleolithic, more sword-makers than the Middle Ages. There is vastly more surface area of hobbyist telescopes than instruments owned by all governments and universities put together. Networks of neighbors have started setting up chemical sensors that will weave into hyper environmental webs. This will augment. For every couch or web potato, there will be two who use these new powers to become more vivid in real life."

Only choose 'libre software'-connected devices

Richard Stallman, president of the Free Software Foundation and Internet Hall of Fame member, said, "I will do my utmost to convince people to reject internet-connected devices that contain any non-libre software, by teaching people that they cannot possibly deserve our trust. See [ this article] for why that is so."

The benefits of being connected 'outweigh the risks'

Jeff Jarvis, professor at the City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism, observed, "It wasn't long ago that it was said no one would ever put their credit cards online. Then came Amazon. The benefits of being connected far outweigh the risks. There are more than enough worrywarts and regulators to watch over our safety."

No 'back-to-the-land' movement is in sight

John Markoff, senior writer at The New York Times, commented, "I see no back-to-the-land movement on the horizon."

'Off-netters' will get attention but will not add up to much

Mike Roberts, Internet Hall of Fame member and first president and CEO of ICANN, responded, "It has been demonstrated time and again that individuals will trade privacy for convenience. If a new network application promises self-perceived convenience or value, such a trade is likely. Indeed, we see it going on every day. One of the broader issues is how to deal with privacy as a social construct. Much of what we regard as privacy today is an Enlightenment idea that is associated with personal freedom and other human rights. Some regard these as 'immutable,' others as fungible in pursuit of a better life. The arguments are not going to be settled soon. Cultures of dissent will persist, and much will be made of 'off-netters,' similar to the publicity gained by today's 'off-grid' culture. Probably not a big deal in the grand scheme of things."

'New jobs and social processes will emerge to protect the IoT'

Ben Shneiderman, professor of computer science at the University of Maryland, observed, "Malicious attacks by vandals, criminals and terrorists will expand, but increasingly powerful defenses will be built. Some can be centralized and top-down, but bottom-up, community-driven strategies will emerge, along with devoted public defenders (vigilantes). New jobs and social processes will emerge to protect the IoT."

'Everything that can be connected to the web will be'

Stowe Boyd, managing director of Another Voice, wrote, "In a world in which connected driverless transportation becomes the ubiquitous and low-cost norm, few will be concerned that occasionally a hacker can take over a vehicle and crash it, especially since tens of thousands die every year in car accidents now. That example will be the instance that proves the general case. Yes, hacking will continue, and corporations and governments will fight it, but meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of human activities and finances will move online, and everything that can be connected to the web will be."

Those who disconnect will be outliers

Fred Baker, fellow at Cisco Systems and longtime Internet Engineering Task Force leader, said, "People will become more connected; I say this because I observe that they [already] do. There are those who disconnect; they are the outliers. It would be a good thing if our public institutions sought to make 'things' more secure and safe, and some of those institutions do try. However, other public institutions seek to tear down the exact things that improve our security, such as by asking for 1) law enforcement access to encrypted communications, or 2) the outright technological ban of certain kinds of communications. They ask for it because 1) they are deluded into believing that only law enforcement would have access to the revealed information, which runs counter to the experience of the Los Angeles Police Department in two cases in the 1990s and of the Greek government in 2002. If there is a way to have access to that communication by anyone, even if 'anyone' is composed entirely of incorruptible saints, there is a way for military enemies and organized crime to have access as well. They also ask 2) because they don't understand the capabilities, or lack of capabilities, in technology. If, for example, one would like all al-Qaida and ISIS propaganda to be magically filtered away and unavailable, ask how well we have done with pornography. We say, 'Where there is a will, there is a way,' and that applies both to the evil and the good."

'Massive work is needed' to make the Internet of Things function

Randy Bush, research fellow at Internet Initiative Japan and Internet Hall of Fame member, commented, "People will ignore the continuous IoT disasters, and the press will minimize them. We paper over IoT security issues, yet massive work is needed here."

'People will just hope that the institutions around them won't harm them'

danah boyd, founder of Data & Society, commented, "There will be no choice. As a result, many people will just hope that the institutions around them won't harm them, while some people will feel very acute pain because they don't fit into the system in an acceptable way."

This is the early break-in phase; things will get better over time

Doc Searls, journalist, speaker and director of Project VRM at Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, wrote, "The Internet of Things is a misnomer, at least as of today. What we have instead is what Phil Windley, PhD, calls a ' Compuserve of Things.' His summary: 'On the Net today we face a choice between freedom and captivity, independence and dependence. How we build the Internet of Things has far-reaching consequences for the humans who will use - or be used by - it. Will we push forward, connecting things using forests of silos that are reminiscent the online services of the 1980s, or will we learn the lessons of the internet and build a true Internet of Things?' Connectivity for things today is where connectivity for people and computers were in the 1980s and early 1990s, when the closest things we had to the internet were Compuserve, AOL, Prodigy and other 'online services' that didn't interact with each other. Likewise today we have the Google of Things, the Apple of Things and the Amazon of Things - all of them closed corporate systems. Worse, many of the connected things we are sold today spy on us, usually without our permission. Some cars report our driving to insurance companies. Some Samsung TVs watch and listen to viewers in living rooms, so Samsung can sell that data to other parties for advertising purposes. This is not only appalling on its face, but it will be flushed out by both market resistance and regulations such as the EU's General Data Protection Regulation. The only way to fully reduce vulnerability to surveillance and other forms of bad acting is to give individuals full control over the things in their lives. Today we are only beginning to evolve toward that end state; but the demand will be there, which is why there will be a business in it, and it will come to pass. Once it does, much better information will flow from people who own things to the companies that make and service those things. And spying won't be required. Between now and then we will continue to face Dr. Windley's choice."

'When it comes to the Internet of Things and data breaches, winter is coming'

Amy Webb, futurist and CEO at the Future Today Institute, wrote, "Historically, we have not seen a positive correlation between large-scale hacking attacks and significant numbers of people disconnecting from devices or services. After breaches at some of our largest retailers and entertainment providers, such as Sony and Target, consumers went right back to paying for their goods and services. When it comes to technology, if it makes our lives easier, we will continue to use it, even when risk is associated. Look no further than Uber, a service that changes its prices regularly, sometimes with increases up to five or six times above what they would be otherwise. We might complain, but the fact is that we continue using the service, even when it makes no financial sense. Technology can be like junk food. We'll consume it, even when we know it's bad for us. There is no silver bullet. The only way to effectively prevent against malware and data breaches is to stay continually vigilant. To borrow an analogy from 'Game of Thrones,' we need a 'Night's Watch' for security. Because when it comes to the Internet of Things and data breaches, 'winter is coming.' Organizations must hire enough knowledgeable staff to monitor and adjust systems, and to empower them to keep pace with hackers. IT and security staff must be willing to educate themselves, to admit when they need help and to demand that executives make decisions proactively."

'Most people don't care about security or privacy until they have experienced a breach'

Brad Templeton, chair for computing at Singularity University, wrote, "Few will disconnect even if there are strong arguments for it. (Self-driving cars will be only marginally connected to their HQs due to security concerns.) When the connections are set up by security pros, they will be more minimal. When set up by the public they will be promiscuous. We need to completely replace our existing operating systems (Windows, Mac, Linux, Android, etc.) to actually make these devices safe, and we must limit their connectivity, but the convenience that comes from not doing those things will win, since most people don't care about security or privacy until they have experienced a breach."

'If such systems prove to be unreliable, people will leave in droves'

Vinton Cerf, vice president and chief internet evangelist at Google and Internet Hall of Fame member, wrote, "This will happen if devices come on the market that require online or at least local communication and programmable control. There are many risks that reliability and safety will suffer unless the makers are diligent about protecting user interests. It could be impossible to escape increased connectivity. Look at present dependence on Google Maps or generally on mobiles and apps in the last 10 years. Reliability will be key. If such systems prove to be unreliable, people will leave in droves. So that's a primary requirement. Safety is also a primary requirement. Privacy, security are part of the mix but the top two are reliability and safety."

Be less concerned with hackers and more concerned about the ways data will be used

Judith Donath of Harvard University's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society wrote, "People will move more deeply into connected life - and they also will be moved there whether they want to be or not. The connection of the physical world to information networks enables the collection of an unimaginably vast amount of data about each of us, making it possible to closely model how we think and to devise increasingly effective ways of influencing how we act and what we believe. Attaining this ability is extraordinarily valuable to anyone with something to sell or promote. The crucial key is getting people to provide the data, and it's not surprising that we're already seeing many once stand-alone objects (watches, heart rate monitors, thermostats, cameras, house keys and so on) turn into data-collecting network devices. My concern with the safety of things that are part of deeply connected world is not about its security and the dangers of being hacked (though those are real, and quite serious) but with the dangers that come with their intended uses: collecting a vast amount of intimate data about each person, while weaving themselves into everyday life as a source of great convenience and pampering.

The internet will become more like a utility

David Lankes, professor and director at the University of South Carolina's School of Library and Information Science, said, "There is an interesting shift when a feature or service becomes a utility. It becomes simultaneously expected and invisible. You flip on the light switch and you simply expect power to be delivered while simultaneously becoming less aware of how that happens. You expect roads to take you to a destination but have little knowledge (or concern) with what the road is made of (concrete, asphalt, new materials). This leads to a series of troubling issues. Take those roads. We assume, as a utility, they are available, but don't know specifics. Specifics like bridges aging out of service. We only become aware of the importance of both availability and service assurance when something goes wrong. Even then, we still drive on the next bridge assuming that the failed one was an anomaly, or that a failed bridge will spur action. The Internet of Things is nothing more or less than the evolution of the internet to a utility. We don't think about our refrigerators having IP addresses, or our cars linking to Wi-Fi because we simply assume they will. The value we get is too high not to take the risk - particularly because the risk is hidden or minimized."

Security must improve, but 'need will drive manufacturers to provide secure solutions'

Galen Hunt, partner research manager at Microsoft Research NExT, urged, "The security of IoT must improve. As more devices attach, consumers and enterprises will grow in their understanding of the profound need for secure systems; this need will drive manufacturers to provide secure solutions."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Internet of Things Connectivity Binge: What Are the Implications?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite wide concern about cyberattacks, outages and privacy violations, most experts believe the Internet of Things will continue to expand successfully the next few years, tying machines to machines and linking people to valuable resources, services and opportunities Connection begets connection.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Simple Explanation Of 'The Internet Of Things' 

# data[].attributes.subject
A Simple Explanation Of 'The Internet Of Things' 

# data[].attributes.body
Vendela Hale

This article gives a full view of what the internet of things currently is and where it is expected to be at in the near future. It tells us that the internet of things is much larger than just your basic devices such as phones, laptops, and tablets. Forbs claims that the internet of things stretches as far as your house hold appliances such as washers, they say its really anything you can think of. They simply state that he internet of things is a means of having a simple switch to turn off and on the connection of the internet. They go on to explain how this growth can become a risk but if utilized properly with the right security it can be an amazing asset. To be able to access important information at your finger tips at all time or to even be able to set your coffee on a timer every morning. There opportunities are endless with the internet of things.

This article relates to class by giving a detailed look into how the internet of things impacts our every day lives and how we can expect it to change in the near future. Not only does it give us perspective it helps put a label on some things that we might have already known. We've all see technology developing over the years and we knew that it will continue but this article helps but a clear picture to that.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The "Internet of things" (IoT) is becoming an increasingly growing topic of conversation both in the workplace and outside of it. It's a concept that not only has the potential to impact how we live but also how we work. But what exactly is the "Internet of things" and what impact is it going to have on you, if any? There are a lot of complexities around the "Internet of things" but I want to stick to the basics. Lots of technical and policy-related conversations are being had but many people are still just trying to grasp the foundation of what the heck these conversations are about.

Let's start with understanding a few things.

Broadband Internet is become more widely available, the cost of connecting is decreasing, more devices are being created with Wi-Fi capabilities and sensors built into them, technology costs are going down, and smartphone penetration is sky-rocketing. All of these things are creating a "perfect storm" for the IoT.
So What Is The Internet Of Things?
Simply put, this is the concept of basically connecting any device with an on and off switch to the Internet (and/or to each other). This includes everything from cellphones, coffee makers, washing machines, headphones, lamps, wearable devices and almost anything else you can think of. This also applies to components of machines, for example a jet engine of an airplane or the drill of an oil rig. As I mentioned, if it has an on and off switch then chances are it can be a part of the IoT. The analyst firm says that by 2020 there will be over 26 billion connected devices... That's a lot of connections (some even estimate this number to be much higher, over 100 billion). The IoT is a giant network of connected "things" (which also includes people). The relationship will be between people-people, people-things, and things-things.
How Does This Impact You?
The new rule for the future is going to be, "Anything that can be connected, will be connected." But why on earth would you want so many connected devices talking to each other? There are many examples for what this might look like or what the potential value might be. Say for example you are on your way to a meeting; your car could have access to your calendar and already know the best route to take. If the traffic is heavy your car might send a text to the other party notifying them that you will be late. What if your alarm clock wakes up you at 6 a.m. and then notifies your coffee maker to start brewing coffee for you? What if your office equipment knew when it was running low on supplies and automatically re-ordered more? What if the wearable device you used in the workplace could tell you when and where you were most active and productive and shared that information with other devices that you used while working?

On a broader scale, the IoT can be applied to things like transportation networks: "smart cities" which can help us reduce waste and improve efficiency for things such as energy use; this helping us understand and improve how we work and live. Take a look at the visual below to see what something like that can look like.

The reality is that the IoT allows for virtually endless opportunities and connections to take place, many of which we can't even think of or fully understand the impact of today. It's not hard to see how and why the IoT is such a hot topic today; it certainly opens the door to a lot of opportunities but also to many challenges. Security is a big issue that is oftentimes brought up. With billions of devices being connected together, what can people do to make sure that their information stays secure? Will someone be able to hack into your toaster and thereby get access to your entire network? The IoT also opens up companies all over the world to more security threats. Then we have the issue of privacy and data sharing. This is a hot-button topic even today, so one can only imagine how the conversation and concerns will escalate when we are talking about many billions of devices being connected. Another issue that many companies specifically are going to be faced with is around the massive amounts of data that all of these devices are going to produce. Companies need to figure out a way to store, track, analyze and make sense of the vast amounts of data that will be generated.

So what now?

Conversations about the IoT are (and have been for several years) taking place all over the world as we seek to understand how this will impact our lives. We are also trying to understand what the many opportunities and challenges are going to be as more and more devices start to join the IoT. For now the best thing that we can do is educate ourselves about what the IoT is and the potential impacts that can be seen on how we work and live.
Jacob Morgan is a keynote speaker, author (most recently of The Future of Work), and futurist.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Simple Explanation Of 'The Internet Of Things'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The "Internet of things" (IoT) is becoming an increasingly growing topic of conversation both in the workplace and outside of it. It's a concept that not only has the potential to impact how we live but also how we work. But what exactly is the "Internet of things" and what impact is it going to have on you, if any?

# data[].attributes.headline
The Internet of Things Is Everywhere, But It Doesn’t Rule Yet

# data[].attributes.subject
The Internet of Things Is Everywhere, But It Doesn’t Rule Yet

# data[].attributes.body
Andrew Lovely
In the article “The Internet of Things Is Everywhere, But It Doesn’t Rule Yet”, Wired.com talks about how soon (within the next 5 years or less) almost everything will be connected to the internet, and to each other. And while this is great for society and has a lot of benefits, there is one large issue that we are facing. How do we get all of these devices to work with one another? The way how we currently have it, all companies that are doing this have their own software and ways of doing things which sets them apart from everyone else. But in doing so, it makes it more difficult for people to use and set up.  Another issue with this is the issue of potential hackers; since devices may not have the best anti-virus software on them (at first) it could easily allow someone to hack into it.

Before this class, I had no idea what the Internet of Things was, and even though I noticed trends with everything being wi-fi compatible, I didn’t bother to think that this could be part of the very near future. There are a lot of large competitors that want to be the first major corporation to successfully incorporate IoT.  This article ties into what we are studying for two reasons. One, being the issue of security and privacy, which we have covered in the past. The other talking about  the Internet of things and learning just how all this new technology works with modern society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the future, everything will be connected. It won't just be our phones that access the Internet; it will be our light bulbs, our front doors, our microwaves, our comforters, our blenders. You can call it the Internet of Things, The Internet of Everything, Universal Object Interaction, or your pick of buzzwords that begin with Smart. They all hold as inevitable that everything, everything will be connected, to each other and to the Internet. And that will change the world.

Juniper research predicted that by 2020, there will be 38.5 billion connected devices. IDC says it'll be 20.9 billion. Gartner's guess? Twenty-five billion. The numbers don't matter, except that they're huge. They all agree that most of those gadgets will be industrial-the Internet of Things is less about you changing the color of your lightbulb and more about companies large and small finding new ways of making their businesses, and your life, easier and more efficient. But the market for connecting the devices you use all day, every day, is about to be huge.

2015 was the year everyone talked about the Internet of Things. (So was 2014. And 2013.) But unlike before, it was the year everyone started making plans, laying groundwork, and building the infrastructure for the day when all our devices are connected. It wasn't the year those devices took over our homes, but-don't look now-there are suddenly Trojan horses everywhere.

Did you buy an Apple TV this fall? You now have a Homekit hub in your house, and if you buy a HomeKit-enabled device it'll be incredibly easy to set up. Have an Amazon Echo? Try saying, "Alexa, turn the lights off." Actually, that one will only work if you have a Philips Hue set and you've already done the work of setting things up. It's a whole thing.

Which brings us to the real dilemma the Internet of Things is facing as we come to the end of 2015: how the hell are all these things going to work together? Apple has Homekit; Google has Brillo and Nest; Microsoft has Windows; Samsung has SmartThings. There's Wemo and Wink and Zigbee and Z-Wave and Thread and I'm not even making any of these up. You can control some things with your fitness tracker, some with a universal remote, and pretty much all of them with your phone. Some of the protocols overlap and support each other; others are more exclusive. But there's no simple plug-and-play option, no way to walk out of Best Buy with something you know is going to work.

Right now, says Frank Gillett, a vice president and analyst at research firm Forrester, people mostly buy single products for a single purpose. "It works if you have a specific headache," he says. "I want to lock my door, or I want to feed my pet." He calls these app-cessories. "As a shelf item in an Apple Store or Best Buy, it works. But if you want to make those things sing and dance together, forget it." Even these simple things aren't taking off yet: his research shows only 7 percent of Americans partake in even a single smart-home scenario.

Our homes are going to get smarter. But it's going to happen slowly, Gillett says, at the rate we'd upgrade our homes anyway. "None of us want to go out and do home renovations just to get a dang smart home," he says. We won't run out just to buy a smart crock-pot or refrigerator, but the next time we're shopping for one-which could be a decade from now-we might buy the connected one.

Our smart homes and connected worlds are going to happen one device, one bulb at a time, not in a single motion. But companies know they have to get you into their platform with that first device, or risk losing you forever to someone else's closed ecosystem. If you bought a Nest thermostat and plugged it into your wall, odds are you're not switching to HomeKit anytime soon. (Or buying an Ecobee thermostat for upstairs.) The super-cool August Smart Lock works with HomeKit, but nothing else. It's not that they're completely mutually exclusive-you can just use your phone to control everything-but few things currently work together in that magical, my-home-just-gets-me way the Internet of Things has promised. Plus, your phone's a lousy remote for the physical world. "The idea that we're going to use our phone to adjust the light is bonkers," Gillett says, "because it's a lot harder to do it that way than hit the switch."

It's possible some regulatory body will decide on a set of standards, or everybody will agree to support everybody else and redundancy will rule the day and redundancy will rule the day. Or, maybe more likely, there will be a breakout smart-home product that finally gives a single platform enough clout to force others to play nice. That hasn't happened yet, and no one really knows what it'll be: a smart refrigerator that knows when you need groceries? A really great security system? There are so many nice products in the Internet of Things, but nothing mainstream enough to force the industry forward.

The technology is there. Connected light bulbs, connected tea kettles, connected fridges and fans and coffeemakers and cars-it's all possible. It's not perfect, but the parts are only going to continue to get better, smaller, and cheaper. So the question is no longer, is it possible to connect everything to the Internet? Yeah, it's possible. The question now: How do we do it the right way? IoT companies need to set standards, pick both winners and losers, and come up with ways to make it easier for everyone to get on board.

In 2016, we'll need to begin grappling with the security concerns these devices raise-having your Target account hacked is one thing, your car or home-security camera is another entirely. We'll have to understand the sheer volume and intimacy of the data we're handing over as we go about our hyper-connected lives, and hold our leaders and executives accountable for what they do with that data.

Know this, though: it may be coming like a molasses tidal wave, but the Internet of Things is coming. It's not a matter of if or whether, but when and how. 2015 was about starting to sort out what these devices will look like, how they'll work, how they'll work together, and how we'll make sure they don't ruin everything. The tracks have been laid. Maybe it'll be 2016, maybe the year after, but the train is coming. It'll have Wi-Fi and Bluetooth and probably eight other things, and you'll definitely get a push notification when it gets here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Internet of Things Is Everywhere, But It Doesn't Rule Yet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the future, everything will be connected. It won't just be our phones that access the Internet; it will be our light bulbs, our front doors, our microwaves, our comforters, our blenders. You can call it the Internet of Things, The Internet of Everything, Universal Object Interaction, or your pick of buzzwords that begin with Smart.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Internet of Things Is Far Bigger Than Anyone Realizes

# data[].attributes.subject
The Internet of Things Is Far Bigger Than Anyone Realizes

# data[].attributes.body
Tyler Schingeck
This article discusses how IoT is a far bigger concept than how we are now looking at it. It talks about how it will become something greater than simply machine to machine communication, but with the addition of sensors, machines will be able to measure and track data allowing them to be even smarter and change the way they are communicating. It uses an example of a bridge that uses "smart concrete" allowing it to monitor stress and cracks within the bridges foundation and with this information it can communicate with a car on the way if the bridge is hazardous to cross and the car can process this information and alert the driver of the hazard.
This article relates to our class because it is all about how machines can gather data and how we can use it to change our everyday lives. As machines are made smarter and smarter we will be able to collect even more data and with this data we can use it to make things more efficient.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When people talk about "the next big thing," they're never thinking big enough. It's not a lack of imagination; it's a lack of observation. I've maintained that the future is always within sight, and you don't need to imagine what's already there.

Case in point: The buzz surrounding the Internet of Things.

What's the buzz? The Internet of Things revolves around increased machine-to-machine communication; it's built on cloud computing and networks of data-gathering sensors; it's mobile, virtual, and instantaneous connection; and they say it's going to make everything in our lives from streetlights to seaports "smart."

But here's what I mean when I say people don't think big enough. So much of the chatter has been focused on machine-to-machine communication (M2M): devices talking to like devices. But a machine is an instrument, it's a tool, it's something that's physically doing something. When we talk about making machines "smart," we're not referring strictly to M2M. We're talking about sensors.

A sensor is not a machine. It doesn't do anything in the same sense that a machine does. It measures, it evaluates; in short, it gathers data. The Internet of Things really comes together with the connection of sensors and machines. That is to say, the real value that the Internet of Things creates is at the intersection of gathering data and leveraging it. All the information gathered by all the sensors in the world isn't worth very much if there isn't an infrastructure in place to analyze it in real time.

Cloud-based applications are the key to using leveraged data. The Internet of Things doesn't function without cloud-based applications to interpret and transmit the data coming from all these sensors. The cloud is what enables the apps to go to work for you anytime, anywhere.

Let's look at one example. In 2007, a bridge collapsed in Minnesota, killing many people, because of steel plates that were inadequate to handle the bridge's load. When we rebuild bridges, we can use smart cement: cement equipped with sensors to monitor stresses, cracks, and warpages. This is cement that alerts us to fix problems before they cause a catastrophe. And these technologies aren't limited to the bridge's structure.

If there's ice on the bridge, the same sensors in the concrete will detect it and communicate the information via the wireless internet to your car. Once your car knows there's a hazard ahead, it will instruct the driver to slow down, and if the driver doesn't, then the car will slow down for him. This is just one of the ways that sensor-to-machine and machine-to-machine communication can take place. Sensors on the bridge connect to machines in the car: we turn information into action.

You might start to see the implications here. What can you achieve when a smart car and a smart city grid start talking to each other? We're going to have traffic flow optimization, because instead of just having stoplights on fixed timers, we'll have smart stoplights that can respond to changes in traffic flow. Traffic and street conditions will be communicated to drivers, rerouting them around areas that are congested, snowed-in, or tied up in construction.

So now we have sensors monitoring and tracking all sorts of data; we have cloud-based apps translating that data into useful intelligence and transmitting it to machines on the ground, enabling mobile, real-time responses. And thus bridges become smart bridges, and cars smart cars. And soon, we have smart cities, and....

Okay. What are the advantages here? What are the savings? What industries can this be applied to?

Here's what I mean when I say people never think big enough. This isn't just about money savings. It's not about bridges, and it's not about cities. This is a huge and fundamental shift. When we start making things intelligent, it's going to be a major engine for creating new products and new services.

Of all the technology trends that are taking place right now, perhaps the biggest one is the Internet of Things; it's the one that's going to give us the most disruption as well as the most opportunity over the next five years. In my next post in this two-part series, we'll explore just how big this is going to be.
Daniel Burrus is considered one of the world's leading technology forecasters and innovation experts, and is the founder and CEO of Burrus Research. He is the author of six books including the New York Times best seller "Flash Foresight."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Internet of Things Is Far Bigger Than Anyone Realizes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When people talk about "the next big thing," they're never thinking big enough. It's not a lack of imagination; it's a lack of observation. I've maintained that the future is always within sight, and you don't need to imagine what's already there. Case in point: The buzz surrounding the Internet of Things.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Simple Explanation of 'The Internet of Things'

# data[].attributes.subject
A Simple Explanation of 'The Internet of Things'

# data[].attributes.body
Shelby Wachner
This article gives an explanation of how IoT became a concept. Forbes talks about how this topic is talked about inside and outside of the workplace. They define IoT as basically being able to use a device as an on and off switch to the internet. They put it into perspective that by 2020 there will be over 26 billion connected devices. This shows you how big of an impact it's going to have in our near future. The article also talks about how this impacts us, and basically they say that anything that can be connected is going to be connected. This opens up a lot of opportunities as well as challenges for ourselves. Security threats could become an issue because of all of the devices connected together. On the other hand this just means we will need to educate ourselves on this topic in order to be prepared when this time comes. This article was a good read into what this is all about and especially about some things that we should be expecting in the future.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The "Internet of things" (IoT) is becoming an increasingly growing topic of conversation both in the workplace and outside of it. It's a concept that not only has the potential to impact how we live but also how we work. But what exactly is the "Internet of things" and what impact is it going to have on you, if any? There are a lot of complexities around the "Internet of things" but I want to stick to the basics. Lots of technical and policy-related conversations are being had but many people are still just trying to grasp the foundation of what the heck these conversations are about.

Let's start with understanding a few things.

Broadband Internet is become more widely available, the cost of connecting is decreasing, more devices are being created with Wi-Fi capabilities and sensors built into them, technology costs are going down, and smartphone penetration is sky-rocketing. All of these things are creating a "perfect storm" for the IoT.
So What Is The Internet Of Things?
Simply put, this is the concept of basically connecting any device with an on and off switch to the Internet (and/or to each other). This includes everything from cellphones, coffee makers, washing machines, headphones, lamps, wearable devices and almost anything else you can think of. This also applies to components of machines, for example a jet engine of an airplane or the drill of an oil rig. As I mentioned, if it has an on and off switch then chances are it can be a part of the IoT. The analyst firm says that by 2020 there will be over 26 billion connected devices... That's a lot of connections (some even estimate this number to be much higher, over 100 billion). The IoT is a giant network of connected "things" (which also includes people). The relationship will be between people-people, people-things, and things-things.
How Does This Impact You?
The new rule for the future is going to be, "Anything that can be connected, will be connected." But why on earth would you want so many connected devices talking to each other? There are many examples for what this might look like or what the potential value might be. Say for example you are on your way to a meeting; your car could have access to your calendar and already know the best route to take. If the traffic is heavy your car might send a text to the other party notifying them that you will be late. What if your alarm clock wakes up you at 6 a.m. and then notifies your coffee maker to start brewing coffee for you? What if your office equipment knew when it was running low on supplies and automatically re-ordered more? What if the wearable device you used in the workplace could tell you when and where you were most active and productive and shared that information with other devices that you used while working?

On a broader scale, the IoT can be applied to things like transportation networks: "smart cities" which can help us reduce waste and improve efficiency for things such as energy use; this helping us understand and improve how we work and live. Take a look at the visual below to see what something like that can look like.

The reality is that the IoT allows for virtually endless opportunities and connections to take place, many of which we can't even think of or fully understand the impact of today. It's not hard to see how and why the IoT is such a hot topic today; it certainly opens the door to a lot of opportunities but also to many challenges. Security is a big issue that is oftentimes brought up. With billions of devices being connected together, what can people do to make sure that their information stays secure? Will someone be able to hack into your toaster and thereby get access to your entire network? The IoT also opens up companies all over the world to more security threats. Then we have the issue of privacy and data sharing. This is a hot-button topic even today, so one can only imagine how the conversation and concerns will escalate when we are talking about many billions of devices being connected. Another issue that many companies specifically are going to be faced with is around the massive amounts of data that all of these devices are going to produce. Companies need to figure out a way to store, track, analyze and make sense of the vast amounts of data that will be generated.

So what now?

Conversations about the IoT are (and have been for several years) taking place all over the world as we seek to understand how this will impact our lives. We are also trying to understand what the many opportunities and challenges are going to be as more and more devices start to join the IoT. For now the best thing that we can do is educate ourselves about what the IoT is and the potential impacts that can be seen on how we work and live.
Jacob Morgan is a keynote speaker, author (most recently of The Future of Work), and futurist.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Simple Explanation Of 'The Internet Of Things'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The "Internet of things" (IoT) is becoming an increasingly growing topic of conversation both in the workplace and outside of it. It's a concept that not only has the potential to impact how we live but also how we work. But what exactly is the "Internet of things" and what impact is it going to have on you, if any?

# data[].attributes.headline
A Simple Explanation Of 'The Internet Of Things'                 Garrett Anthony  https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2014/05/13/simple-explanation-internet-things-that-anyone-can-understand/#52a63d6e1d09       This article surmises the basic concept of the internet of things but after it informs you of the basic concept it gives the reader more detail on the topic. One way it gives the reader a grader understanding is by have a dawning of an example that “Internet of Things could bring to the world.” Also the article was broken down into sections that helped the reader follow the direction of the article.                  This article updated what I knew about the topic by explaining Internet of Things. The article informed me about the general topic again. Then it opened my eyes to what I.O.T. is going to be able to do in the future. It also informed me on what is to come and what is happing to better the technology. Overall I really enjoyed reading the article.  

# data[].attributes.subject
A Simple Explanation Of 'The Internet Of Things'                 Garrett Anthony  https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2014/05/13/simple-explanation-internet-things-that-anyone-can-understand/#52a63d6e1d09       This article surmises the basic concept of the internet of things but after it informs you of the basic concept it gives the reader more detail on the topic. One way it gives the reader a grader understanding is by have a dawning of an example that “Internet of Things could bring to the world.” Also the article was broken down into sections that helped the reader follow the direction of the article.                  This article updated what I knew about the topic by explaining Internet of Things. The article informed me about the general topic again. Then it opened my eyes to what I.O.T. is going to be able to do in the future. It also informed me on what is to come and what is happing to better the technology. Overall I really enjoyed reading the article.  

# data[].attributes.headline
A Simple Explanation of 'Internet of Things'

# data[].attributes.subject
A Simple Explanation of 'Internet of Things'

# data[].attributes.body
Maryanne Carter
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2014/05/13/simple-explanation-internet-things-that-anyone-can-understand/#3f4a16f01d09

I liked this article because it explains about how the Internet of Things has come to be and is constantly talked about. The Internet of Things is the concept of connecting any device that has an on/off switch with the internet or another device. By 2020 they are expecting 26 billion devices to be connected. For example maybe your car senses that you are stuck in traffic and in your calendar you have a meeting scheduled and you will be late to the meeting. The car could then shoot off a text to the person you are meeting stating you will be late. Or maybe your alarm goes off at 6 am and instructs your coffee maker to start brewing you a pot of coffee. Some things are already connected like some phones to cars. The car receives a signal that the phone is ringing and you can take the call from the car while driving.
The part that hits on what we are learning is the security of the connections. With so many devices being connected it could be very hard to keep personal information safe and secure. Every day we are making strides to have more and more things connected and are needing to get more security in place.

# data[].attributes.headline
What is the Internet of Things? WIRED explainsBy: Redha Abu-Rshaid

# data[].attributes.subject
What is the Internet of Things? WIRED explainsBy: Redha Abu-Rshaid

# data[].attributes.body
The article the development of machines and everyday use tools, to be more associated with Internet, to describe “The Internet of Things.” The article suggest that this development is a potential of an industrial revolution, in which it predicts more than half of businesses will be run the IoT. The article described the meaning of Internet of things, which is made up of devices from simple sensors to smartphones and wearables connected together. Therefore, it is possible to collect information to create certain actions. In addition, the article describes the future of the internet of things, in which every thing will be reliable on that. Moreover, the article has emphasized on some potential security issues that the Internet of things might face.
The article help me understand the importance of information, and the way data could be gathered, and could communicate with other things. In addition, it helped in acknowledging how smart are machines, and how they are getting more and more improvement.
The article:
http://www.wired.co.uk/article/internet-of-things-what-is-explained-iot

# data[].attributes.headline
A Simple Explanation of 'The Internet of Things'

# data[].attributes.subject
A Simple Explanation of 'The Internet of Things'

# data[].attributes.body
Adrianna Razo
This article starts by explaining what exactly the phrase, 'Internet of Things' (IoT)means. The article states, "With broadband Internet becoming more widely available, and the costs of connecting decreasing, more devices are being created with wifi capabilities in them. All of these things create a perfect storm for the IoT." The IoT is the concept of connecting anything with an on/ off switch to the internet. The article goes on to explain the wide range of devices available that connect to the internet which are now at a number of 4.9 billion, and expected to grow from 20-100 billion by 2020. These devices could help a lot with businesses and personal life, but also have dangers such as security risks and data storage.
This article relates to what I have learned in this class, starting with how rapidly IS and IT are growing. They are widely used and very beneficial, if not necessary to businesses today, and it is crucial for companies to stay up to date on all of these tools to stay competitive. It also relates to the topic of security. With the number of items connected to the internet growing, businesses need to be more cautious and invest in good security systems, since there will be more devices at risk of a security breach. Lastly, this ties into what we learned about data bases. Businesses need to find a way to store these vast amounts of data efficiently for business to run smoothly. This article taught me what the Internet of things meant, how much it is growing, and built onto knowledge I've gained from this class.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The "Internet of things" (IoT) is becoming an increasingly growing topic of conversation both in the workplace and outside of it. It's a concept that not only has the potential to impact how we live but also how we work. But what exactly is the "Internet of things" and what impact is it going to have on you, if any? There are a lot of complexities around the "Internet of things" but I want to stick to the basics. Lots of technical and policy-related conversations are being had but many people are still just trying to grasp the foundation of what the heck these conversations are about.

Let's start with understanding a few things.

Broadband Internet is become more widely available, the cost of connecting is decreasing, more devices are being created with Wi-Fi capabilities and sensors built into them, technology costs are going down, and smartphone penetration is sky-rocketing. All of these things are creating a "perfect storm" for the IoT.
So What Is The Internet Of Things?
Simply put, this is the concept of basically connecting any device with an on and off switch to the Internet (and/or to each other). This includes everything from cellphones, coffee makers, washing machines, headphones, lamps, wearable devices and almost anything else you can think of. This also applies to components of machines, for example a jet engine of an airplane or the drill of an oil rig. As I mentioned, if it has an on and off switch then chances are it can be a part of the IoT. The analyst firm says that by 2020 there will be over 26 billion connected devices... That's a lot of connections (some even estimate this number to be much higher, over 100 billion). The IoT is a giant network of connected "things" (which also includes people). The relationship will be between people-people, people-things, and things-things.
How Does This Impact You?
The new rule for the future is going to be, "Anything that can be connected, will be connected." But why on earth would you want so many connected devices talking to each other? There are many examples for what this might look like or what the potential value might be. Say for example you are on your way to a meeting; your car could have access to your calendar and already know the best route to take. If the traffic is heavy your car might send a text to the other party notifying them that you will be late. What if your alarm clock wakes up you at 6 a.m. and then notifies your coffee maker to start brewing coffee for you? What if your office equipment knew when it was running low on supplies and automatically re-ordered more? What if the wearable device you used in the workplace could tell you when and where you were most active and productive and shared that information with other devices that you used while working?

On a broader scale, the IoT can be applied to things like transportation networks: "smart cities" which can help us reduce waste and improve efficiency for things such as energy use; this helping us understand and improve how we work and live. Take a look at the visual below to see what something like that can look like.

The reality is that the IoT allows for virtually endless opportunities and connections to take place, many of which we can't even think of or fully understand the impact of today. It's not hard to see how and why the IoT is such a hot topic today; it certainly opens the door to a lot of opportunities but also to many challenges. Security is a big issue that is oftentimes brought up. With billions of devices being connected together, what can people do to make sure that their information stays secure? Will someone be able to hack into your toaster and thereby get access to your entire network? The IoT also opens up companies all over the world to more security threats. Then we have the issue of privacy and data sharing. This is a hot-button topic even today, so one can only imagine how the conversation and concerns will escalate when we are talking about many billions of devices being connected. Another issue that many companies specifically are going to be faced with is around the massive amounts of data that all of these devices are going to produce. Companies need to figure out a way to store, track, analyze and make sense of the vast amounts of data that will be generated.

So what now?

Conversations about the IoT are (and have been for several years) taking place all over the world as we seek to understand how this will impact our lives. We are also trying to understand what the many opportunities and challenges are going to be as more and more devices start to join the IoT. For now the best thing that we can do is educate ourselves about what the IoT is and the potential impacts that can be seen on how we work and live.
Jacob Morgan is a keynote speaker, author (most recently of The Future of Work), and futurist.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Simple Explanation Of 'The Internet Of Things'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The "Internet of things" (IoT) is becoming an increasingly growing topic of conversation both in the workplace and outside of it. It's a concept that not only has the potential to impact how we live but also how we work. But what exactly is the "Internet of things" and what impact is it going to have on you, if any?

# data[].attributes.headline
Rise of the machines: who is the ‘internet of things’ good for?

# data[].attributes.subject
Rise of the machines: who is the ‘internet of things’ good for?

# data[].attributes.body
Claire Riddle
This article breaks down the internet of things into three categories of various machines. First being the wearable gadgets and biometric sensors like fitbits and apple watches.  Second being the “smart home” speaker devices like Amazon Echo or Apple’s Siri.  Lastly, the smart city.  Basically, at any given point our location can be tracked.  Applications like beacons will allow you to receive information about something in the city just because you are near it. Data like this and CCTV vending machines, and cameras will allow companies to completely analyze data to see where there can be changes in decision making.  This whole concept of using and tracking this data might allow companies to put their spending on other things, or allow major cities to have full usage out of space and other resources. If this data is used with good intent and applied in the right ways to a company, they will be able to completely predict behavior and satisfy their customer base.

This article is relevant to the information were learning in class as well as includes real life application to it.  From our shopping habits to frequent locations and convenient needs, data and information systems are only becoming more useful with how digital our world is turning. The internet of things is basically being used to measure needs from a variety of demographics for businesses to be able to control the environment/society. In the future, companies will have products and things for the perfect customer experience because of all of the data that is being collected now. The goal is for everything to have optimal use and be efficient with what we are doing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In San Francisco, a young engineer hopes to "optimise" his life through sensors that track his heart rate, respiration and sleep cycle. In Copenhagen, a bus running two minutes behind schedule transmits its location and passenger count to the municipal traffic signal network, which extends the time of the green light at each of the next three intersections long enough for its driver to make up some time. In Davao City in the Philippines, an unsecured webcam overlooks the storeroom of a fast food stand, allowing anyone to peer in on all its comings and goings.

What links these wildly different circumstances is a vision of connected devices now being sold to us as the "internet of things". The technologist Mike Kuniavsky, a pioneer of this idea, characterises it as a state of being in which "computation and data communication [are] embedded in, and distributed through, our entire environment". I prefer to see it for what it is: the colonisation of everyday life by information processing.

Though it can often feel as if this colonisation proceeds of its own momentum, distinct ambitions are being served wherever and however the internet of things appears. The internet of things isn't a single technology. About all that connects the various devices, services, vendors and efforts involved is the end goal they serve: capturing data that can then be used to measure and control the world around us.

Whenever a project has such imperial designs on our everyday lives, it is vital that we ask just what ideas underpin it and whose interests it serves. Although the internet of things retains a certain sprawling and formless quality, we can get a far more concrete sense of what it involves by looking at how it appears at each of three scales: that of our bodies (where the effort is referred to as the "quantified self"), our homes ("the smart home") and our public spaces ("the smart city"). Each of these examples illuminates a different aspect of the challenge presented to us by the internet of things, and each has something distinct to teach us.

t the most intimate scale, the internet of things is visible in the form of wearable biometric sensors. The simplest of these are little more than networked digital pedometers, which count steps, measure the distance a person has traversed, and furnish an estimate of the calories burned in the course of this activity. More elaborate models measure heart rate, breathing, skin temperature and even perspiration.

If wearable biometric devices such as Fitbits and Apple Watches are, in theory, aimed at rigorous self-mastery, the colonisation of the domestic environment by similarly networked products and services is intended to deliver a very different experience: convenience. The aim of such "smart home" efforts is to short-circuit the process of reflection that stands between having a desire and fulfilling that desire by buying something.

Right now, the perfect example of this is a gadget being sold by Amazon, known as the Dash Button. Many internet-of-things devices are little more than some conventional object with networked connectivity tacked on. The Dash Button is the precise opposite, a thing in the world that could not have existed without the internet. I cannot improve on Amazon's own description of this curious object and how it works, so I'll repeat it here: "Amazon Dash Button is a Wi-Fi-connected device that reorders your favourite item with the press of a button. To use Dash Button, simply download the Amazon app from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store. Then, sign into your Amazon Prime account, connect Dash Button to Wi-Fi, and select the product you want to reorder. Once connected, a single press on Dash Button automatically places your order."

In other words: single-purpose electronic devices, each dedicated to an individual branded item, that you press when you're running low. Pressing a Dash Button specific to your preferred pet food, washing powder or bottled water automatically composes an order request to Amazon for that one product.

I don't for a second want to downplay the value of such a product for people who have ageing parents to look after, or kids to drop off at daycare, or for whom simply getting in the car to pick up some cat food may take an hour or more out of their day. But the benefit to the individual customer is tiny compared with what Amazon gains. Sure, you never run out of cat food. But Amazon gets data on the time and place of your need, as well as its frequency and intensity, and that data has value. It is an asset, and you can be sure that Amazon will exploit it in every way its terms and conditions permit - including by using it to develop behavioural models that map our desires in high resolution, so as to target them with even greater efficiency in the future.

Again, the aim of devices such as the Dash Button is to permit the user to accomplish commercial transactions with as little conscious thought as possible - not even the few moments it takes to tap out commands on the touchscreen of a phone or tablet. The data on what the industry calls "conversion" is as clear as it is unremitting: with every box to tick or form to fill, the percentage of users that make it all the way to checkout tumbles. The fewer steps there are in a transaction, the more likely people are to spend their money.

Manufacturers, enticed by the revenue potential of conquering the domestic environment, keep trying to eliminate these steps, in the hope that one of their connected products will become as essential to everyday life as the smartphone. The recent industry push toward the "smart home" is simply the latest version of this.

For the moment, this strategy is centred on so-called smart speakers, a first generation of which have now reached the market. These products include the Amazon Echo and Google Home, each of which is supposed to function as the command hub of a connected domestic environment. Amazon's Echo is a simple cylinder, while the Google Home is a bevelled ovoid. But the physical form of such speakers is all but irrelevant, as their primary job is to function as a branded "virtual assistant", providing a simple, integrated way to access the numerous digital controls scattered throughout the contemporary home - from lighting and entertainment to security, heating, cooling and ventilation systems.

Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Apple each offer their own such assistant, based on natural-language speech recognition. Most are given female names, voices and personalities, presumably based on research indicating that users of all genders prefer to interact with women. Apple's is called Siri and will, according to reports, soon be getting its own device, Amazon's Alexa, and Microsoft's Cortana, while one simply addresses Google's Home offering as "Google."

t first, such devices seem harmless enough. They sit patiently and quietly at the periphery of our awareness, and we only speak to them when we need them. But when we consider them more carefully, a more problematic picture emerges.

This is how Google's assistant works: you mention to it that you're in the mood for Italian food, and then, in the words of one New York Times article, it "will then respond with some suggestions for tables to reserve at Italian restaurants using, for example, the OpenTable app".

This example showsthat though the choices these assistants offer us are presented as neutral, they are based on numerous inbuilt assumptions that many of us would question if we were to truly scrutinise them.

Ask restaurateurs and front-of-house workers what they think of OpenTable, for example, and you will swiftly learn that one person's convenience is another's accelerated pace of work, or worse. You'll learn that restaurants offering reservations via the service are, according to the website Serious Eats, "required to use the company's proprietary floor-management system, which means leasing hardware and using OpenTable-specific software", and that OpenTable retains ownership of all the data generated in this way. You'll also learn that OpenTable takes a cut on reservations per seated diner, which obviously adds up to a significant amount on a busy night.

Conscientious diners have therefore been known to bypass the ostensible convenience of OpenTable, and make whatever reservations they have to by phone. By contrast, Google Home's frictionless default to making reservations via OpenTable normalises the choice to use that service.

This is not accidental. It reflects the largely preconscious valuations, priorities and internalised beliefs of the people who devised Google Home. As throughout the industry, that is a remarkably homogeneous cohort of young designers and engineers. But more important than the degree of similarity they bear to one another is how different they are from everyone else.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Illustration: Getty/Guardian Design

Internet-of-things devices are generally conceived by people who have completely assimilated services such as Uber, Airbnb and Apple Pay into their daily lives, at a time when figures from the Washington DC-based Pew Research Center suggest that a significant percentage of the population has never used or even heard of them. For the people who design these products, these services are normal, and so, over time, they become normalised for everyone else.

There are other challenges presented by this way of interacting with networked information. It's difficult, for example, for a user to determine whether the options they are being offered by a virtual assistant result from what the industry calls an "organic" return - something that legitimately came up as the result of a search process - or from paid placement. But the main problem with the virtual assistant is that it fosters an approach to the world that is literally thoughtless, leaving users disinclined to sit out any prolonged frustration of desire, and ever less critical about the processes that result in gratification.

Virtual assistants are listening to everything that transpires in their presence, and are doing so at all times. As voice-activated interfaces, they must be constantly attentive in order to detect when the "wake word" that rouses them is spoken. In this way, they are able to harvest data that might be used to refine targeted advertising, or for other commercial purposes that are only disclosed deep in the terms and conditions that govern their use. The logic operating here is that of preemptive capture: the notion that companies such as Amazon and Google might as well trawl up everything they can, because no one knows what value might be derived from it in the future.

This leads to situations that might be comical, were it not for what they imply about the networking of our domestic environments. These stories circulate as cautionary tales: one of the best-known was the time the US National Public Radio network aired a story about the Amazon Echo, and various cues spoken on the broadcast were interpreted as commands by Echos belonging to members of the audience, causing domestic chaos.

Put aside for one moment the question of disproportionate benefit - the idea that you as the user derive a little convenience from your embrace of a virtual assistant, while its provider gets everything - all the data about your life and all its value. Let's simply consider what gets lost in the ideology of convenience that underlies this conception of the internet of things. Are the constraints presented to us by life in the non-connected world really so onerous? Is it really so difficult to wait until you get home before you preheat the oven? And is it worth giving away so much, just to be able to do so remotely?

ost of us are by now awarethat our mobile phones are constantly harvesting information about our whereabouts and activities. But we tend to be relatively ignorant of the degree to which the contemporary streetscape has also been enabled to collect information. This development is often called the "smart city". If the ambition beneath the instrumentation of the body is ostensible self-mastery, and that of the home is convenience, the ambition at the heart of the smart city is nothing other than control - the desire to achieve a more efficient use of space, energy and other resources.

A broad range of networked information-gathering devices are increasingly being deployed in public space, including CCTV cameras; advertisements and vending machines equipped with biometric sensors; and the indoor micropositioning systems known as "beacons" that, when combined with a smartphone app, send signals providing information about nearby products and services.

The picture we are left with is that of our surroundings furiously vacuuming up information, every square metre of seemingly banal pavement yielding so much data about its uses and its users that nobody yet knows what to do with it all. And it is at this scale of activity that the guiding ideology of the internet of things comes into clearest focus.

The strongest and most explicit articulation of this ideology in the definition of a smart city has been offered by the house journal of the engineering company Siemens: "Several decades from now, cities will have countless autonomous, intelligently functioning IT systems that will have perfect knowledge of users' habits and energy consumption, and provide optimum service ... The goal of such a city is to optimally regulate and control resources by means of autonomous IT systems."

There is a clear philosophical position, even a worldview, behind all of this: that the world is in principle perfectly knowable, its contents enumerable and their relations capable of being meaningfully encoded in a technical system, without bias or distortion. As applied to the affairs of cities, this is effectively an argument that there is one and only one correct solution to each identified need; that this solution can be arrived at algorithmically, via the operations of a technical system furnished with the proper inputs; and that this solution is something that can be encoded in public policy, without distortion. (Left unstated, but strongly implicit, is the presumption that whatever policies are arrived at in this way will be applied transparently, dispassionately and in a manner free from politics.)

Every aspect of this argument is questionable. Perhaps most obviously, the claim that anything at all is perfectly knowable is perverse. However thoroughly sensors might be deployed in a city, they will only ever capture what is amenable to being captured. In other words, they will not be able to pick up every single piece of information necessary to the formulation of sound civic policy.

Other, all-too-human distortions inevitably colour the data collected. For instance, people may consciously adapt to produce metrics favourable to them. A police officer under pressure to "make quota" may focus on infractions that she would ordinarily overlook, while conversely, her precinct commander, under pressure to present the city as ever-safer, may downwardly classify a felony assault as a simple misdemeanour. This is the phenomenon known to viewers of The Wire as "juking the stats," and it is particularly likely to occur when financial or other incentives depend on achieving a performance threshold.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Illustration: Getty/Guardian Design

There is also the question of interpretation. Advocates of smart cities often seem to proceed as if it is self-evident that each of our acts has a single, salient meaning, which can be recognised, made sense of and acted upon remotely by an automated system, without any possibility of error. The most prominent advocates of this approach appear to believe that no particular act of interpretation is involved in making use of any data retrieved from the world in this way.

But data is never "just" data, and to assert otherwise is to lend inherently political and interested decisions an unmerited gloss of scientific objectivity. The truth is that data is easily skewed, depending on how it is collected.Different values for air pollution in a given location can be produced by varying the height at which a sensor is mounted by a few metres. Perceptions of risk in a neighbourhood can be transformed by slightly altering the taxonomy used to classify reported crimes. And anyone who has ever worked in opinion polling knows how sensitive the results are to the precise wording of a survey.

The bold claim of "perfect" knowledge appears incompatible with the messy reality of all known information-processing systems, the human individuals and institutions that make use of them and, more broadly, with the world as we experience it. In fact, it is astonishing that any experienced engineer would ever be so unwary as to claim perfection on behalf of any computational system, no matter how powerful.

The notion that there is one and only one solution to urban problems is also deeply puzzling. Cities are made up of individuals and communities who often have competing preferences, and it is impossible to fully satisfy all of them at the same time.

That such a solution, if it even existed, could be arrived at algorithmically is also implausible. Assume, for the sake of argument, that there did exist a master formula capable of balancing the needs of all of a city's competing constituencies. It certainly would be convenient if this golden mean could be determined automatically and consistently. But the wholesale surrender of municipal management to an algorithmic toolset seems to place an undue amount of trust in the party responsible for authoring the algorithm.

If the formulas behind this vision of future cities turn out to be anything like the ones used in the current generation of computational models, life-altering decisions will hinge on the interaction of poorly defined and subjective values. The output generated by such a procedure may turn on half-clever abstractions, in which complex circumstances resistant to direct measurement are reduced to more easily determined proxy values: average walking speed stands in for the "pace" of urban life, while the number of patent applications constitutes an index of "innovation", and so on.

Quite simply, we need to understand that creating an algorithm intended to guide the distribution of civic resources is itself a political act. And, at least for now, nowhere in the current smart-city literature is there any suggestion that either algorithms or their designers would be subject to the ordinary processes of democratic accountability.

And finally, it is difficult to believe that any such findings would ever be translated into public policy in a manner free from politics. Policy recommendations derived from computational models are only rarely applied to questions as politically sensitive as resource allocation without some intermediate tuning taking place. Inconvenient results may be suppressed, arbitrarily overridden by more heavily weighted decision factors, or simply ignored.

As matters now stand, the claim of perfect competence that is implicit in most smart-city rhetoric is incommensurate with everything we know about the way technical systems work. It also flies in the face of everything we know about how cities work. The architects of the smart city have failed to reckon with the reality of power, and the ability of elites to suppress policy directions that don't serve their interests. At best, the technocratic notion that the analysis of sensor-derived data would ever be permitted to drive municipal policy is naive. At worst, though, it ignores the lessons of history.

So, yes: the internet of things presents many new possibilities, and it would be foolish to dismiss those possibilities out of hand. But we would also be wise to approach the entire domain with scepticism, and in particular to resist the attempts of companies to gather ever more data about our lives - no matter how much ease, convenience and self-mastery we are told they are offering us.
This is an adapted extract from Radical Technologies: The Design of Everyday Life by Adam Greenfield, published this week by Verso.
* Follow the Long Read on Twitter at @gdnlongread, or sign up to the long read weekly email here.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rise of the machines: who is the 'internet of things' good for?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The long read: Interconnected technology is now an inescapable reality - ordering our shopping, monitoring our cities and sucking up vast amounts of data along the way. The promise is that it will benefit us all - but how can it?

# data[].attributes.headline
In the Programmable World, All of our Object Act as One

# data[].attributes.subject
In the Programmable World, All of our Object Act as One

# data[].attributes.body
Shanna Morse
"The language of the future: tiny intelligent things all around us coordinating their activities." This is the central idea of this article on wired.com, written by Bill Wasik.  He gives many examples of how this intercommunication of everything will impact our lives not just in our homes but in businesses as well. He then discusses the three stages in which we need to progress in order for the programmable world to reach it's full potential.
Stage 1: getting more devices onto the network—more sensors, more processors in everyday objects, more wireless hookups to extract data from the processors that already exist.

Stage 2: Make those devices rely on one another, coordinating their actions to carry out simple tasks without any human intervention.

Stage 3: Once connected things become ubiquitous, to understand them as a system to be programmed, a platform that can run software in much the same manner that a computer or smartphone can.
He explains that as soon as we reach this point, although it might sound a little intense and scary at first, this system will transform the world of everyday objects into a designable environment. He also thinks this well allow us to deviate from excessive use of technology that has a tendency to consume our attention. "The Programmable World could actually let us put more of our gadgets away, automating activities we normally do by hand and putting intelligence from the cloud into everything we touch."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In our houses, cars, and factories, we're surrounded by tiny, intelligent devices that capture data about how we live and what we do. Now they are beginning to talk to one another. Soon we'll be able to choreograph them to respond to our needs, solve our problems, even save our lives.

On a 5-acre plot in Great Falls, Virginia, less than a mile's stroll through exurban scrub from the wide Potomac River, Alex Hawkinson has breathed life into a lifeless object. He has given his house, a sprawling six-bedroom Tudor, what you might describe as a nervous system: a network linking together the home's very sinews, its walls and ceilings and windows and doors. He has made these parts move, let them coalesce as a bodily whole, by giving them a way to talk among themselves. Open a telnet session in the house's digital hub and you can actually spy on his chattering stuff, hear what it says when no one's listening:

This is the language of the future: tiny, intelligent things all around us, coordinating their activities. Coffeepots that talk to alarm clocks. Thermostats that talk to motion sensors. Factory machines that talk to the power grid and to boxes of raw material. A decade after Wi-Fi put all our computers on a wireless network-and half a decade after the smartphone revolution put a series of pocket-size devices on that network-we are seeing the dawn of an era when the most mundane items in our lives can talk wirelessly among themselves, performing tasks on command, giving us data we've never had before.

Imagine a factory where every machine, every room, feeds back information to solve problems on the production line. Imagine a hotel room (like the ones at the Aria in Las Vegas) where the lights, the stereo, and the window shade are not just controlled from a central station but adjust to your preferences before you even walk in. Think of a gym where the machines know your workout as soon as you arrive, or a medical device that can point toward the closest defibrillator when you have a heart attack. Consider a hybrid car-like the new Ford Fusion-that can maximize energy efficiency by drawing down the battery as it nears a charging station.

Imagine a house with a nervous system, where the sprinklers take orders from moisture sensors.

There are few more appropriate guides to this impending future than Hawkinson, whose DC-based startup, SmartThings, has built what's arguably the most advanced hub to tie connected objects together. At his house, more than 200 objects, from the garage door to the coffeemaker to his daughter's trampoline, are all connected to his SmartThings system. His office can automatically text his wife when he leaves and tell his home A/C system to start powering up.

In this future, the intelligence once locked in our devices now flows into the universe of physical objects. Technologists have struggled to name this emerging phenomenon. Some have called it the Internet of Things or the Internet of Everything or the Industrial Internet-despite the fact that most of these devices aren't actually on the Internet directly but instead communicate through simple wireless protocols. Other observers, paying homage to the stripped-down tech embedded in so many smart devices, are calling it the Sensor Revolution.

Your coffee shop senses your approach and starts preparing your regular order.

But here's a better way to think about what we're building: It's the Programmable World. After all, what's remarkable about this future isn't the sensors, nor is it that all our sensors and objects and devices are linked together. It's the fact that once we get enough of these objects onto our networks, they're no longer one-off novelties or data sources but instead become a coherent system, a vast ensemble that can be choreographed, a body that can dance. Really, it's the opposite of an "Internet," a term that even today-in the era of the cloud and the app and the walled garden-connotes a peer-to-peer system in which each node is equally empowered. By contrast, these connected objects will act more like a swarm of drones, a distributed legion of bots, far-flung and sometimes even hidden from view but nevertheless coordinated as if they were a single giant machine.

For the Programmable World to reach its full potential, we need to pass through three stages. The first is simply the act of getting more devices onto the network-more sensors, more processors in everyday objects, more wireless hookups to extract data from the processors that already exist. The second is to make those devices rely on one another, coordinating their actions to carry out simple tasks without any human intervention. The third and final stage, once connected things become ubiquitous, is to understand them as a system to be programmed, a bona fide platform that can run software in much the same manner that a computer or smartphone can. Once we get there, that system will transform the world of everyday objects into a designable environment, a playground for coders and engineers. It will change the whole way we think about the division between the virtual and the physical. This might sound like a scary encroachment of technology, but the Programmable World could actually let us put more of our gadgets away, automating activities we normally do by hand and putting intelligence from the cloud into everything we touch.

The first stage of this transformation-the simple act of putting objects on the network-is well under way, spurred by a few different economic forces. For makers of consumer devices, one way to escape the trap of commodification is to put a device (alarm clock! refrigerator! fitness tracker!) on the network and call it "smart." No doubt that's a big reason why more than half of the gadgets displayed at this year's International Consumer Electronics Show boasted some sort of wireless hookup. But an even bigger reason is that the rise of the smartphone has supplied us with a natural way to communicate with those smart objects. Nearly 700 million new smartphones shipped last year, most of which can communicate with nearby sensors via multiple wireless languages. At the same time, the staggering scale of the smartphone market has spurred sensor manufacturers to miniaturize and innovate, driving the cost of all the wireless chipsets (both sensors and receivers) down to a pittance. This has created a built-in market for these first-stage products-formerly unnetworked items that now deliver simple information to your phone, and from there to the cloud-at a relatively minimal manufacturing cost.

Already, scores of products have emerged to take advantage of Bluetooth Smart, one low-energy radio protocol that hit the market in October 2011. They include watches, heart rate monitors, and even some new Nike shoes (which use four built-in pressure sensors to send workout data back to your phone). One project, called Asthmapolis, uses a sensor that attaches to an asthma inhaler; it maps usage to generate insights into where attacks are likely to occur. Another rising technology is NFC, short for near-field communication; Visa just announced that it plans to let Samsung smartphone users make payments to merchants wirelessly over NFC instead of swiping a card, and some billboards are using the protocol to beam content to passersby who ask for it.

In the industrial realm, there's a similar dynamic at work but with even higher stakes. Massive US companies like IBM (through its Smarter Planet initiatives), Qualcomm, and Cisco all see ubiquitous connectivity as a way to sell more products and services-particularly Big Data-style analysis-to their large corporate customers. Chinese manufacturers have much the same idea, and the Chinese government is pumping hundreds of millions of dollars every year into so-called Internet of Things-based manufacturing. (This project kicked off a few years ago when China's then premier Wen Jiabao put forward the following equation in a speech: "Internet + Internet of Things = Wisdom of the Earth.") Global analysts look at all these developments and project that by 2025 there will be 1 trillion networked devices worldwide in the consumer and industrial sectors combined.

The rise of the smartphone has given us a natural way to communicate with all of our smart objects.

Take one case in point: General Electric, which has been trying to apply the sensor revolution (what it calls the Industrial Internet) to 50 different projects across scores of businesses, from wind turbines to railroad locomotives to a pilot program with Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York that predicts, based on sensors in beds, when rooms will become available. But perhaps GE's most remarkable application of this program has been to its own manufacturing process at the Durathon battery factory, completed last year in Schenectady, New York. Its biggest manufacturing challenge is the high tech ceramics that separate the electrodes inside the battery: Tiny variations in the mixing and firing process can lead to huge swings in quality and consistency of these ceramics. So the solution, GE's team decided, was to engineer their way to consistency through data.

Step by step, they developed and refined their process using feedback from the machines. One crucial step was near the beginning, in mixing the powder that would eventually be pressed to form the ceramics. The team didn't know the optimal mixing time needed to give that powder a perfectly even consistency that wouldn't vary from batch to batch. And since the raw materials would themselves vary slightly-in density, for example, or moisture content-the mixing time would need to vary too. So, says Randy Rausch, a manager of manufacturing engineering at the plant, "we put a sensor on everything," from the outside of the factory to the inside of the room to the inside of the vat to the innards of the machines. Eventually the team realized that the powder was ideally mixed when it reached a certain viscosity. The key sensor, it turned out, was inside the mixing apparatus itself: When it needed to draw more than a certain amount of power, indicating that the powder was at just the right thickness, the process was done.

In many ways, this is the most extreme possible example of a first-stage usage. GE estimates that this single factory generates some 10,000 data points every second, and using that data has allowed GE to eliminate the high defect rates that typically plague high tech ceramics. Yet it has done it through pure data analysis, not through the actual coordination of these low-level sensors and devices. Like the consumer-hardware makers linking up their products to distinguish them from ordinary toasters and refrigerators, GE is connecting its industrial components to solve a near-term business problem. But in the process, the company and its industrial brethren are laying the groundwork for a far deeper transformation.

The second stage-the yoking together of two or more smart objects-is the trickiest, because it represents the vertiginous shift from analysis, the mere harvesting of helpful data, to real automation. This is a leap that tries our nerves: No matter how thoroughly we might use data to fine-tune our lives and businesses, it's scary to take any of those decisions out of human hands. But it's also a challenge to our imagination. In a non-programmable world, when few objects are connected, it can be tough to grasp how even pairs of things might naturally fit together. Alex Hawkinson of SmartThings likes to draw an analogy to Facebook, which has famously described the underlying data it owns as the social graph-the knowledge of who is connected to whom and how. Hawkinson wants us to think of a "physical graph" where all the objects in our lives take on similar underlying connections, based on how we might want the state of one object to depend on the state or behavior of another. But until you actually have the intelligence baked into your objects-until you have, say, a network-connected sprinkler system on one hand and an in-ground moisture sensor on the other-it can be hard to imagine the automation you might someday want, or even need, in your daily life.

Think about where you spend most of your waking hours: your office, perhaps, or your living room or car. There are all sorts of adjustments you make over the course of any given day that are reducible to simple if-then relationships. If  the sun hits your computer screen, then you lower a shade. If  someone walks in the door, then you turn down your music. If  there's too much noise outside, then you close your window. If  you have a Word document open but haven't finished writing a sentence in 10 minutes, then you brew another pot of coffee. Would you want to automate all of these relationships? Not necessarily. But you might find that automating some of them would make your life easier, more streamlined.

Your office will text your wife when you leave and tell your home A/C system to start powering up.

Perhaps the clearest two-sensor example is where one of the sensors is on us. "Presence" tags-low-energy radio IDs that sit on our keychains or belt loops and announce our location, verify our identity-are what let the SmartThings system text your wife or fire up your A/C when you leave the office. It's also the principle behind Square Wallet and a number of other nascent payment systems, including ones from PayPal and Google. (When you walk into a participating store today, Square can let the cashier know you're there; you pay simply by giving your name.) For the four-legged set, Qualcomm has created a product called Tagg, a tracking tool that monitors your pet's movements while you're gone, estimating its activity levels and alerting you if it strays too far from home.

With GPS we can reliably know our location within 100 feet, give or take, and that knowledge has transformed our lives immeasurably: turn-by-turn driving directions, local restaurant recommendations, location-based dating apps, and so on. But with presence technology, we have the potential to know our location absolutely, down to a foot or even a few inches. That means knowing not merely which bar your friend is at but which couch she's sitting on if you walk through the door. It means receiving a coupon for a grocery item on the endcap at the moment you walk by. It means walking through an art museum and having your phone interpret the paintings as you pause in front of them. This simple link-between a tag on us and a tag in the world-stands to become the culmination of the location revolution, delivering on all the promises it hasn't quite fulfilled yet.

A simple link-between a tag on us and a tag in the world-will complete the location revolution.

Dennis Crowley, CEO of Foursquare, the location-based social app, thinks of location as a giant X on Earth that grows smaller as our technology improves. "We want to get down to the point where the X is this big," he says, holding out his hands. "X marks the spot: It's pirate's treasure." Already that X is shrinking: On Google Maps, you can now navigate inside certain airports and stores, with Wi-Fi triangulation helping out your GPS. (The Wi-Fi is especially important to distinguish among levels of a multistory building, which GPS is poorly equipped to handle.) But presence tags can simplify that math, replacing it with a concrete assurance of where we are. And the treasure that digs up could be considerable. This is obviously true for retailers: According to a mobile couponing firm called Koupon Media, some 80 percent of customers who buy gas at one major convenience-store chain never walk inside the store, so presence-based coupons could make a huge impact on the bottom line. But it's also true for our everyday lives. Have you ever lost an object in your house and dreamed that you could just type a search for it, as you would for a wayward document on your hard drive? With location stickers, that seemingly impossible desire has become a reality: A startup called StickNFind Technologies already sells these quarter-sized devices for $25 apiece.

The third and final stage is to build applications on top of these connected objects. This means not just tying together the behavior of two or more objects-like the sprinkler and the moisture sensor-but creating complex interrelationships that also tie in outside data sources and analytics. Think about how much more intelligent your sprinklers could be if they responded to the weather report as well as to historical patterns of soil moisture and rainfall. Plugged into that information, your system wouldn't just know how much water is in the soil; it could predict how much there will be, based on whether it's going to rain or the sun will be baking hot that day. Think about a home medical monitoring system that didn't just feed back data from diabetic patients but adjusted the treatment regimen as the data demanded. Think about a liquor cabinet that auto-populated your shopping list based on the levels in the bottles-but also locked automatically if your stock portfolio dropped more than 3 percent.

With his 200-plus sensors and objects installed, Hawkinson is using his house as a laboratory to dream up just these sorts of elaborate interconnections. A blond, hulking, bespectacled entrepreneur in his forties, he lays out some of the basic objects on the coffee table in his airy living room. There is a motion sensor, a moisture sensor. There is the "multi sensor," whose two pieces can be mounted opposite each other on a door and its frame, registering movement and also ambient temperature. There is a power outlet that listens for commands as it sits plugged between the wall and any AC-powered device. And there is the presence tag, worn on a keychain or belt loop, which announces to the house that its bearer is home. Finally, there is the sandwich-sized device that binds them together: the SmartThings Hub.

Right now there are multiple efforts under way to standardize how connected objects talk to one another. Two different projects, led by big companies-AllJoyn, spearheaded by Qualcomm, and MQTT, pushed by Cisco and others-are trying to create something like an HTTP for smart objects, giving them a shared language to coordinate their actions. Hawkinson's strategy, by contrast, is to make his hub a universal translator, deciphering the different types of chatter over multiple wireless protocols and processing it all in the cloud. The SmartThings Hub includes Wi-Fi, Bluetooth Smart, and two mesh technologies called ZigBee and Z-Wave that allow each device to extend the network. He estimates there are already more than a thousand compatible off-the-shelf devices, but he says that if some popular new wireless chipset (or HTTP-style protocol) comes along, "we'll just throw that in too."

The true genius of SmartThings, though, isn't in the sensors or the hub but in the system that Hawkinson and his users are building on top of it. Open the SmartThings mobile app and one finds its own array of apps inside, a pleasingly designed grid of bubbles that show the status of the people and places and things on your system and the various programs that connect them. Through the SmartThings Store, users and developers can share their simple if-then apps and, in the case of more complex relationships, make money off of apps, just like in the mobile marketplaces.

It's a future where the intelligence once locked in our devices can now flow into the universe of physical objects.

For example, Hawkinson's users are already hacking smart thermostats, which draw on sensors and historical usage patterns to help save energy. Essentially these are open source competitors to Nest, the most successful connected home appliance on the market right now. Designed by former Apple engineers, Nest is a proprietary system where all the intelligence is embedded in the thermostat itself. But on the SmartThings platform, a thermostat app can pull in readings from any other device on that platform-motion sensors that might say which room you're in, presence tags that identify individual family members (with different temperature preferences)-as well as outside data sources like weather or variable power prices.

An even more natural category for apps is security. While Hawkinson is away from his house, he receives texts when any door opens, when any motion is detected. When the last person leaves the SmartThings office, it locks itself up, shuts down the lights and thermostat, and activates an alarm system complete with siren, flashing lights, and auto-notifications, all coordinated through the SmartThings system. With so much intelligence built into the structure, why would you ever pay ADT-or one of the other myriad firms that makes up that $20 billion market-just to duplicate that effort? For those rare situations when someone needs to come out to the premises, Hawkinson imagines a low-cost security service that will wed his simple sensors and notifications with an on-call platoon of off-duty cops-"an Uber for home protection," as he puts it.

This, finally, is the Programmable World, the point at which the full power of developers, entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists are brought to bear on the realm of physical objects-improving it, customizing it, and groping toward new business plans for it that we haven't dreamed of yet. Indeed, it will marshal all the forces that made the Internet so transformational and put them to work on virtually everything around us.

There are obviously some pitfalls lurking in this future of connected objects. Our fears about malicious hackers preying on our email and bank accounts via the cloud might pale in comparison to how we'll feel about those same miscreants pwning our garage doors and bathroom light fixtures. The mysterious Stuxnet and Flame exploits have raised the issue of industrial security in the era of connected devices. Vanity Fair recently detailed nightmare scenarios in which hackers could hit connected objects, from our high tech cars (university researchers have figured out how to exploit an OnStar-type system to cause havoc in a vehicle) to our utility "smart meters" (which collect patterns of energy use that can reveal a great deal about our activities at home) to even our pacemakers.

Hawkinson, for his part, sees security as a concern but hardly an existential threat. The traffic between the cloud and the SmartThings Hub is encrypted, making it very difficult for hackers to intercept, let alone to modify for malevolent ends. It might actually be the case that automation, even mediated through the cloud, will make our lives more rather than less secure. As Wired senior writer Mat Honan has documented, our recent hacking epidemic has largely exploited the human interface-the password. We're always the weak link in online security, and in the Programmable World, our objects will carry out their business without needing us to get involved at all.

A bigger concern, perhaps, is simple privacy. Just because we've finally warmed up to oversharing in the virtual world doesn't mean we'll be comfortable doing the same in the physical world, as all our interactions with objects capture more and more data about where we are and what we're doing. Certainly the gradual acceptance of smart toll tags for cars (e.g., E-ZPass) shows that such qualms can be overcome, so long as there's a demonstrated benefit and a fair assurance of security. In that regard, personalized billboards are arguably a step in the wrong direction, but wireless payments will make users happy; so too will the coffee shop that knows your order and lets you skip the line, or the rental-car seat that adjusts to your preferences before you sit in it. Just as with social networking, the privacy concerns of a sensor-connected world will be fast outweighed by the strange pleasures of residing in it.

No, the main existential threat to the Programmable World is the considerably more mundane issue of power. Every sensor still needs a power source, which in most cases right now means a battery; low-energy protocols allow those batteries to last a long time, even a few years, but eventually they'll need to be replaced. In a hyperconnected home like Hawkinson's, that will eventually mean changing scores of batteries every year, and the numbers in a large office complex on the SmartThings system would be even higher. Hawkinson hopes that within a few years we will see the commercial rollout of wireless power, which uses a technology called resonant magnetic coupling to beam power to devices as far as several meters away from a charging station. (MIT recently spun out a company called WiTricity to bring such a system to market; its founders are hopeful that even electric cars could charge up using its technology.)

The idea of animating the inanimate, of compelling the physical world to do our bidding, has been a staple of science fiction for half a century or more. Often we've imagined the resulting objects to be perverse in their lack of intelligence, like those remorselessly multiplying brooms conjured up by Mickey Mouse in Fantasia. At other times we've feared the perversity that results when our things get too smart, like HAL refusing to open those damn pod-bay doors. In reality, though, just as in our programmable computers, the "intelligence" in our programmable world will never be more or less than the intelligence we can instill into its far-flung moving parts. It's vanishingly unlikely that we'll ever have a car like KITT or a house like Tony Stark's Jarvis, chatting us up in urbane British accents about our built-in weapons systems. But someday soon we'll have a house that can warn us about a flood or keep an eye on our kids or turn off that stove when we forget-acts of genuine intelligence that will enrich our lives far more than any missile launcher ever could.

Bill Wasik (@billwasik) is a senior editor at Wired. He wrote about TEDx in issue 20.12.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In the Programmable World, All Our Objects Will Act as One

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In our houses, cars, and factories, we're surrounded by tiny, intelligent devices that capture data about how we live and what we do. Now they are beginning to talk to one another. Soon we'll be able to choreograph them to respond to our needs, solve our problems, even save our lives.

# data[].attributes.body
David Wardle
Do you own a SmartTv? How about a media player, or a new Fridge?  All of these things are part of the IoT (Internet of things).  They can talk to eachother in Machine 2 Machine communications (M2M).  This can be explained by thinking of every device or object as being smart or having sensors in it.  An example from the Article is how smart cement can be poured for new bridges, which can alert cars when there is ice on the bridge, or alert the engineers when the bridge is stressed or cracked.  The other example which most people think about is traffic lights.  Start making the traffic lights communicate with a cloud network, which  optimizes traffic flow with varying timed lights, because all the traffic lights, cameras will be communicating to make traffic jams a thing of the past.

Overall the article is focused on the potential of IoT and how it needs to be incorporated into everyday life. The article is a great piece that makes the reader think of the actual potential of IoT.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When people talk about "the next big thing," they're never thinking big enough. It's not a lack of imagination; it's a lack of observation. I've maintained that the future is always within sight, and you don't need to imagine what's already there.

Case in point: The buzz surrounding the Internet of Things.

What's the buzz? The Internet of Things revolves around increased machine-to-machine communication; it's built on cloud computing and networks of data-gathering sensors; it's mobile, virtual, and instantaneous connection; and they say it's going to make everything in our lives from streetlights to seaports "smart."

But here's what I mean when I say people don't think big enough. So much of the chatter has been focused on machine-to-machine communication (M2M): devices talking to like devices. But a machine is an instrument, it's a tool, it's something that's physically doing something. When we talk about making machines "smart," we're not referring strictly to M2M. We're talking about sensors.

A sensor is not a machine. It doesn't do anything in the same sense that a machine does. It measures, it evaluates; in short, it gathers data. The Internet of Things really comes together with the connection of sensors and machines. That is to say, the real value that the Internet of Things creates is at the intersection of gathering data and leveraging it. All the information gathered by all the sensors in the world isn't worth very much if there isn't an infrastructure in place to analyze it in real time.

Cloud-based applications are the key to using leveraged data. The Internet of Things doesn't function without cloud-based applications to interpret and transmit the data coming from all these sensors. The cloud is what enables the apps to go to work for you anytime, anywhere.

Let's look at one example. In 2007, a bridge collapsed in Minnesota, killing many people, because of steel plates that were inadequate to handle the bridge's load. When we rebuild bridges, we can use smart cement: cement equipped with sensors to monitor stresses, cracks, and warpages. This is cement that alerts us to fix problems before they cause a catastrophe. And these technologies aren't limited to the bridge's structure.

If there's ice on the bridge, the same sensors in the concrete will detect it and communicate the information via the wireless internet to your car. Once your car knows there's a hazard ahead, it will instruct the driver to slow down, and if the driver doesn't, then the car will slow down for him. This is just one of the ways that sensor-to-machine and machine-to-machine communication can take place. Sensors on the bridge connect to machines in the car: we turn information into action.

You might start to see the implications here. What can you achieve when a smart car and a smart city grid start talking to each other? We're going to have traffic flow optimization, because instead of just having stoplights on fixed timers, we'll have smart stoplights that can respond to changes in traffic flow. Traffic and street conditions will be communicated to drivers, rerouting them around areas that are congested, snowed-in, or tied up in construction.

So now we have sensors monitoring and tracking all sorts of data; we have cloud-based apps translating that data into useful intelligence and transmitting it to machines on the ground, enabling mobile, real-time responses. And thus bridges become smart bridges, and cars smart cars. And soon, we have smart cities, and....

Okay. What are the advantages here? What are the savings? What industries can this be applied to?

Here's what I mean when I say people never think big enough. This isn't just about money savings. It's not about bridges, and it's not about cities. This is a huge and fundamental shift. When we start making things intelligent, it's going to be a major engine for creating new products and new services.

Of all the technology trends that are taking place right now, perhaps the biggest one is the Internet of Things; it's the one that's going to give us the most disruption as well as the most opportunity over the next five years. In my next post in this two-part series, we'll explore just how big this is going to be.
Daniel Burrus is considered one of the world's leading technology forecasters and innovation experts, and is the founder and CEO of Burrus Research. He is the author of six books including the New York Times best seller "Flash Foresight."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Internet of Things Is Far Bigger Than Anyone Realizes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When people talk about "the next big thing," they're never thinking big enough. It's not a lack of imagination; it's a lack of observation. I've maintained that the future is always within sight, and you don't need to imagine what's already there. Case in point: The buzz surrounding the Internet of Things.

# data[].attributes.headline
A simple explanation of the internet of things

# data[].attributes.subject
A simple explanation of the internet of things

# data[].attributes.body
Josh Dean
This article stood out above the rest because it was simple and to the point of the topic. The article starts by explaining exactly what "the internet of things" means and why it's such a talked about topic. Simply put, IoTs states how anything and everything that has an off and on switch can be one day connect to the internet to make daily living easier. There are an estimated 23 billion devices that are all connected in one way or another. although, having your coffee machine turn on when your alarm clock goes off sounds like something that would be a nice luxury. it's easy to see how if in the wrong hands all this information and connectivity could be harmful.
All in all this article goes into everything that we are learning because its the day old question of how far can we go in this new digital age without over reaching privacy and security. with this article it just seems more and more that the more we automate and have everything done for us, the more at risk we are.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobmorgan/2014/05/13/simple-explanation-internet-things-that-anyone-can-understand/#7ef2405d1d09

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After a long day, many of us try to set down our technology and unplug from the world around us. But, according to a new report by the Pew Research Center and Elon University's Imagining the Internet Center, over the next few years, that will become much more difficult to do.

Almost half of the world's population is connected online. And technology is constantly looming in our lives: the Nest thermostat regulates our household temperature, a camera watches our dogs, our health is constantly monitored, and technology keeps our houses safe when we're at work.

The Internet of things will continue to spread between now and 2026, until human and machine connectivity becomes ubiquitous and unavoidably present, according to experts who participated in what Pew described as a "nonscientific canvassing."

About 1,200 participants were asked: "As automobiles, medical devices, smart TVs, manufacturing equipment and other tools and infrastructure are networked, is it likely that attacks, hacks or ransomware concerns in the next decade will cause significant numbers of people to decide to disconnect, or will the trend toward greater connectivity of objects and people continue unabated?"

The answers they gave were telling: 15 percent said significant numbers of people would disconnect while 85 percent said most people would just move more deeply into connected life.
Unplugging is futile, and plugging in is unavoidable.
It's already difficult to create distance from the technology that surrounds us, but as connectivity increases, it might become impossible to do so.

Marti Hearst, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, says just that.

"People's businesses, homes, cars and even their clothing will be monitoring their every move, and potentially even their thoughts," she says. "Connected cities will track where and when people walk, initially to light their way, but eventually to monitor what they do and say. The walls of businesses will have tiny sensors embedded in them, initially to monitor for toxins and earthquakes, and eventually to monitor for intruders and company secrets being shared. People currently strap monitors on their bodies to tell them how many steps they take. Eventually, all fluids in and out of bodies will be monitored and recorded. Opting out will be out of the ordinary and hugely inconvenient, just as not carrying a mobile device and not using a fast pass on the highway are today."

So once people are involved in the system, it's hard to get out of it. What if they didn't get involved at all?

Judith Donath of Harvard University's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society says that isn't actually a choice you get.

"People will move more deeply into connected life - and they also will be moved there whether they want to be or not," she says. "The connection of the physical world to information networks enables the collection of an unimaginably vast amount of data about each of us, making it possible to closely model how we think and to devise increasingly effective ways of influencing how we act and what we believe. Attaining this ability is extraordinarily valuable to anyone with something to sell or promote."
People crave connection and convenience over all else, and modern-day technology serves this well.
People are used to risk, and most people believe bad things won't happen to them anyway.

David Clark, a senior research scientist at MIT and Internet Hall of Fame member, says: "Unless we have a disaster that triggers a major shift in usage, the convenience and benefits of connectivity will continue to attract users. Evidence suggests that people value convenience today over possible future negative outcomes."

What about technology hacks, like WannaCry and the Mirai bot?

Robert Atkinson, the president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, says it probably won't bother users as much as you might expect.

"Most adults in the U.S. drive cars even though it entails risks," he says. "Most adults will use IoT devices even though they involve risks because the benefits will vastly outweigh any potential risks. Moreover, as IoT progresses security will improve."
The Internet of things might become safer over time. Christianna Silva is an NPR Digital News intern.
Many of the experts surveyed noticed that the Internet of things isn't particularly safe as-is, but will become safer as more people become aware of the issues.

Amy Webb, futurist and CEO at the Future Today Institute, writes: "Technology can be like junk food. We'll consume it, even when we know it's bad for us. There is no silver bullet. The only way to effectively prevent against malware and data breaches is to stay continually vigilant. To borrow an analogy from 'Game of Thrones,' we need a 'Night's Watch' for security. Because when it comes to the Internet of Things and data breaches, 'winter is coming.' Organizations must hire enough knowledgeable staff to monitor and adjust systems, and to empower them to keep pace with hackers. IT and security staff must be willing to educate themselves, to admit when they need help and to demand that executives make decisions proactively."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Internet Of Things Is Becoming More Difficult To Escape

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After a long day, many of us try to set down our technology and unplug from the world around us. But, according to a new report by the Pew Research Center and Elon University's Imagining the Internet Center, over the next few years, that will become much more difficult to do.

# data[].attributes.body
Matthew Schimmelfennig
The article written by Bruce Schneier took a slightly different angle when discussing the "IoT". The author wrote extensively about the dangers of what he called a "world-size robot." He stated that today, the world computer is basically all encompassing. Everyday items are now part of the IoT. These items include refrigerators, ovens, ATM machines, vehicles, and cell phones. He goes on to list even more everyday items: fitness trackers, medical devices, thermostats, door locks, light bulbs, and even power plants are part of the world computer. The problem, the author says, is how vulnerable a DVR, for example, can be. Hackers have hacked into a DVR to knock Twitter off of the internet. He insists that the government must get involved with regulation that will help protect the world computer and the IoT. He listed five "truisms" about internet security.

1. On the internet, attack is easier than defense.
This means that a defender has to defend an entire attack surface, while an attacker has to find only one vulnerability.
2. Most software is poorly written and insecure.
Consumers demand fast and cheap software, which is more vulnerable.
3. Connecting everything to each other via the internet will expose new vulnerabilities.
An Amazon account, for example, has been hacked, allowing access to a users Apple account.
4. Everybody has to stop the best attackers in the world.
Only one person has to be able to hack into a network to release code to the rest of the world.
5. Laws inhibit security research.
Laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act do little more than inhibit research.

While the article was a little more doom and gloom than I think is necessary, the author raised some very important points. The IoT has created an atmosphere perfect for hackers. We have to be diligent in ensuring that our networks are secure. The government will most likely be very involved in the security of the IoT.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last year, on October 21, your digital video recorder - or at least a DVR like yours - knocked Twitter off the internet. Someone used your DVR, along with millions of insecure webcams, routers, and other connected devices, to launch an attack that started a chain reaction, resulting in Twitter, Reddit, Netflix, and many sites going off the internet. You probably didn't realize that your DVR had that kind of power. But it does.

All computers are hackable. This has as much to do with the computer market as it does with the technologies. We prefer our software full of features and inexpensive, at the expense of security and reliability. That your computer can affect the security of Twitter is a market failure. The industry is filled with market failures that, until now, have been largely ignorable. As computers continue to permeate our homes, cars, businesses, these market failures will no longer be tolerable. Our only solution will be regulation, and that regulation will be foisted on us by a government desperate to "do something" in the face of disaster.

In this article I want to outline the problems, both technical and political, and point to some regulatory solutions. Regulation might be a dirty word in today's political climate, but security is the exception to our small-government bias. And as the threats posed by computers become greater and more catastrophic, regulation will be inevitable. So now's the time to start thinking about it.

We also need to reverse the trend to connect everything to the internet. And if we risk harm and even death, we need to think twice about what we connect and what we deliberately leave uncomputerized.

If we get this wrong, the computer industry will look like the pharmaceutical industry, or the aircraft industry. But if we get this right, we can maintain the innovative environment of the internet that has given us so much.

We no longer have things with computers embedded in them. We have computers with things attached to them.

Your modern refrigerator is a computer that keeps things cold. Your oven, similarly, is a computer that makes things hot. An ATM is a computer with money inside. Your car is no longer a mechanical device with some computers inside; it's a computer with four wheels and an engine. Actually, it's a distributed system of over 100 computers with four wheels and an engine. And, of course, your phones became full-power general-purpose computers in 2007, when the iPhone was introduced.

We wear computers: fitness trackers and computer-enabled medical devices - and, of course, we carry our smartphones everywhere. Our homes have smart thermostats, smart appliances, smart door locks, even smart light bulbs. At work, many of those same smart devices are networked together with CCTV cameras, sensors that detect customer movements, and everything else. Cities are starting to embed smart sensors in roads, streetlights, and sidewalk squares, also smart energy grids and smart transportation networks. A nuclear power plant is really just a computer that produces electricity, and - like everything else we've just listed - it's on the internet.

The internet is no longer a web that we connect to. Instead, it's a computerized, networked, and interconnected world that we live in. This is the future, and what we're calling the Internet of Things.

Broadly speaking, the Internet of Things has three parts. There are the sensors that collect data about us and our environment: smart thermostats, street and highway sensors, and those ubiquitous smartphones with their motion sensors and GPS location receivers. Then there are the "smarts" that figure out what the data means and what to do about it. This includes all the computer processors on these devices and - increasingly - in the cloud, as well as the memory that stores all of this information. And finally, there are the actuators that affect our environment. The point of a smart thermostat isn't to record the temperature; it's to control the furnace and the air conditioner. Driverless cars collect data about the road and the environment to steer themselves safely to their destinations.

You can think of the sensors as the eyes and ears of the internet. You can think of the actuators as the hands and feet of the internet. And you can think of the stuff in the middle as the brain. We are building an internet that senses, thinks, and acts.

This is the classic definition of a robot. We're building a world-size robot, and we don't even realize it.

To be sure, it's not a robot in the classical sense. We think of robots as discrete autonomous entities, with sensors, brain, and actuators all together in a metal shell. The world-size robot is distributed. It doesn't have a singular body, and parts of it are controlled in different ways by different people. It doesn't have a central brain, and it has nothing even remotely resembling a consciousness. It doesn't have a single goal or focus. It's not even something we deliberately designed. It's something we have inadvertently built out of the everyday objects we live with and take for granted. It is the extension of our computers and networks into the real world.

This world-size robot is actually more than the Internet of Things. It's a combination of several decades-old computing trends: mobile computing, cloud computing, always-on computing, huge databases of personal information, the Internet of Things - or, more precisely, cyber-physical systems - autonomy, and artificial intelligence. And while it's still not very smart, it'll get smarter. It'll get more powerful and more capable through all the interconnections we're building.

It'll also get much more dangerous.

Computer security has been around for almost as long as computers have been. And while it's true that security wasn't part of the design of the original internet, it's something we have been trying to achieve since its beginning.

I have been working in computer security for over 30 years: first in cryptography, then more generally in computer and network security, and now in general security technology. I have watched computers become ubiquitous, and have seen firsthand the problems - and solutions - of securing these complex machines and systems. I'm telling you all this because what used to be a specialized area of expertise now affects everything. Computer security is now everything security. There's one critical difference, though: The threats have become greater.

Traditionally, computer security is divided into three categories: confidentiality, integrity, and availability. For the most part, our security concerns have largely centered around confidentiality. We're concerned about our data and who has access to it - the world of privacy and surveillance, of data theft and misuse.

But threats come in many forms. Availability threats: computer viruses that delete our data, or ransomware that encrypts our data and demands payment for the unlock key. Integrity threats: hackers who can manipulate data entries can do things ranging from changing grades in a class to changing the amount of money in bank accounts. Some of these threats are pretty bad. Hospitals have paid tens of thousands of dollars to criminals whose ransomware encrypted critical medical files. JPMorgan Chase spends half a billion on cybersecurity a year.

Today, the integrity and availability threats are much worse than the confidentiality threats. Once computers start affecting the world in a direct and physical manner, there are real risks to life and property. There is a fundamental difference between crashing your computer and losing your spreadsheet data, and crashing your pacemaker and losing your life. This isn't hyperbole; recently researchers found serious security vulnerabilities in St. Jude Medical's implantable heart devices. Give the internet hands and feet, and it will have the ability to punch and kick.

Take a concrete example: modern cars, those computers on wheels. The steering wheel no longer turns the axles, nor does the accelerator pedal change the speed. Every move you make in a car is processed by a computer, which does the actual controlling. A central computer controls the dashboard. There's another in the radio. The engine has 20 or so computers. These are all networked, and increasingly autonomous.

Now, let's start listing the security threats. We don't want car navigation systems to be used for mass surveillance, or the microphone for mass eavesdropping. We might want it to be used to determine a car's location in the event of a 911 call, and possibly to collect information about highway congestion. We don't want people to hack their own cars to bypass emissions-control limitations. We don't want manufacturers or dealers to be able to do that, either, as Volkswagen did for years. We can imagine wanting to give police the ability to remotely and safely disable a moving car; that would make high-speed chases a thing of the past. But we definitely don't want hackers to be able to do that. We definitely don't want them disabling the brakes in every car without warning, at speed. As we make the transition from driver-controlled cars to cars with various driver-assist capabilities to fully driverless cars, we don't want any of those critical components subverted. We don't want someone to be able to accidentally crash your car, let alone do it on purpose. And equally, we don't want them to be able to manipulate the navigation software to change your route, or the door-lock controls to prevent you from opening the door. I could go on.

That's a lot of different security requirements, and the effects of getting them wrong range from illegal surveillance to extortion by ransomware to mass death.

Our computers and smartphones are as secure as they are because companies like Microsoft, Apple, and Google spend a lot of time testing their code before it's released, and quickly patch vulnerabilities when they're discovered. Those companies can support large, dedicated teams because those companies make a huge amount of money, either directly or indirectly, from their software - and, in part, compete on its security. Unfortunately, this isn't true of embedded systems like digital video recorders or home routers. Those systems are sold at a much lower margin, and are often built by offshore third parties. The companies involved simply don't have the expertise to make them secure.

At a recent hacker conference, a security researcher analyzed 30 home routers and was able to break into half of them, including some of the most popular and common brands. The denial-of-service attacks that forced popular websites like Reddit and Twitter off the internet last October were enabled by vulnerabilities in devices like webcams and digital video recorders. In August, two security researchers demonstrated a ransomware attack on a smart thermostat.

Even worse, most of these devices don't have any way to be patched. Companies like Microsoft and Apple continuously deliver security patches to your computers. Some home routers are technically patchable, but in a complicated way that only an expert would attempt. And the only way for you to update the firmware in your hackable DVR is to throw it away and buy a new one.

The market can't fix this because neither the buyer nor the seller cares. The owners of the webcams and DVRs used in the denial-of-service attacks don't care. Their devices were cheap to buy, they still work, and they don't know any of the victims of the attacks. The sellers of those devices don't care: They're now selling newer and better models, and the original buyers only cared about price and features. There is no market solution, because the insecurity is what economists call an externality: It's an effect of the purchasing decision that affects other people. Think of it kind of like invisible pollution.

Security is an arms race between attacker and defender. Technology perturbs that arms race by changing the balance between attacker and defender. Understanding how this arms race has unfolded on the internet is essential to understanding why the world-size robot we're building is so insecure, and how we might secure it. To that end, I have five truisms, born from what we've already learned about computer and internet security. They will soon affect the security arms race everywhere.

Truism No. 1: On the internet, attack is easier than defense.

There are many reasons for this, but the most important is the complexity of these systems. More complexity means more people involved, more parts, more interactions, more mistakes in the design and development process, more of everything where hidden insecurities can be found. Computer-security experts like to speak about the attack surface of a system: all the possible points an attacker might target and that must be secured. A complex system means a large attack surface. The defender has to secure the entire attack surface. The attacker just has to find one vulnerability - one unsecured avenue for attack - and gets to choose how and when to attack. It's simply not a fair battle.

There are other, more general, reasons why attack is easier than defense. Attackers have a natural agility that defenders often lack. They don't have to worry about laws, and often not about morals or ethics. They don't have a bureaucracy to contend with, and can more quickly make use of technical innovations. Attackers also have a first-mover advantage. As a society, we're generally terrible at proactive security; we rarely take preventive security measures until an attack actually happens. So more advantages go to the attacker.

Truism No. 2: Most software is poorly written and insecure.

If complexity isn't enough, we compound the problem by producing lousy software. Well-written software, like the kind found in airplane avionics, is both expensive and time-consuming to produce. We don't want that. For the most part, poorly written software has been good enough. We'd all rather live with buggy software than pay the prices good software would require. We don't mind if our games crash regularly, or our business applications act weird once in a while. Because software has been largely benign, it hasn't mattered. This has permeated the industry at all levels. At universities, we don't teach how to code well. Companies don't reward quality code in the same way they reward fast and cheap. And we consumers don't demand it.

But poorly written software is riddled with bugs, sometimes as many as one per 1,000 lines of code. Some of them are inherent in the complexity of the software, but most are programming mistakes. Not all bugs are vulnerabilities, but some are.

Truism No. 3: Connecting everything to each other via the internet will expose new vulnerabilities.

The more we network things together, the more vulnerabilities on one thing will affect other things. On October 21, vulnerabilities in a wide variety of embedded devices were all harnessed together to create what hackers call a botnet. This botnet was used to launch a distributed denial-of-service attack against a company called Dyn. Dyn provided a critical internet function for many major internet sites. So when Dyn went down, so did all those popular websites.

These chains of vulnerabilities are everywhere. In 2012, journalist Mat Honan suffered a massive personal hack because of one of them. A vulnerability in his Amazon account allowed hackers to get into his Apple account, which allowed them to get into his Gmail account. And in 2013, the Target Corporation was hacked by someone stealing credentials from its HVAC contractor.

Vulnerabilities like these are particularly hard to fix, because no one system might actually be at fault. It might be the insecure interaction of two individually secure systems.

Truism No. 4: Everybody has to stop the best attackers in the world.

One of the most powerful properties of the internet is that it allows things to scale. This is true for our ability to access data or control systems or do any of the cool things we use the internet for, but it's also true for attacks. In general, fewer attackers can do more damage because of better technology. It's not just that these modern attackers are more efficient, it's that the internet allows attacks to scale to a degree impossible without computers and networks.

This is fundamentally different from what we're used to. When securing my home against burglars, I am only worried about the burglars who live close enough to my home to consider robbing me. The internet is different. When I think about the security of my network, I have to be concerned about the best attacker possible, because he's the one who's going to create the attack tool that everyone else will use. The attacker that discovered the vulnerability used to attack Dyn released the code to the world, and within a week there were a dozen attack tools using it.

Truism No. 5: Laws inhibit security research.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a terrible law that fails at its purpose of preventing widespread piracy of movies and music. To make matters worse, it contains a provision that has critical side effects. According to the law, it is a crime to bypass security mechanisms that protect copyrighted work, even if that bypassing would otherwise be legal. Since all software can be copyrighted, it is arguably illegal to do security research on these devices and to publish the result.

Although the exact contours of the law are arguable, many companies are using this provision of the DMCA to threaten researchers who expose vulnerabilities in their embedded systems. This instills fear in researchers, and has a chilling effect on research, which means two things: (1) Vendors of these devices are more likely to leave them insecure, because no one will notice and they won't be penalized in the market, and (2) security engineers don't learn how to do security better.

Unfortunately, companies generally like the DMCA. The provisions against reverse-engineering spare them the embarrassment of having their shoddy security exposed. It also allows them to build proprietary systems that lock out competition. (This is an important one. Right now, your toaster cannot force you to only buy a particular brand of bread. But because of this law and an embedded computer, your Keurig coffee maker can force you to buy a particular brand of coffee.)

In general, there are two basic paradigms of security. We can either try to secure something well the first time, or we can make our security agile. The first paradigm comes from the world of dangerous things: from planes, medical devices, buildings. It's the paradigm that gives us secure design and secure engineering, security testing and certifications, professional licensing, detailed preplanning and complex government approvals, and long times-to-market. It's security for a world where getting it right is paramount because getting it wrong means people dying.

The second paradigm comes from the fast-moving and heretofore largely benign world of software. In this paradigm, we have rapid prototyping, on-the-fly updates, and continual improvement. In this paradigm, new vulnerabilities are discovered all the time and security disasters regularly happen. Here, we stress survivability, recoverability, mitigation, adaptability, and muddling through. This is security for a world where getting it wrong is okay, as long as you can respond fast enough.

These two worlds are colliding. They're colliding in our cars - literally - in our medical devices, our building control systems, our traffic control systems, and our voting machines. And although these paradigms are wildly different and largely incompatible, we need to figure out how to make them work together.

So far, we haven't done very well. We still largely rely on the first paradigm for the dangerous computers in cars, airplanes, and medical devices. As a result, there are medical systems that can't have security patches installed because that would invalidate their government approval. In 2015, Chrysler recalled 1.4 million cars to fix a software vulnerability. In September 2016, Tesla remotely sent a security patch to all of its Model S cars overnight. Tesla sure sounds like it's doing things right, but what vulnerabilities does this remote patch feature open up?

Until now we've largely left computer security to the market. Because the computer and network products we buy and use are so lousy, an enormous after-market industry in computer security has emerged. Governments, companies, and people buy the security they think they need to secure themselves. We've muddled through well enough, but the market failures inherent in trying to secure this world-size robot will soon become too big to ignore.

Markets alone can't solve our security problems. Markets are motivated by profit and short-term goals at the expense of society. They can't solve collective-action problems. They won't be able to deal with economic externalities, like the vulnerabilities in DVRs that resulted in Twitter going offline. And we need a counterbalancing force to corporate power.

This all points to policy. While the details of any computer-security system are technical, getting the technologies broadly deployed is a problem that spans law, economics, psychology, and sociology. And getting the policy right is just as important as getting the technology right because, for internet security to work, law and technology have to work together. This is probably the most important lesson of Edward Snowden's NSA disclosures. We already knew that technology can subvert law. Snowden demonstrated that law can also subvert technology. Both fail unless each work. It's not enough to just let technology do its thing.

Any policy changes to secure this world-size robot will mean significant government regulation. I know it's a sullied concept in today's world, but I don't see any other possible solution. It's going to be especially difficult on the internet, where its permissionless nature is one of the best things about it and the underpinning of its most world-changing innovations. But I don't see how that can continue when the internet can affect the world in a direct and physical manner.

I have a proposal: a new government regulatory agency. Before dismissing it out of hand, please hear me out.

We have a practical problem when it comes to internet regulation. There's no government structure to tackle this at a systemic level. Instead, there's a fundamental mismatch between the way government works and the way this technology works that makes dealing with this problem impossible at the moment.

Government operates in silos. In the U.S., the FAA regulates aircraft. The NHTSA regulates cars. The FDA regulates medical devices. The FCC regulates communications devices. The FTC protects consumers in the face of "unfair" or "deceptive" trade practices. Even worse, who regulates data can depend on how it is used. If data is used to influence a voter, it's the Federal Election Commission's jurisdiction. If that same data is used to influence a consumer, it's the FTC's. Use those same technologies in a school, and the Department of Education is now in charge. Robotics will have its own set of problems, and no one is sure how that is going to be regulated. Each agency has a different approach and different rules. They have no expertise in these new issues, and they are not quick to expand their authority for all sorts of reasons.

Compare that with the internet. The internet is a freewheeling system of integrated objects and networks. It grows horizontally, demolishing old technological barriers so that people and systems that never previously communicated now can. Already, apps on a smartphone can log health information, control your energy use, and communicate with your car. That's a set of functions that crosses jurisdictions of at least four different government agencies, and it's only going to get worse.

Our world-size robot needs to be viewed as a single entity with millions of components interacting with each other. Any solutions here need to be holistic. They need to work everywhere, for everything. Whether we're talking about cars, drones, or phones, they're all computers.

This has lots of precedent. Many new technologies have led to the formation of new government regulatory agencies. Trains did, cars did, airplanes did. Radio led to the formation of the Federal Radio Commission, which became the FCC. Nuclear power led to the formation of the Atomic Energy Commission, which eventually became the Department of Energy. The reasons were the same in every case. New technologies need new expertise because they bring with them new challenges. Governments need a single agency to house that new expertise, because its applications cut across several preexisting agencies. It's less that the new agency needs to regulate - although that's often a big part of it - and more that governments recognize the importance of the new technologies.

The internet has famously eschewed formal regulation, instead adopting a multi-stakeholder model of academics, businesses, governments, and other interested parties. My hope is that we can keep the best of this approach in any regulatory agency, looking more at the new U.S. Digital Service or the 18F office inside the General Services Administration. Both of those organizations are dedicated to providing digital government services, and both have collected significant expertise by bringing people in from outside of government, and both have learned how to work closely with existing agencies. Any internet regulatory agency will similarly need to engage in a high level of collaborate regulation - both a challenge and an opportunity.

I don't think any of us can predict the totality of the regulations we need to ensure the safety of this world, but here's a few. We need government to ensure companies follow good security practices: testing, patching, secure defaults - and we need to be able to hold companies liable when they fail to do these things. We need government to mandate strong personal data protections, and limitations on data collection and use. We need to ensure that responsible security research is legal and well-funded. We need to enforce transparency in design, some sort of code escrow in case a company goes out of business, and interoperability between devices of different manufacturers, to counterbalance the monopolistic effects of interconnected technologies. Individuals need the right to take their data with them. And internet-enabled devices should retain some minimal functionality if disconnected from the internet

I'm not the only one talking about this. I've seen proposals for a National Institutes of Health analog for cybersecurity. University of Washington law professor Ryan Calo has proposed a Federal Robotics Commission. I think it needs to be broader: maybe a Department of Technology Policy.

Of course there will be problems. There's a lack of expertise in these issues inside government. There's a lack of willingness in government to do the hard regulatory work. Industry is worried about any new bureaucracy: both that it will stifle innovation by regulating too much and that it will be captured by industry and regulate too little. A domestic regulatory agency will have to deal with the fundamentally international nature of the problem.

But government is the entity we use to solve problems like this. Governments have the scope, scale, and balance of interests to address the problems. It's the institution we've built to adjudicate competing social interests and internalize market externalities. Left to their own devices, the market simply can't. That we're currently in the middle of an era of low government trust, where many of us can't imagine government doing anything positive in an area like this, is to our detriment.

Here's the thing: Governments will get involved, regardless. The risks are too great, and the stakes are too high. Government already regulates dangerous physical systems like cars and medical devices. And nothing motivates the U.S. government like fear. Remember 2001? A nominally small-government Republican president created the Office of Homeland Security 11 days after the terrorist attacks: a rushed and ill-thought-out decision that we've been trying to fix for over a decade. A fatal disaster will similarly spur our government into action, and it's unlikely to be well-considered and thoughtful action. Our choice isn't between government involvement and no government involvement. Our choice is between smarter government involvement and stupider government involvement. We have to start thinking about this now. Regulations are necessary, important, and complex; and they're coming. We can't afford to ignore these issues until it's too late.

We also need to start disconnecting systems. If we cannot secure complex systems to the level required by their real-world capabilities, then we must not build a world where everything is computerized and interconnected.

There are other models. We can enable local communications only. We can set limits on collected and stored data. We can deliberately design systems that don't interoperate with each other. We can deliberately fetter devices, reversing the current trend of turning everything into a general-purpose computer. And, most important, we can move toward less centralization and more distributed systems, which is how the internet was first envisioned.

This might be a heresy in today's race to network everything, but large, centralized systems are not inevitable. The technical elites are pushing us in that direction, but they really don't have any good supporting arguments other than the profits of their ever-growing multinational corporations.

But this will change. It will change not only because of security concerns, it will also change because of political concerns. We're starting to chafe under the worldview of everything producing data about us and what we do, and that data being available to both governments and corporations. Surveillance capitalism won't be the business model of the internet forever. We need to change the fabric of the internet so that evil governments don't have the tools to create a horrific totalitarian state. And while good laws and regulations in Western democracies are a great second line of defense, they can't be our only line of defense.

My guess is that we will soon reach a high-water mark of computerization and connectivity, and that afterward we will make conscious decisions about what and how we decide to interconnect. But we're still in the honeymoon phase of connectivity. Governments and corporations are punch-drunk on our data, and the rush to connect everything is driven by an even greater desire for power and market share. One of the presentations released by Edward Snowden contained the NSA mantra: "Collect it all." A similar mantra for the internet today might be: "Connect it all."

The inevitable backlash will not be driven by the market. It will be deliberate policy decisions that put the safety and welfare of society above individual corporations and industries. It will be deliberate policy decisions that prioritize the security of our systems over the demands of the FBI to weaken them in order to make their law-enforcement jobs easier. It'll be hard policy for many to swallow, but our safety will depend on it.

The scenarios I've outlined, both the technological and economic trends that are causing them and the political changes we need to make to start to fix them, come from my years of working in internet-security technology and policy. All of this is informed by an understanding of both technology and policy. That turns out to be critical, and there aren't enough people who understand both.

This brings me to my final plea: We need more public-interest technologists.

Over the past couple of decades, we've seen examples of getting internet-security policy badly wrong. I'm thinking of the FBI's "going dark" debate about its insistence that computer devices be designed to facilitate government access, the "vulnerability equities process" about when the government should disclose and fix a vulnerability versus when it should use it to attack other systems, the debacle over paperless touch-screen voting machines, and the DMCA that I discussed above. If you watched any of these policy debates unfold, you saw policy-makers and technologists talking past each other.

Our world-size robot will exacerbate these problems. The historical divide between Washington and Silicon Valley - the mistrust of governments by tech companies and the mistrust of tech companies by governments - is dangerous.

We have to fix this. Getting IoT security right depends on the two sides working together and, even more important, having people who are experts in each working on both. We need technologists to get involved in policy, and we need policy-makers to get involved in technology. We need people who are experts in making both technology and technological policy. We need technologists on congressional staffs, inside federal agencies, working for NGOs, and as part of the press. We need to create a viable career path for public-interest technologists, much as there already is one for public-interest attorneys. We need courses, and degree programs in colleges, for people interested in careers in public-interest technology. We need fellowships in organizations that need these people. We need technology companies to offer sabbaticals for technologists wanting to go down this path. We need an entire ecosystem that supports people bridging the gap between technology and law. We need a viable career path that ensures that even though people in this field won't make as much as they would in a high-tech start-up, they will have viable careers. The security of our computerized and networked future - meaning the security of ourselves, families, homes, businesses, and communities - depends on it.

This plea is bigger than security, actually. Pretty much all of the major policy debates of this century will have a major technological component. Whether it's weapons of mass destruction, robots drastically affecting employment, climate change, food safety, or the increasing ubiquity of ever-shrinking drones, understanding the policy means understanding the technology. Our society desperately needs technologists working on the policy. The alternative is bad policy.

The world-size robot is less designed than created. It's coming without any forethought or architecting or planning; most of us are completely unaware of what we're building. In fact, I am not convinced we can actually design any of this. When we try to design complex sociotechnical systems like this, we are regularly surprised by their emergent properties. The best we can do is observe and channel these properties as best we can.

Market thinking sometimes makes us lose sight of the human choices and autonomy at stake. Before we get controlled - or killed - by the world-size robot, we need to rebuild confidence in our collective governance institutions. Law and policy may not seem as cool as digital tech, but they're also places of critical innovation. They're where we collectively bring about the world we want to live in.

While I might sound like a Cassandra, I'm actually optimistic about our future. Our society has tackled bigger problems than this one. It takes work and it's not easy, but we eventually find our way clear to make the hard choices necessary to solve our real problems.

The world-size robot we're building can only be managed responsibly if we start making real choices about the interconnected world we live in. Yes, we need security systems as robust as the threat landscape. But we also need laws that effectively regulate these dangerous technologies. And, more generally, we need to make moral, ethical, and political decisions on how those systems should work. Until now, we've largely left the internet alone. We gave programmers a special right to code cyberspace as they saw fit. This was okay because cyberspace was separate and relatively unimportant: That is, it didn't matter. Now that that's changed, we can no longer give programmers and the companies they work for this power. Those moral, ethical, and political decisions need, somehow, to be made by everybody. We need to link people with the same zeal that we are currently linking machines. "Connect it all" must be countered with "connect us all."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We're Building a World-Size Robot, and We Don't Even Realize It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last year, on October 21, your digital video recorder - or at least a DVR like yours - knocked Twitter off the internet. Someone used your DVR, along with millions of insecure webcams, routers, and other connected devices, to launch an attack that started a chain reaction, resulting in Twitter, Reddit, Netflix, and many sites going off the internet.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Internet of Things Is Becoming More Difficult To Escape

# data[].attributes.subject
The Internet of Things Is Becoming More Difficult To Escape

# data[].attributes.body
Lauren Helwig (reviewer)
The article takes as its foundation a recent survey conducted by PEW and Elon University that queried information research professionals about the future of ubiquitous connectivity. They were asked: as IoT extends to more and more objects, enabling increasingly granular data collection, will people retreat from technology and unplug? Or, will they surrender to becoming a collection of data points for various (potentially nefarious) usage, because not doing so would be too inconvenient? Experts predicted that most people will stay connected.

Among the reason, two are compelling. First, in most cases, users would not be able to pull the plug even if they wanted to, given that most data collection devices will be out of their control, and beyond both their sight and awareness (plus no explicit opt-in or opt-out validation). Secondly, users default to passive cognitive biases regarding phenomenon that are relatively invisible or whose threats seem remote. People inchoately assume (they’re not consciously thinking about it) that threats to privacy won’t happen to them or if they do get it, they have nothing to hide—and everything to gain. Lastly is the (again, inchoate) assumption that a benign savior father (government, general good will?) will prevent anything really bad from happening. Together, these presumptions amount to passive consent. While the textbook Raises privacy concerns of IoT, this article reveals the psychological and sociological conditions that effectively enable private companies to snoop on you.

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/06/06/531747037/the-internet-of-things-is-becoming-more-difficult-to-escape

# data[].attributes.headline
T-Mobile Launching Internet of Things Access Packs that Bundle Wireless data and modules

# data[].attributes.subject
T-Mobile Launching Internet of Things Access Packs that Bundle Wireless data and modules

# data[].attributes.body
by Dante Robinson

Internet of Things of an increasingly growing product category. Objects, modules, tools, and other items are now able to be connected to the internet. With wireless internet always comes the issue of having a wireless network available. The major wireless data carriers are now getting in on IoT action. T-Mobile has new data packs for $20 A YEAR to enable your IoT device to access the internet to perform functions. They even have a new product called a SYNCUPDRIVE. What this device does is connect to your own vehicle and allow you to check mechanical issues, location, AND gives you wifi in your car via a mobile hotspot. IoT is the future.

This article and the SyncupDrive can easily be used for businesses. For example, lawn care services can utilize the location feature to track mileage and keep track of how much they are spending on gas. Uber drivers could use the mobile hotspot to give their riders wifi access during the drive. IoT through wireless carriers can greatly help business owners on the go.

T-Mobile launching Internet of Things Access packs that bundle wireless data and modules

# data[].attributes.headline
The Internet of Things: Rise of Machines

# data[].attributes.subject
The Internet of Things: Rise of Machines

# data[].attributes.body
Michelle Bartus
This article titled Rise of the machines: who is the internet things good for? talks about what all the possibilities of the internet and the gadgets that are out there for our use.  Some of these gadgets included but are not limited to fitbit, apple watch,  dash buttons, and smart speakers. A lot of us have at least one of these in our household, and use them on daily basis.  It is interesting to see how much we actually rely on internet to do daily activities.  We need to be aware that these devices can be hacked, and virtual assistants are listening to everything that happens in the household.  This can transpire, to certain situations where it makes the consumer vulnerable.  Another key point in the article, it states that we as consumers are not aware of what happens with our mobile phones and all the information on it.  Smart phone apps send out information to nearby products and services, depending on your behavioral habits.
Technology is involving, and the internet of things opens a lot of new opportunities. We need to be more aware of the information we are giving out to companies, where they get their information about us from.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In San Francisco, a young engineer hopes to "optimise" his life through sensors that track his heart rate, respiration and sleep cycle. In Copenhagen, a bus running two minutes behind schedule transmits its location and passenger count to the municipal traffic signal network, which extends the time of the green light at each of the next three intersections long enough for its driver to make up some time. In Davao City in the Philippines, an unsecured webcam overlooks the storeroom of a fast food stand, allowing anyone to peer in on all its comings and goings.

What links these wildly different circumstances is a vision of connected devices now being sold to us as the "internet of things". The technologist Mike Kuniavsky, a pioneer of this idea, characterises it as a state of being in which "computation and data communication [are] embedded in, and distributed through, our entire environment". I prefer to see it for what it is: the colonisation of everyday life by information processing.

Though it can often feel as if this colonisation proceeds of its own momentum, distinct ambitions are being served wherever and however the internet of things appears. The internet of things isn't a single technology. About all that connects the various devices, services, vendors and efforts involved is the end goal they serve: capturing data that can then be used to measure and control the world around us.

Whenever a project has such imperial designs on our everyday lives, it is vital that we ask just what ideas underpin it and whose interests it serves. Although the internet of things retains a certain sprawling and formless quality, we can get a far more concrete sense of what it involves by looking at how it appears at each of three scales: that of our bodies (where the effort is referred to as the "quantified self"), our homes ("the smart home") and our public spaces ("the smart city"). Each of these examples illuminates a different aspect of the challenge presented to us by the internet of things, and each has something distinct to teach us.

t the most intimate scale, the internet of things is visible in the form of wearable biometric sensors. The simplest of these are little more than networked digital pedometers, which count steps, measure the distance a person has traversed, and furnish an estimate of the calories burned in the course of this activity. More elaborate models measure heart rate, breathing, skin temperature and even perspiration.

If wearable biometric devices such as Fitbits and Apple Watches are, in theory, aimed at rigorous self-mastery, the colonisation of the domestic environment by similarly networked products and services is intended to deliver a very different experience: convenience. The aim of such "smart home" efforts is to short-circuit the process of reflection that stands between having a desire and fulfilling that desire by buying something.

Right now, the perfect example of this is a gadget being sold by Amazon, known as the Dash Button. Many internet-of-things devices are little more than some conventional object with networked connectivity tacked on. The Dash Button is the precise opposite, a thing in the world that could not have existed without the internet. I cannot improve on Amazon's own description of this curious object and how it works, so I'll repeat it here: "Amazon Dash Button is a Wi-Fi-connected device that reorders your favourite item with the press of a button. To use Dash Button, simply download the Amazon app from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store. Then, sign into your Amazon Prime account, connect Dash Button to Wi-Fi, and select the product you want to reorder. Once connected, a single press on Dash Button automatically places your order."

In other words: single-purpose electronic devices, each dedicated to an individual branded item, that you press when you're running low. Pressing a Dash Button specific to your preferred pet food, washing powder or bottled water automatically composes an order request to Amazon for that one product.

I don't for a second want to downplay the value of such a product for people who have ageing parents to look after, or kids to drop off at daycare, or for whom simply getting in the car to pick up some cat food may take an hour or more out of their day. But the benefit to the individual customer is tiny compared with what Amazon gains. Sure, you never run out of cat food. But Amazon gets data on the time and place of your need, as well as its frequency and intensity, and that data has value. It is an asset, and you can be sure that Amazon will exploit it in every way its terms and conditions permit - including by using it to develop behavioural models that map our desires in high resolution, so as to target them with even greater efficiency in the future.

Again, the aim of devices such as the Dash Button is to permit the user to accomplish commercial transactions with as little conscious thought as possible - not even the few moments it takes to tap out commands on the touchscreen of a phone or tablet. The data on what the industry calls "conversion" is as clear as it is unremitting: with every box to tick or form to fill, the percentage of users that make it all the way to checkout tumbles. The fewer steps there are in a transaction, the more likely people are to spend their money.

Manufacturers, enticed by the revenue potential of conquering the domestic environment, keep trying to eliminate these steps, in the hope that one of their connected products will become as essential to everyday life as the smartphone. The recent industry push toward the "smart home" is simply the latest version of this.

For the moment, this strategy is centred on so-called smart speakers, a first generation of which have now reached the market. These products include the Amazon Echo and Google Home, each of which is supposed to function as the command hub of a connected domestic environment. Amazon's Echo is a simple cylinder, while the Google Home is a bevelled ovoid. But the physical form of such speakers is all but irrelevant, as their primary job is to function as a branded "virtual assistant", providing a simple, integrated way to access the numerous digital controls scattered throughout the contemporary home - from lighting and entertainment to security, heating, cooling and ventilation systems.

Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Apple each offer their own such assistant, based on natural-language speech recognition. Most are given female names, voices and personalities, presumably based on research indicating that users of all genders prefer to interact with women. Apple's is called Siri and will, according to reports, soon be getting its own device, Amazon's Alexa, and Microsoft's Cortana, while one simply addresses Google's Home offering as "Google."

t first, such devices seem harmless enough. They sit patiently and quietly at the periphery of our awareness, and we only speak to them when we need them. But when we consider them more carefully, a more problematic picture emerges.

This is how Google's assistant works: you mention to it that you're in the mood for Italian food, and then, in the words of one New York Times article, it "will then respond with some suggestions for tables to reserve at Italian restaurants using, for example, the OpenTable app".

This example showsthat though the choices these assistants offer us are presented as neutral, they are based on numerous inbuilt assumptions that many of us would question if we were to truly scrutinise them.

Ask restaurateurs and front-of-house workers what they think of OpenTable, for example, and you will swiftly learn that one person's convenience is another's accelerated pace of work, or worse. You'll learn that restaurants offering reservations via the service are, according to the website Serious Eats, "required to use the company's proprietary floor-management system, which means leasing hardware and using OpenTable-specific software", and that OpenTable retains ownership of all the data generated in this way. You'll also learn that OpenTable takes a cut on reservations per seated diner, which obviously adds up to a significant amount on a busy night.

Conscientious diners have therefore been known to bypass the ostensible convenience of OpenTable, and make whatever reservations they have to by phone. By contrast, Google Home's frictionless default to making reservations via OpenTable normalises the choice to use that service.

This is not accidental. It reflects the largely preconscious valuations, priorities and internalised beliefs of the people who devised Google Home. As throughout the industry, that is a remarkably homogeneous cohort of young designers and engineers. But more important than the degree of similarity they bear to one another is how different they are from everyone else.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Illustration: Getty/Guardian Design

Internet-of-things devices are generally conceived by people who have completely assimilated services such as Uber, Airbnb and Apple Pay into their daily lives, at a time when figures from the Washington DC-based Pew Research Center suggest that a significant percentage of the population has never used or even heard of them. For the people who design these products, these services are normal, and so, over time, they become normalised for everyone else.

There are other challenges presented by this way of interacting with networked information. It's difficult, for example, for a user to determine whether the options they are being offered by a virtual assistant result from what the industry calls an "organic" return - something that legitimately came up as the result of a search process - or from paid placement. But the main problem with the virtual assistant is that it fosters an approach to the world that is literally thoughtless, leaving users disinclined to sit out any prolonged frustration of desire, and ever less critical about the processes that result in gratification.

Virtual assistants are listening to everything that transpires in their presence, and are doing so at all times. As voice-activated interfaces, they must be constantly attentive in order to detect when the "wake word" that rouses them is spoken. In this way, they are able to harvest data that might be used to refine targeted advertising, or for other commercial purposes that are only disclosed deep in the terms and conditions that govern their use. The logic operating here is that of preemptive capture: the notion that companies such as Amazon and Google might as well trawl up everything they can, because no one knows what value might be derived from it in the future.

This leads to situations that might be comical, were it not for what they imply about the networking of our domestic environments. These stories circulate as cautionary tales: one of the best-known was the time the US National Public Radio network aired a story about the Amazon Echo, and various cues spoken on the broadcast were interpreted as commands by Echos belonging to members of the audience, causing domestic chaos.

Put aside for one moment the question of disproportionate benefit - the idea that you as the user derive a little convenience from your embrace of a virtual assistant, while its provider gets everything - all the data about your life and all its value. Let's simply consider what gets lost in the ideology of convenience that underlies this conception of the internet of things. Are the constraints presented to us by life in the non-connected world really so onerous? Is it really so difficult to wait until you get home before you preheat the oven? And is it worth giving away so much, just to be able to do so remotely?

ost of us are by now awarethat our mobile phones are constantly harvesting information about our whereabouts and activities. But we tend to be relatively ignorant of the degree to which the contemporary streetscape has also been enabled to collect information. This development is often called the "smart city". If the ambition beneath the instrumentation of the body is ostensible self-mastery, and that of the home is convenience, the ambition at the heart of the smart city is nothing other than control - the desire to achieve a more efficient use of space, energy and other resources.

A broad range of networked information-gathering devices are increasingly being deployed in public space, including CCTV cameras; advertisements and vending machines equipped with biometric sensors; and the indoor micropositioning systems known as "beacons" that, when combined with a smartphone app, send signals providing information about nearby products and services.

The picture we are left with is that of our surroundings furiously vacuuming up information, every square metre of seemingly banal pavement yielding so much data about its uses and its users that nobody yet knows what to do with it all. And it is at this scale of activity that the guiding ideology of the internet of things comes into clearest focus.

The strongest and most explicit articulation of this ideology in the definition of a smart city has been offered by the house journal of the engineering company Siemens: "Several decades from now, cities will have countless autonomous, intelligently functioning IT systems that will have perfect knowledge of users' habits and energy consumption, and provide optimum service ... The goal of such a city is to optimally regulate and control resources by means of autonomous IT systems."

There is a clear philosophical position, even a worldview, behind all of this: that the world is in principle perfectly knowable, its contents enumerable and their relations capable of being meaningfully encoded in a technical system, without bias or distortion. As applied to the affairs of cities, this is effectively an argument that there is one and only one correct solution to each identified need; that this solution can be arrived at algorithmically, via the operations of a technical system furnished with the proper inputs; and that this solution is something that can be encoded in public policy, without distortion. (Left unstated, but strongly implicit, is the presumption that whatever policies are arrived at in this way will be applied transparently, dispassionately and in a manner free from politics.)

Every aspect of this argument is questionable. Perhaps most obviously, the claim that anything at all is perfectly knowable is perverse. However thoroughly sensors might be deployed in a city, they will only ever capture what is amenable to being captured. In other words, they will not be able to pick up every single piece of information necessary to the formulation of sound civic policy.

Other, all-too-human distortions inevitably colour the data collected. For instance, people may consciously adapt to produce metrics favourable to them. A police officer under pressure to "make quota" may focus on infractions that she would ordinarily overlook, while conversely, her precinct commander, under pressure to present the city as ever-safer, may downwardly classify a felony assault as a simple misdemeanour. This is the phenomenon known to viewers of The Wire as "juking the stats," and it is particularly likely to occur when financial or other incentives depend on achieving a performance threshold.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

Illustration: Getty/Guardian Design

There is also the question of interpretation. Advocates of smart cities often seem to proceed as if it is self-evident that each of our acts has a single, salient meaning, which can be recognised, made sense of and acted upon remotely by an automated system, without any possibility of error. The most prominent advocates of this approach appear to believe that no particular act of interpretation is involved in making use of any data retrieved from the world in this way.

But data is never "just" data, and to assert otherwise is to lend inherently political and interested decisions an unmerited gloss of scientific objectivity. The truth is that data is easily skewed, depending on how it is collected.Different values for air pollution in a given location can be produced by varying the height at which a sensor is mounted by a few metres. Perceptions of risk in a neighbourhood can be transformed by slightly altering the taxonomy used to classify reported crimes. And anyone who has ever worked in opinion polling knows how sensitive the results are to the precise wording of a survey.

The bold claim of "perfect" knowledge appears incompatible with the messy reality of all known information-processing systems, the human individuals and institutions that make use of them and, more broadly, with the world as we experience it. In fact, it is astonishing that any experienced engineer would ever be so unwary as to claim perfection on behalf of any computational system, no matter how powerful.

The notion that there is one and only one solution to urban problems is also deeply puzzling. Cities are made up of individuals and communities who often have competing preferences, and it is impossible to fully satisfy all of them at the same time.

That such a solution, if it even existed, could be arrived at algorithmically is also implausible. Assume, for the sake of argument, that there did exist a master formula capable of balancing the needs of all of a city's competing constituencies. It certainly would be convenient if this golden mean could be determined automatically and consistently. But the wholesale surrender of municipal management to an algorithmic toolset seems to place an undue amount of trust in the party responsible for authoring the algorithm.

If the formulas behind this vision of future cities turn out to be anything like the ones used in the current generation of computational models, life-altering decisions will hinge on the interaction of poorly defined and subjective values. The output generated by such a procedure may turn on half-clever abstractions, in which complex circumstances resistant to direct measurement are reduced to more easily determined proxy values: average walking speed stands in for the "pace" of urban life, while the number of patent applications constitutes an index of "innovation", and so on.

Quite simply, we need to understand that creating an algorithm intended to guide the distribution of civic resources is itself a political act. And, at least for now, nowhere in the current smart-city literature is there any suggestion that either algorithms or their designers would be subject to the ordinary processes of democratic accountability.

And finally, it is difficult to believe that any such findings would ever be translated into public policy in a manner free from politics. Policy recommendations derived from computational models are only rarely applied to questions as politically sensitive as resource allocation without some intermediate tuning taking place. Inconvenient results may be suppressed, arbitrarily overridden by more heavily weighted decision factors, or simply ignored.

As matters now stand, the claim of perfect competence that is implicit in most smart-city rhetoric is incommensurate with everything we know about the way technical systems work. It also flies in the face of everything we know about how cities work. The architects of the smart city have failed to reckon with the reality of power, and the ability of elites to suppress policy directions that don't serve their interests. At best, the technocratic notion that the analysis of sensor-derived data would ever be permitted to drive municipal policy is naive. At worst, though, it ignores the lessons of history.

So, yes: the internet of things presents many new possibilities, and it would be foolish to dismiss those possibilities out of hand. But we would also be wise to approach the entire domain with scepticism, and in particular to resist the attempts of companies to gather ever more data about our lives - no matter how much ease, convenience and self-mastery we are told they are offering us.
This is an adapted extract from Radical Technologies: The Design of Everyday Life by Adam Greenfield, published this week by Verso.
* Follow the Long Read on Twitter at @gdnlongread, or sign up to the long read weekly email here.
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rise of the machines: who is the 'internet of things' good for?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The long read: Interconnected technology is now an inescapable reality - ordering our shopping, monitoring our cities and sucking up vast amounts of data along the way. The promise is that it will benefit us all - but how can it?

# data[].attributes.body
Kathy Scherdt
What I find interesting is that this article talks about all things internet and about how the industry is moving so fast that security is lacking and making IoT very susceptible to failure.With everything in the news about our identities being stolen daily and malware holding business hostage, you would think that these companies putting out all the technology would put security first so that they move to the head of the pack in IoT.
What I learned from doing this assignment and looking for an article to do my Padlet on is that there are a lot of BIG players in the game of IoT. You have many articles on companies and what they will offer you in increased productivity and security. But then I read this article and it brings things more to light because of what we heard everyday about security.
Enjoyed the reading I did to get to this article and I enjoyed taking my new found knowledge to work with me.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
During the past few years, the Internet of Things (IoT) has become one of the hottest movements of our time. Although many technology trends and buzzwords come and go overnight, it's clear that the IoT is here to stay. Almost half of the world's population is online, and technology is a deeply integrated part of our lives. Smart thermostats regulate our business and household temperatures, connected cameras watch over our homes and pets, online TVs and speakers respond to our every need, and intelligent devices constantly monitor our health.

According to Gartner, the number of world-wide Internet connected devices will grow to 11.4 billion by 2018. It's a phenomenal trend that will continue to spread until human and machine connectivity becomes ubiquitous and unavoidably present.

Of course, anything that develops this rapidly will bring a lot of growing pains, and the IoT is no exception. Security hazards are one of the largest concerns. The market has emerged so quickly that manufacturers have hastily created insecure products in their rush to bring goods to market. Security has received very little, if any attention. Despite this lack of security and the inherent dangers it brings, we continue to buy and deploy these smart gadgets. As Amy Webb, futurist and CEO at the Future Today Institute proclaims: "Technology can be like junk food. We'll consume it, even when we know it's bad for us."

There's little doubt that the growth of insecure IoT devices will increase fraud. We've already seen numerous attacks against point of sales terminals and ATM machines. Recently, we witnessed how self-propagating malware can infect IoT devices in mass. In October 2016, nearly 150,000 smart security cameras were infected with malware as part of the Marai attack. In that particular assault, the compromised cameras launched a denial of service attack against the internet's backbone, but the target could just as easily have been financial service organizations.

Today's cybercriminals are organized, smart, and well equipped. They have the funding and resources to infect millions of IoT gadgets with disruptive mechanisms, spyware, password snatchers, legitimate device imitators, and a host of other nasty contraptions.

The only way to effectively protect ourselves is to stay continually vigilant and stay up to date with the latest knowledge and the most advanced security and fraud prevention tools. The threats are dramatically changing, and if we want to minimize our risks of being attacked, we must be willing to change and adapt as well.
This article is published as part of the IDG Contributor Network. Want to Join?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to Gartner, the number of world-wide Internet connected devices will grow to 11.4 billion by 2018. It's a phenomenal trend that will continue to spread until human and machine connectivity becomes ubiquitous and unavoidably present. Of course, anything that develops this rapidly will bring a lot of growing pains, and the IoT is no exception.

# data[].attributes.body
Aubrey Leppek

Published on December 19, 2016, this article explains what the Internet of Things actually means. According to Andrew Meola, the writer of the article, it refers to the connection of devices (other than typical fare such as computers and smartphones) to the Internet. It's said that Cars, kitchen appliances, and even heart monitors can all be connected through the Internet of Things. As technology expands, it's expected that more things will be added to that list. The Business Insider expects there will be more than 24 billion IoT devices on Earth by 2020 which is about an average of 4 devices for every human.
This information relates to this class due to being about technology and how they're able to communicate. After reading this, I realized that many of the things in the list mentioned above are some everyday tools that I've incorporated into my life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You've likely heard the phrase "Internet of Things" - or IoT - at some point, but you might also be scratching your head figuring out what it is or what it means.

What is the Internet of Things?

The Internet of Things, commonly abbreviated as IoT, refers to the connection of devices (other than typical fare such as computers and smartphones) to the Internet. Cars, kitchen appliances, and even heart monitors can all be connected through the IoT. And as the Internet of Things grows in the next few years, more devices will join that list.

We've compiled a beginner's guide of IoT terms and questions to help you navigate the increasingly connected world.

What is an Internet of Things device?

Any stand-alone internet-connected device that can be monitored and/or controlled from a remote location is considered an IoT device. With more smaller, more powerful chips, almost all products can be an Internet of Things devices.

What is the Internet of Things ecosystem?

All the components that enable businesses, governments, and consumers to connect to their IoT devices, including remotes, dashboards, networks, gateways, analytics, data storage, and security is part of the Internet of Things ecosystem.

Other Internet of Things Terms & Definitions:

Entity: Includes businesses, governments, and consumers.

Physical layer: The hardware that makes an IoT device, including sensors and networking gear.

Network layer: Responsible for transmitting the data collected by the physical layer to different devices.

Application layer: This includes the protocols and interfaces that devices use to identify and communicate with each other.

Remotes: Enable entities that utilize IoT devicesto connect with and control them using a dashboard, such as a mobile application. They include smartphones, tablets, PCs, smartwatches, connected TVs, and nontraditional remotes.

Dashboard: Displays information about the IoT ecosystem to users and enables them to control their IoT ecosystem. It is generally housed on a remote.

Analytics: Software systems that analyze the data generated by IoT devices. The analysis can be used for a variety of scenarios, such as predictive maintenance.

Data storage: Where data from IoT devices is stored.

Networks: The internet communication layer that enables the entity to communicate with their device, and sometimes enables devices to communicate with each other.

IoT Predictions, Trends, and Market

BI Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service, expects there will be more than 24 billion IoT devices on Earth by 2020. That's approximately four devices for every human being on the planet.

And as we approach that point, $6 billion will flow into IoT solutions, including application development, device hardware, system integration, data storage, security, and connectivity. But that will be money well spent, as those investments will generate $13 trillion by 2025.

Who will reap these benefits? There are three major entities that will use IoT ecosystems: consumers, governments, and businesses. For more detail, see the Industries section below.

What are the industries affected by IoT?

While we can expect IoT to affect every industry one way or another, there are several environments within the three groups of consumers, governments, and ecosystems will benefit the greatest from the IoT. These include:

What are the major IoT Companies?

There are literally hundreds of companies linked to the Internet of Things, and the list should only expand in the coming years. Here are some of the major players that have stood out in the IoT to this point:

What are IoT Platforms?

One IoT device connects to another to transmit information using Internet transfer protocols. IoT platforms serve as the bridge between the devices' sensors and the data networks.

The following are some of the top IoT platforms on the market today:

Amazon Web Services

Microsoft Azure

ThingWorx IoT Platform

IBM's Watson

Cisco IoT Cloud Connect

Salesforce IoT Cloud

Oracle Integrated Cloud

GE Predix

IoT Security & Privacy

As devices become more connected thanks to the IoT, security and privacy have become the primary concern among consumers and businesses. But it's not slowing IoT adoption; in fact, US smart speaker adoption has grown 54% from December 2017 to February 2018, according to a 2018 comScore survey.

However as more connected devices pop up around the globe, cyber attacks are also a growing threat. Hackers could penetrate connected cars, critical infrastructure, and even people's homes. As a result, several tech companies are focusing on cyber security in order to secure the privacy and safety of all this data.

More to Learn

The Internet of Things (IoT) is growing rapidly as companies around the world connect thousands of devices every day. But behind those devices, there's a sector worth hundreds of billions of dollars supporting the IoT.

Platforms are the glue that holds the IoT together, allowing users to take full advantage of the disruptive potential of connected devices. These platforms allow the IoT to achieve its transformational potential, letting businesses manage devices, analyze data, and automate the workflow.

In a new report, Business Insider Intelligence examines the evolving IoT platform ecosystem. We size the market and identify the primary growth drivers that will power the IoT platform space in the next five years. And we profile many of the top IoT platforms, discussing key trends in the platform industry like platform consolidation.
Here are some of the key takeaways:

The IoT platforms market is set to expand rapidly in the years to come, with current leading platforms expanding and others entering the space.

We define the key categories into which IoT platforms fall: building block open platforms, closed high-end platforms, and product management platforms.

We highlight the ways platforms can help companies reach the full five stage potential of the IoT.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is the Internet of Things (IoT)? Meaning & Definition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You've likely heard the phrase "Internet of Things" - or IoT - at some point, but you might also be scratching your head figuring out what it is or what it means. The Internet of Things, commonly abbreviated as IoT, refers to the connection of devices (other than typical fare such as computers and smartphones) to the Internet.

# data[].attributes.headline
WORDPRESS AND THE INTERNET OF THINGS –WHAT IT IS AND HOW TO MAKE IT WORK

# data[].attributes.subject
WORDPRESS AND THE INTERNET OF THINGS –WHAT IT IS AND HOW TO MAKE IT WORK

# data[].attributes.body
Rhonda Schaffer

This article discusses how “Internet of things” is the next step to making everything mobile. The internet isn’t only for smart phones, tablets and computers anymore, it is being built into products. One product that they discuss is the idea of a new LED lightbulb, one that you control from your smart phone. You would have the ability to turn the light on from your phone, change the color, dim the light and even turn the lights on for a strobe effect. You can pledge $69.00 for a smart light bulb to help kick start this project.  It goes on to explain that in the future things are going to become more mobile and automated. An example they discuss is an alarm clock that interacts with your coffee pot, your alarm clock would tell your coffee part to start the brew. It expects that IoT will become a huge new industry and suggests that a typical family of four will have 50 connected devices by the year 2022. It is also expected to increase efficiency and effectiveness in every area of life and revolutionize many industries.

WordPress is already using IoT, an example would be a bell goes off whenever there’s a new comment, sale or plugin update on your site. In the future WordPress would like to create more complex scenarios using new tools such as IFTTT-If this than that. An example, is your latest WordPress post with a specific tag to Linkedin, automatically post Instagram pictures on your blog or log all blog posts in calendar or spreadsheet.

It is clear from this article that what we are learning in our text book about mobile devices is continuing to grow and develop. No idea seems to be outrageous, nothing is wrong with the light bulb now but it seems there is an opportunity for everything a little bit easier. For industries I understand the need to take tasks away from employees and give them to computers in order to stream line processes.

https://torquemag.io/2017/07/wordpress-and-the-internet-of-things/

# data[].attributes.headline
“In the Programmable World, All Our Objects Will Act as One”

# data[].attributes.subject
“In the Programmable World, All Our Objects Will Act as One”

# data[].attributes.body
Casandra Whitmore
This article takes about how all the things around us talk to each other especially in our homes and how the programmable world will reach its full potential by completing three simple steps. First getting more devices onto the network and second make them rely on one another, coordinating their actions. Finally, create a complete platform to connect and run all these object simultaneously.

Wen Jiabao puts this world changing idea nicely “Internet + Internet of Things = Wisdom of the Earth.”

The article points out that the pitfall of the “internet of things” the vulnerability brought on by malicious hackers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In our houses, cars, and factories, we're surrounded by tiny, intelligent devices that capture data about how we live and what we do. Now they are beginning to talk to one another. Soon we'll be able to choreograph them to respond to our needs, solve our problems, even save our lives.

On a 5-acre plot in Great Falls, Virginia, less than a mile's stroll through exurban scrub from the wide Potomac River, Alex Hawkinson has breathed life into a lifeless object. He has given his house, a sprawling six-bedroom Tudor, what you might describe as a nervous system: a network linking together the home's very sinews, its walls and ceilings and windows and doors. He has made these parts move, let them coalesce as a bodily whole, by giving them a way to talk among themselves. Open a telnet session in the house's digital hub and you can actually spy on his chattering stuff, hear what it says when no one's listening:

This is the language of the future: tiny, intelligent things all around us, coordinating their activities. Coffeepots that talk to alarm clocks. Thermostats that talk to motion sensors. Factory machines that talk to the power grid and to boxes of raw material. A decade after Wi-Fi put all our computers on a wireless network-and half a decade after the smartphone revolution put a series of pocket-size devices on that network-we are seeing the dawn of an era when the most mundane items in our lives can talk wirelessly among themselves, performing tasks on command, giving us data we've never had before.

Imagine a factory where every machine, every room, feeds back information to solve problems on the production line. Imagine a hotel room (like the ones at the Aria in Las Vegas) where the lights, the stereo, and the window shade are not just controlled from a central station but adjust to your preferences before you even walk in. Think of a gym where the machines know your workout as soon as you arrive, or a medical device that can point toward the closest defibrillator when you have a heart attack. Consider a hybrid car-like the new Ford Fusion-that can maximize energy efficiency by drawing down the battery as it nears a charging station.

Imagine a house with a nervous system, where the sprinklers take orders from moisture sensors.

There are few more appropriate guides to this impending future than Hawkinson, whose DC-based startup, SmartThings, has built what's arguably the most advanced hub to tie connected objects together. At his house, more than 200 objects, from the garage door to the coffeemaker to his daughter's trampoline, are all connected to his SmartThings system. His office can automatically text his wife when he leaves and tell his home A/C system to start powering up.

In this future, the intelligence once locked in our devices now flows into the universe of physical objects. Technologists have struggled to name this emerging phenomenon. Some have called it the Internet of Things or the Internet of Everything or the Industrial Internet-despite the fact that most of these devices aren't actually on the Internet directly but instead communicate through simple wireless protocols. Other observers, paying homage to the stripped-down tech embedded in so many smart devices, are calling it the Sensor Revolution.

Your coffee shop senses your approach and starts preparing your regular order.

But here's a better way to think about what we're building: It's the Programmable World. After all, what's remarkable about this future isn't the sensors, nor is it that all our sensors and objects and devices are linked together. It's the fact that once we get enough of these objects onto our networks, they're no longer one-off novelties or data sources but instead become a coherent system, a vast ensemble that can be choreographed, a body that can dance. Really, it's the opposite of an "Internet," a term that even today-in the era of the cloud and the app and the walled garden-connotes a peer-to-peer system in which each node is equally empowered. By contrast, these connected objects will act more like a swarm of drones, a distributed legion of bots, far-flung and sometimes even hidden from view but nevertheless coordinated as if they were a single giant machine.

For the Programmable World to reach its full potential, we need to pass through three stages. The first is simply the act of getting more devices onto the network-more sensors, more processors in everyday objects, more wireless hookups to extract data from the processors that already exist. The second is to make those devices rely on one another, coordinating their actions to carry out simple tasks without any human intervention. The third and final stage, once connected things become ubiquitous, is to understand them as a system to be programmed, a bona fide platform that can run software in much the same manner that a computer or smartphone can. Once we get there, that system will transform the world of everyday objects into a designable environment, a playground for coders and engineers. It will change the whole way we think about the division between the virtual and the physical. This might sound like a scary encroachment of technology, but the Programmable World could actually let us put more of our gadgets away, automating activities we normally do by hand and putting intelligence from the cloud into everything we touch.

The first stage of this transformation-the simple act of putting objects on the network-is well under way, spurred by a few different economic forces. For makers of consumer devices, one way to escape the trap of commodification is to put a device (alarm clock! refrigerator! fitness tracker!) on the network and call it "smart." No doubt that's a big reason why more than half of the gadgets displayed at this year's International Consumer Electronics Show boasted some sort of wireless hookup. But an even bigger reason is that the rise of the smartphone has supplied us with a natural way to communicate with those smart objects. Nearly 700 million new smartphones shipped last year, most of which can communicate with nearby sensors via multiple wireless languages. At the same time, the staggering scale of the smartphone market has spurred sensor manufacturers to miniaturize and innovate, driving the cost of all the wireless chipsets (both sensors and receivers) down to a pittance. This has created a built-in market for these first-stage products-formerly unnetworked items that now deliver simple information to your phone, and from there to the cloud-at a relatively minimal manufacturing cost.

Already, scores of products have emerged to take advantage of Bluetooth Smart, one low-energy radio protocol that hit the market in October 2011. They include watches, heart rate monitors, and even some new Nike shoes (which use four built-in pressure sensors to send workout data back to your phone). One project, called Asthmapolis, uses a sensor that attaches to an asthma inhaler; it maps usage to generate insights into where attacks are likely to occur. Another rising technology is NFC, short for near-field communication; Visa just announced that it plans to let Samsung smartphone users make payments to merchants wirelessly over NFC instead of swiping a card, and some billboards are using the protocol to beam content to passersby who ask for it.

In the industrial realm, there's a similar dynamic at work but with even higher stakes. Massive US companies like IBM (through its Smarter Planet initiatives), Qualcomm, and Cisco all see ubiquitous connectivity as a way to sell more products and services-particularly Big Data-style analysis-to their large corporate customers. Chinese manufacturers have much the same idea, and the Chinese government is pumping hundreds of millions of dollars every year into so-called Internet of Things-based manufacturing. (This project kicked off a few years ago when China's then premier Wen Jiabao put forward the following equation in a speech: "Internet + Internet of Things = Wisdom of the Earth.") Global analysts look at all these developments and project that by 2025 there will be 1 trillion networked devices worldwide in the consumer and industrial sectors combined.

The rise of the smartphone has given us a natural way to communicate with all of our smart objects.

Take one case in point: General Electric, which has been trying to apply the sensor revolution (what it calls the Industrial Internet) to 50 different projects across scores of businesses, from wind turbines to railroad locomotives to a pilot program with Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York that predicts, based on sensors in beds, when rooms will become available. But perhaps GE's most remarkable application of this program has been to its own manufacturing process at the Durathon battery factory, completed last year in Schenectady, New York. Its biggest manufacturing challenge is the high tech ceramics that separate the electrodes inside the battery: Tiny variations in the mixing and firing process can lead to huge swings in quality and consistency of these ceramics. So the solution, GE's team decided, was to engineer their way to consistency through data.

Step by step, they developed and refined their process using feedback from the machines. One crucial step was near the beginning, in mixing the powder that would eventually be pressed to form the ceramics. The team didn't know the optimal mixing time needed to give that powder a perfectly even consistency that wouldn't vary from batch to batch. And since the raw materials would themselves vary slightly-in density, for example, or moisture content-the mixing time would need to vary too. So, says Randy Rausch, a manager of manufacturing engineering at the plant, "we put a sensor on everything," from the outside of the factory to the inside of the room to the inside of the vat to the innards of the machines. Eventually the team realized that the powder was ideally mixed when it reached a certain viscosity. The key sensor, it turned out, was inside the mixing apparatus itself: When it needed to draw more than a certain amount of power, indicating that the powder was at just the right thickness, the process was done.

In many ways, this is the most extreme possible example of a first-stage usage. GE estimates that this single factory generates some 10,000 data points every second, and using that data has allowed GE to eliminate the high defect rates that typically plague high tech ceramics. Yet it has done it through pure data analysis, not through the actual coordination of these low-level sensors and devices. Like the consumer-hardware makers linking up their products to distinguish them from ordinary toasters and refrigerators, GE is connecting its industrial components to solve a near-term business problem. But in the process, the company and its industrial brethren are laying the groundwork for a far deeper transformation.

The second stage-the yoking together of two or more smart objects-is the trickiest, because it represents the vertiginous shift from analysis, the mere harvesting of helpful data, to real automation. This is a leap that tries our nerves: No matter how thoroughly we might use data to fine-tune our lives and businesses, it's scary to take any of those decisions out of human hands. But it's also a challenge to our imagination. In a non-programmable world, when few objects are connected, it can be tough to grasp how even pairs of things might naturally fit together. Alex Hawkinson of SmartThings likes to draw an analogy to Facebook, which has famously described the underlying data it owns as the social graph-the knowledge of who is connected to whom and how. Hawkinson wants us to think of a "physical graph" where all the objects in our lives take on similar underlying connections, based on how we might want the state of one object to depend on the state or behavior of another. But until you actually have the intelligence baked into your objects-until you have, say, a network-connected sprinkler system on one hand and an in-ground moisture sensor on the other-it can be hard to imagine the automation you might someday want, or even need, in your daily life.

Think about where you spend most of your waking hours: your office, perhaps, or your living room or car. There are all sorts of adjustments you make over the course of any given day that are reducible to simple if-then relationships. If  the sun hits your computer screen, then you lower a shade. If  someone walks in the door, then you turn down your music. If  there's too much noise outside, then you close your window. If  you have a Word document open but haven't finished writing a sentence in 10 minutes, then you brew another pot of coffee. Would you want to automate all of these relationships? Not necessarily. But you might find that automating some of them would make your life easier, more streamlined.

Your office will text your wife when you leave and tell your home A/C system to start powering up.

Perhaps the clearest two-sensor example is where one of the sensors is on us. "Presence" tags-low-energy radio IDs that sit on our keychains or belt loops and announce our location, verify our identity-are what let the SmartThings system text your wife or fire up your A/C when you leave the office. It's also the principle behind Square Wallet and a number of other nascent payment systems, including ones from PayPal and Google. (When you walk into a participating store today, Square can let the cashier know you're there; you pay simply by giving your name.) For the four-legged set, Qualcomm has created a product called Tagg, a tracking tool that monitors your pet's movements while you're gone, estimating its activity levels and alerting you if it strays too far from home.

With GPS we can reliably know our location within 100 feet, give or take, and that knowledge has transformed our lives immeasurably: turn-by-turn driving directions, local restaurant recommendations, location-based dating apps, and so on. But with presence technology, we have the potential to know our location absolutely, down to a foot or even a few inches. That means knowing not merely which bar your friend is at but which couch she's sitting on if you walk through the door. It means receiving a coupon for a grocery item on the endcap at the moment you walk by. It means walking through an art museum and having your phone interpret the paintings as you pause in front of them. This simple link-between a tag on us and a tag in the world-stands to become the culmination of the location revolution, delivering on all the promises it hasn't quite fulfilled yet.

A simple link-between a tag on us and a tag in the world-will complete the location revolution.

Dennis Crowley, CEO of Foursquare, the location-based social app, thinks of location as a giant X on Earth that grows smaller as our technology improves. "We want to get down to the point where the X is this big," he says, holding out his hands. "X marks the spot: It's pirate's treasure." Already that X is shrinking: On Google Maps, you can now navigate inside certain airports and stores, with Wi-Fi triangulation helping out your GPS. (The Wi-Fi is especially important to distinguish among levels of a multistory building, which GPS is poorly equipped to handle.) But presence tags can simplify that math, replacing it with a concrete assurance of where we are. And the treasure that digs up could be considerable. This is obviously true for retailers: According to a mobile couponing firm called Koupon Media, some 80 percent of customers who buy gas at one major convenience-store chain never walk inside the store, so presence-based coupons could make a huge impact on the bottom line. But it's also true for our everyday lives. Have you ever lost an object in your house and dreamed that you could just type a search for it, as you would for a wayward document on your hard drive? With location stickers, that seemingly impossible desire has become a reality: A startup called StickNFind Technologies already sells these quarter-sized devices for $25 apiece.

The third and final stage is to build applications on top of these connected objects. This means not just tying together the behavior of two or more objects-like the sprinkler and the moisture sensor-but creating complex interrelationships that also tie in outside data sources and analytics. Think about how much more intelligent your sprinklers could be if they responded to the weather report as well as to historical patterns of soil moisture and rainfall. Plugged into that information, your system wouldn't just know how much water is in the soil; it could predict how much there will be, based on whether it's going to rain or the sun will be baking hot that day. Think about a home medical monitoring system that didn't just feed back data from diabetic patients but adjusted the treatment regimen as the data demanded. Think about a liquor cabinet that auto-populated your shopping list based on the levels in the bottles-but also locked automatically if your stock portfolio dropped more than 3 percent.

With his 200-plus sensors and objects installed, Hawkinson is using his house as a laboratory to dream up just these sorts of elaborate interconnections. A blond, hulking, bespectacled entrepreneur in his forties, he lays out some of the basic objects on the coffee table in his airy living room. There is a motion sensor, a moisture sensor. There is the "multi sensor," whose two pieces can be mounted opposite each other on a door and its frame, registering movement and also ambient temperature. There is a power outlet that listens for commands as it sits plugged between the wall and any AC-powered device. And there is the presence tag, worn on a keychain or belt loop, which announces to the house that its bearer is home. Finally, there is the sandwich-sized device that binds them together: the SmartThings Hub.

Right now there are multiple efforts under way to standardize how connected objects talk to one another. Two different projects, led by big companies-AllJoyn, spearheaded by Qualcomm, and MQTT, pushed by Cisco and others-are trying to create something like an HTTP for smart objects, giving them a shared language to coordinate their actions. Hawkinson's strategy, by contrast, is to make his hub a universal translator, deciphering the different types of chatter over multiple wireless protocols and processing it all in the cloud. The SmartThings Hub includes Wi-Fi, Bluetooth Smart, and two mesh technologies called ZigBee and Z-Wave that allow each device to extend the network. He estimates there are already more than a thousand compatible off-the-shelf devices, but he says that if some popular new wireless chipset (or HTTP-style protocol) comes along, "we'll just throw that in too."

The true genius of SmartThings, though, isn't in the sensors or the hub but in the system that Hawkinson and his users are building on top of it. Open the SmartThings mobile app and one finds its own array of apps inside, a pleasingly designed grid of bubbles that show the status of the people and places and things on your system and the various programs that connect them. Through the SmartThings Store, users and developers can share their simple if-then apps and, in the case of more complex relationships, make money off of apps, just like in the mobile marketplaces.

It's a future where the intelligence once locked in our devices can now flow into the universe of physical objects.

For example, Hawkinson's users are already hacking smart thermostats, which draw on sensors and historical usage patterns to help save energy. Essentially these are open source competitors to Nest, the most successful connected home appliance on the market right now. Designed by former Apple engineers, Nest is a proprietary system where all the intelligence is embedded in the thermostat itself. But on the SmartThings platform, a thermostat app can pull in readings from any other device on that platform-motion sensors that might say which room you're in, presence tags that identify individual family members (with different temperature preferences)-as well as outside data sources like weather or variable power prices.

An even more natural category for apps is security. While Hawkinson is away from his house, he receives texts when any door opens, when any motion is detected. When the last person leaves the SmartThings office, it locks itself up, shuts down the lights and thermostat, and activates an alarm system complete with siren, flashing lights, and auto-notifications, all coordinated through the SmartThings system. With so much intelligence built into the structure, why would you ever pay ADT-or one of the other myriad firms that makes up that $20 billion market-just to duplicate that effort? For those rare situations when someone needs to come out to the premises, Hawkinson imagines a low-cost security service that will wed his simple sensors and notifications with an on-call platoon of off-duty cops-"an Uber for home protection," as he puts it.

This, finally, is the Programmable World, the point at which the full power of developers, entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists are brought to bear on the realm of physical objects-improving it, customizing it, and groping toward new business plans for it that we haven't dreamed of yet. Indeed, it will marshal all the forces that made the Internet so transformational and put them to work on virtually everything around us.

There are obviously some pitfalls lurking in this future of connected objects. Our fears about malicious hackers preying on our email and bank accounts via the cloud might pale in comparison to how we'll feel about those same miscreants pwning our garage doors and bathroom light fixtures. The mysterious Stuxnet and Flame exploits have raised the issue of industrial security in the era of connected devices. Vanity Fair recently detailed nightmare scenarios in which hackers could hit connected objects, from our high tech cars (university researchers have figured out how to exploit an OnStar-type system to cause havoc in a vehicle) to our utility "smart meters" (which collect patterns of energy use that can reveal a great deal about our activities at home) to even our pacemakers.

Hawkinson, for his part, sees security as a concern but hardly an existential threat. The traffic between the cloud and the SmartThings Hub is encrypted, making it very difficult for hackers to intercept, let alone to modify for malevolent ends. It might actually be the case that automation, even mediated through the cloud, will make our lives more rather than less secure. As Wired senior writer Mat Honan has documented, our recent hacking epidemic has largely exploited the human interface-the password. We're always the weak link in online security, and in the Programmable World, our objects will carry out their business without needing us to get involved at all.

A bigger concern, perhaps, is simple privacy. Just because we've finally warmed up to oversharing in the virtual world doesn't mean we'll be comfortable doing the same in the physical world, as all our interactions with objects capture more and more data about where we are and what we're doing. Certainly the gradual acceptance of smart toll tags for cars (e.g., E-ZPass) shows that such qualms can be overcome, so long as there's a demonstrated benefit and a fair assurance of security. In that regard, personalized billboards are arguably a step in the wrong direction, but wireless payments will make users happy; so too will the coffee shop that knows your order and lets you skip the line, or the rental-car seat that adjusts to your preferences before you sit in it. Just as with social networking, the privacy concerns of a sensor-connected world will be fast outweighed by the strange pleasures of residing in it.

No, the main existential threat to the Programmable World is the considerably more mundane issue of power. Every sensor still needs a power source, which in most cases right now means a battery; low-energy protocols allow those batteries to last a long time, even a few years, but eventually they'll need to be replaced. In a hyperconnected home like Hawkinson's, that will eventually mean changing scores of batteries every year, and the numbers in a large office complex on the SmartThings system would be even higher. Hawkinson hopes that within a few years we will see the commercial rollout of wireless power, which uses a technology called resonant magnetic coupling to beam power to devices as far as several meters away from a charging station. (MIT recently spun out a company called WiTricity to bring such a system to market; its founders are hopeful that even electric cars could charge up using its technology.)

The idea of animating the inanimate, of compelling the physical world to do our bidding, has been a staple of science fiction for half a century or more. Often we've imagined the resulting objects to be perverse in their lack of intelligence, like those remorselessly multiplying brooms conjured up by Mickey Mouse in Fantasia. At other times we've feared the perversity that results when our things get too smart, like HAL refusing to open those damn pod-bay doors. In reality, though, just as in our programmable computers, the "intelligence" in our programmable world will never be more or less than the intelligence we can instill into its far-flung moving parts. It's vanishingly unlikely that we'll ever have a car like KITT or a house like Tony Stark's Jarvis, chatting us up in urbane British accents about our built-in weapons systems. But someday soon we'll have a house that can warn us about a flood or keep an eye on our kids or turn off that stove when we forget-acts of genuine intelligence that will enrich our lives far more than any missile launcher ever could.

Bill Wasik (@billwasik) is a senior editor at Wired. He wrote about TEDx in issue 20.12.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In the Programmable World, All Our Objects Will Act as One

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In our houses, cars, and factories, we're surrounded by tiny, intelligent devices that capture data about how we live and what we do. Now they are beginning to talk to one another. Soon we'll be able to choreograph them to respond to our needs, solve our problems, even save our lives.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Internet of Things is Becoming More Difficult to Escape

# data[].attributes.subject
The Internet of Things is Becoming More Difficult to Escape

# data[].attributes.body
Wendy Keezer

The title got me, "Escape"? The Pew Research Center shared details from a report describing how over the next few years, trying to disconnect is going to be difficult to do.  Half of the world's population is connected, technology is a part of our everyday lives, and the IoT is going to continue to spread between now and 2026, when human and machine connectivity are unavoidably present.

It's already difficult to try and disconnect, I tried an experiment over a six month period, but as connectivity increases, it may become impossible to do. This article was a good read for me, informative. The CEO of Future Today Institute said, "Technology can be like junk food. We'll consume it, even when we know it's bad for us."

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/06/06/531747037/the-internet-of-things-is-becoming-more-difficult-to-escape?

# data[].attributes.headline
Salesforce.com Is Dreaming About The Internet of Things

# data[].attributes.subject
Salesforce.com Is Dreaming About The Internet of Things

# data[].attributes.body
Brook Andrew

This article interested me because it had to do with the dental field. It discussed using things like electrical toothbrushes that connect with your phone would also send data to your dentist.  So, your dentist could track your oral hygiene and see where you could improve or continue to do what you are doing.  This would be a great selling point for dentists and the patient.  Imagine if your dentist offered this special toothbrush at no cost with “their logo” on it if you get a good oral hygiene score and keep up with your yearly cleaning at the office.  It is amazing how IoT can be connected to dentistry.

Like every article, I have found this opened my eyes that everything we are learning thus far can be connected to all career fields.  I did not know what IoT (Internet of Things) was before this class, but I read many other articles and its connected our world in many ways. Things like autonomous cars are part of IoT, when they become part of normal life the cars would be sending signals and information to each other to avoid accidents and give us the best flow of traffic.  We are surrounded by things like this everywhere, even our phones that send and save data in the “cloud” that is IoT.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Marc Benioff

Here's how Marc Benioff envisions his future dentist visits: His WiFi-connected, GPS-enabled Philips Sonicare toothbrush gathers usage data, so that Benioff's dentist is armed with hard facts about his oral hygiene habits before he arrives. Dentist and patient examine and discuss the data together.

Here's how my last dentist office visit went: You haven't had a cavity in awhile, Chris, so the dentist is only going to see you once a year from now on. You can still come in for cleanings every six months. Here's a free toothbrush with our logo.

Internet of Things dream, meet Internet of Things reality.

Benioff laid out his dental care fantasy at the kickoff of Dreamforce, Salesforce.com's annual marketing extravaganza. The CEO's main point is an essential one: Every company needs to be thinking about the Internet of Things. The ability to connect myriad devices, appliances, machines, and other "things" to wireless networks, and for people to be almost-constantly connected to things or companies via smartphones or tablets, provides a huge new opportunity for businesses to connect with customers.

Salesforce sees that those connections also will cause problems for companies. If you can see that my toothbrush stopped working, why aren't you sending a technician, or at least instructions for me to fix it? And so Salesforce is pitching its customer data, customer service, and marketing software to manage those kinds of problems. Benioff calls this opportunity the "Internet of customers" (piling on to Cisco's "Internet of everything" and GE's "industrial Internet" lingo.)

Benioff estimates that two-thirds of companies aren't ready for the connected, mobile, and social business environment. "The problem is this: Most companies don't understand their customers," he said.

Understanding customers isn't enough, though. Benioff's sales pitch is that "behind every [connected] device there's a customer." But behind every customer there's a business model, and a lot of companies don't see how they can wring cash flow out of an Internet of Things initiative.

Take my dentist office, where they're clearly trying to spend less time on me, a low-profit customer. How would my tooth-brushing data make the office more money? Perhaps at some point such data becomes table stakes for keeping customers, or maybe it's a way to attract a premium clientele. But for now, data analysis probably looks a lot like extra cost with no added revenue to my dentist.

The Internet of Things is not a hard concept for IT leaders to grasp -- it's just a really big network. Where they need help from vendors such as Salesforce is with the ROI. GE CEO Jeff Immelt is now wrapping an ROI-focused message around its industrial Internet vision: "no unplanned downtime." Put more sensors on your GE-manufactured machine, track performance data, and fix the machine before it breaks.

Salesforce went off track at Dreamforce last year by centering it on social networking, encouraging companies to become "social enterprises." I'm not the only one who didn't get how or why a company should become a social enterprise, even if you think Facebook and Twitter are darned important. Salesforce has scrapped that message in favor of its strong "customer company" focus.

By tying the Internet of Things to customers, Salesforce has picked the right target. But companies don't need help envisioning what's possible with the Internet of Things; they need help figuring out how to make it profitable for them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Salesforce.com Is Dreaming About The Internet Of Things - InformationWeek

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Marc Benioff Here's how Marc Benioff envisions his future dentist visits: His WiFi-connected, GPS-enabled Philips Sonicare toothbrush gathers usage data, so that Benioff's dentist is armed with hard facts about his oral hygiene habits before he arrives. Dentist and patient examine and discuss the data together.

# data[].attributes.headline
A Simple Explanation Of 'The Internet Of Things'

# data[].attributes.subject
A Simple Explanation Of 'The Internet Of Things'

# data[].attributes.body
Deseree Klann

This article covers exactly what the IoT is and what it means for society. IoT means basically everything is connected and can be connected or disconnected with an on or off switch- from things as simple as a coffee maker, to things more complex such as a jet engine. Having everything connected could make life a lot easier, but there are some concerns with this. Privacy and security being major ones.

I personally was intrigued by the thought of IoT. It seems like a great idea and would create major changes in the way things are done, but the more I learned the more uneasy I began to feel about it, due to privacy reasons. This article shows me the future of technology and how we will be more connected than ever before.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The "Internet of things" (IoT) is becoming an increasingly growing topic of conversation both in the workplace and outside of it. It's a concept that not only has the potential to impact how we live but also how we work. But what exactly is the "Internet of things" and what impact is it going to have on you, if any? There are a lot of complexities around the "Internet of things" but I want to stick to the basics. Lots of technical and policy-related conversations are being had but many people are still just trying to grasp the foundation of what the heck these conversations are about.

Let's start with understanding a few things.

Broadband Internet is become more widely available, the cost of connecting is decreasing, more devices are being created with Wi-Fi capabilities and sensors built into them, technology costs are going down, and smartphone penetration is sky-rocketing. All of these things are creating a "perfect storm" for the IoT.
So What Is The Internet Of Things?
Simply put, this is the concept of basically connecting any device with an on and off switch to the Internet (and/or to each other). This includes everything from cellphones, coffee makers, washing machines, headphones, lamps, wearable devices and almost anything else you can think of. This also applies to components of machines, for example a jet engine of an airplane or the drill of an oil rig. As I mentioned, if it has an on and off switch then chances are it can be a part of the IoT. The analyst firm says that by 2020 there will be over 26 billion connected devices... That's a lot of connections (some even estimate this number to be much higher, over 100 billion). The IoT is a giant network of connected "things" (which also includes people). The relationship will be between people-people, people-things, and things-things.
How Does This Impact You?
The new rule for the future is going to be, "Anything that can be connected, will be connected." But why on earth would you want so many connected devices talking to each other? There are many examples for what this might look like or what the potential value might be. Say for example you are on your way to a meeting; your car could have access to your calendar and already know the best route to take. If the traffic is heavy your car might send a text to the other party notifying them that you will be late. What if your alarm clock wakes up you at 6 a.m. and then notifies your coffee maker to start brewing coffee for you? What if your office equipment knew when it was running low on supplies and automatically re-ordered more? What if the wearable device you used in the workplace could tell you when and where you were most active and productive and shared that information with other devices that you used while working?

On a broader scale, the IoT can be applied to things like transportation networks: "smart cities" which can help us reduce waste and improve efficiency for things such as energy use; this helping us understand and improve how we work and live. Take a look at the visual below to see what something like that can look like.

The reality is that the IoT allows for virtually endless opportunities and connections to take place, many of which we can't even think of or fully understand the impact of today. It's not hard to see how and why the IoT is such a hot topic today; it certainly opens the door to a lot of opportunities but also to many challenges. Security is a big issue that is oftentimes brought up. With billions of devices being connected together, what can people do to make sure that their information stays secure? Will someone be able to hack into your toaster and thereby get access to your entire network? The IoT also opens up companies all over the world to more security threats. Then we have the issue of privacy and data sharing. This is a hot-button topic even today, so one can only imagine how the conversation and concerns will escalate when we are talking about many billions of devices being connected. Another issue that many companies specifically are going to be faced with is around the massive amounts of data that all of these devices are going to produce. Companies need to figure out a way to store, track, analyze and make sense of the vast amounts of data that will be generated.

So what now?

Conversations about the IoT are (and have been for several years) taking place all over the world as we seek to understand how this will impact our lives. We are also trying to understand what the many opportunities and challenges are going to be as more and more devices start to join the IoT. For now the best thing that we can do is educate ourselves about what the IoT is and the potential impacts that can be seen on how we work and live.
Jacob Morgan is a keynote speaker, author (most recently of The Future of Work), and futurist.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A Simple Explanation Of 'The Internet Of Things'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The "Internet of things" (IoT) is becoming an increasingly growing topic of conversation both in the workplace and outside of it. It's a concept that not only has the potential to impact how we live but also how we work. But what exactly is the "Internet of things" and what impact is it going to have on you, if any?

# data[].attributes.body
Erica Noye

After reading through a couple of articles, I cam across "The Internet of Things is Here." The thing that caught my attention the most about this article was its opening sentence that said, "The Internet of Things (IoT) is a topic that engenders excitement, skepticism, and anxiety." Those three words used to describe the Internet of Things made me want to read more. It went on to explain how some are worried about their safety and privacy when it comes to IoT and how to address the TIPPSS associated with IoT (Trust, Identity, Privacy, Protection, Safety, and Security.) The article explained how connecting the digital to the physical world had endless possibilities.

I found this article fascinating. The fact that technology and sensors can be used to adjust certain things in order to correct issues blows my mind; however, I can also understand why people have concerns or feel as though their privacy and safety are being violated. I do thing that technology has come a long way and it will consider to become even more advanced which leads me to believe that our privacy will become slim to none.
http://er.educause.edu/articles/2016/6/the-internet-of-things-is-here

# data[].attributes.headline
The Internet of Things: Dr. John Barrett at TEDxCIT

# data[].attributes.subject
The Internet of Things: Dr. John Barrett at TEDxCIT

# data[].attributes.body
By Jennifer Crane

This talk by Dr. John Barrett discusses the Internet of Things. This is the resulting entity as we “…connect the physical world to the internet. The planet, and everything on it will become things on the Internet of Things…real physical things we can see and control.” He discusses how this is done, what it can do, and the effects on individuals and society.

To connect a physical thing to the internet, Dr. Barrett gives the following criteria:

1.       Assign a unique identity to the thing.

2.       Give the thing a means to communicate.

3.       Attach a sensor to gather data/information.

4.       There must be a thing to control it.

This connection to the physical thing allows us to connect with, monitor, search for, manage, control, and play with things. He predicts our smartphones will become like a Star Trek Tricorder, which will instantly give us information on the people and things immediately as we come in contact with them. Some other examples are medical monitors, knowing exactly where things and people are at a given time, city management, and electrical grids controlling when our appliances run.

The Internet of Things will also have negative effects. Eventually our privacy will be close to non-existant. There is a potential for technology to completely control us rather than the other way around. The internet will be subjected to the possibility of being used as a weapon of mass destruction.

But he believes that humans will adapt, it is already happening and it is changing our lives. As long as it still has the human wisdom component, it can be a benefit for the common good.

This video encompasses almost all that we have studied in this class. The most prominent would be big data, privacy, security, internet and mobile computing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Internet of Things: Dr. John Barrett at TEDxCIT

# data[].attributes.body
By Kira Hunter

For this assignment, I chose the article “The Internet of Things is Far Bigger than Anyone Realizes” featured in Wire magazine. This article asserts that the people are not thinking big enough when they talk about the internet of things, most of the focus has been on machine to machine communication whereas the focus should be on sensors to machine interactions. The benefit of sensor to machine interactions is that it allows us to create smart machines that can interpret data collected by sensor and change according to needs. In the article, the author uses the example of bridges and how using sensors in the cement might allow for information about wear as well as information about road conditions like ice that could be transmitted to your vehicle to change your speed.

I found this article to be very interesting. The idea of having sensors that can collect data and adjust machinery for conditions in real time is amazing and I can see where it will have applications in many different areas not just with roadways. This really illuminated for me where technology is headed and how it will benefit society. Personally, one of my concerns about self-driving cars is their ability to respond to changing road conditions like snow and ice but this smart machine to machine technology would completely mitigate that fear.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When people talk about "the next big thing," they're never thinking big enough. It's not a lack of imagination; it's a lack of observation. I've maintained that the future is always within sight, and you don't need to imagine what's already there.

Case in point: The buzz surrounding the Internet of Things.

What's the buzz? The Internet of Things revolves around increased machine-to-machine communication; it's built on cloud computing and networks of data-gathering sensors; it's mobile, virtual, and instantaneous connection; and they say it's going to make everything in our lives from streetlights to seaports "smart."

But here's what I mean when I say people don't think big enough. So much of the chatter has been focused on machine-to-machine communication (M2M): devices talking to like devices. But a machine is an instrument, it's a tool, it's something that's physically doing something. When we talk about making machines "smart," we're not referring strictly to M2M. We're talking about sensors.

A sensor is not a machine. It doesn't do anything in the same sense that a machine does. It measures, it evaluates; in short, it gathers data. The Internet of Things really comes together with the connection of sensors and machines. That is to say, the real value that the Internet of Things creates is at the intersection of gathering data and leveraging it. All the information gathered by all the sensors in the world isn't worth very much if there isn't an infrastructure in place to analyze it in real time.

Cloud-based applications are the key to using leveraged data. The Internet of Things doesn't function without cloud-based applications to interpret and transmit the data coming from all these sensors. The cloud is what enables the apps to go to work for you anytime, anywhere.

Let's look at one example. In 2007, a bridge collapsed in Minnesota, killing many people, because of steel plates that were inadequate to handle the bridge's load. When we rebuild bridges, we can use smart cement: cement equipped with sensors to monitor stresses, cracks, and warpages. This is cement that alerts us to fix problems before they cause a catastrophe. And these technologies aren't limited to the bridge's structure.

If there's ice on the bridge, the same sensors in the concrete will detect it and communicate the information via the wireless internet to your car. Once your car knows there's a hazard ahead, it will instruct the driver to slow down, and if the driver doesn't, then the car will slow down for him. This is just one of the ways that sensor-to-machine and machine-to-machine communication can take place. Sensors on the bridge connect to machines in the car: we turn information into action.

You might start to see the implications here. What can you achieve when a smart car and a smart city grid start talking to each other? We're going to have traffic flow optimization, because instead of just having stoplights on fixed timers, we'll have smart stoplights that can respond to changes in traffic flow. Traffic and street conditions will be communicated to drivers, rerouting them around areas that are congested, snowed-in, or tied up in construction.

So now we have sensors monitoring and tracking all sorts of data; we have cloud-based apps translating that data into useful intelligence and transmitting it to machines on the ground, enabling mobile, real-time responses. And thus bridges become smart bridges, and cars smart cars. And soon, we have smart cities, and....

Okay. What are the advantages here? What are the savings? What industries can this be applied to?

Here's what I mean when I say people never think big enough. This isn't just about money savings. It's not about bridges, and it's not about cities. This is a huge and fundamental shift. When we start making things intelligent, it's going to be a major engine for creating new products and new services.

Of all the technology trends that are taking place right now, perhaps the biggest one is the Internet of Things; it's the one that's going to give us the most disruption as well as the most opportunity over the next five years. In my next post in this two-part series, we'll explore just how big this is going to be.
Daniel Burrus is considered one of the world's leading technology forecasters and innovation experts, and is the founder and CEO of Burrus Research. He is the author of six books including the New York Times best seller "Flash Foresight."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Internet of Things Is Far Bigger Than Anyone Realizes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When people talk about "the next big thing," they're never thinking big enough. It's not a lack of imagination; it's a lack of observation. I've maintained that the future is always within sight, and you don't need to imagine what's already there. Case in point: The buzz surrounding the Internet of Things.