
Why Tech’s Best Minds Are Very Worried About the Internet of Things - relampago
http://www.wired.com/2014/05/iot-report/
======
jasontsui
One of the points they touch on is a "world where many things wont work and
nobody will know how to fix them". As I understand it, we already live in this
world. Some new cars dont come with dipsticks, and I cant look inside my
iPhone.

In the case of the car and the phone, they've added complexity (a service
layer) and I think its worked out well. The user gets to do what users should
do and businesses grow doing what they do best. When it comes to IoT, my first
thoughts always drifts towards "will this make things better, or could we muck
up what once "just worked"?

We're entering a time where we have the technology, capital and reach to
create and distribute new products and services at massive scale. Now that
ideas are less constrained by "how", and compete on the "what", do we need to
stop and ask ourselves not "Can we do it?", but "Should we do it?"

We can see this in many disrupted industries now, where new ideas, innovation
and competition have shook up traditional business models. Whats left in their
wake is not always better than what preceded it.

Ill use the social media ad driven business epoch as an example, was that a
net positive for us as people? Or did we add a layer of complexity to the web
that is now dedicated to delivering Upworthy blog posts, selling our personal
information and a constant stream of Coca Cola ads? Is that a good trade off
for pictures of Grandma, news from friends and Likes from everyone?

Do we already evaluate technology on these terms, or has our current state
driven us to cobble together any business model that works?

~~~
forgottenpass
_In the case of the car and the phone, they 've added complexity (a service
layer) and I think its worked out well. The user gets to do what users should
do and businesses grow doing what they do best._

The idea of removing user serviceable parts is tenable, but basically boils
down to saving a sliver of people from shooting themselves in the foot while
raising the total cost of ownership for everyone.

The problem with discussing this is that the technical mechanisms for making
external service mandatory rather than common is that sometimes the reasoning
isn't necessarily to enable a business model leveraging exclusive access. So
measures taken to for that reason contort themselves to pretend like they're
not that. They sneak it in alongside a chance that does bring me value but
pretend like they're intrinsically linked, even when they're not.

A dipstick replaced by a computerized sensor to the in-dash readout, or
iphones in a world where everyone who wants to fiddle around gets an android
device are relatively benign examples.

I can do some car maintenance, but if I needed a new clutch I'd take it in to
get serviced. The fact that my brother can and would replace his own clutch
keeps costs down at the shop for me. The fact I can go to a mechanic not
licensed by Ford keeps costs down. The fact I can buy off-brand parts for many
simple service jobs keeps costs down.

My co-worker bought a replacement battery for his car but couldn't install it
himself, it cost him 2 hours of service available only from the dealership to
get the car's DRM switched to the new battery. I don't consider this state of
affairs and trajectory we're on at large "working out well."

------
kator
I recently got approached to help build an IOT related business.

Some of the questions that come up for me are what happens to all these
Lithium coin cell batteries, the PCB boards and chips as all these $5 devices
die and are discarded? We already hear sad stories about where cell phones and
other electronics go to die. It seems like these devices will be cheaper and
thus the population of the devices will outstrip cell phones and other
electronics by orders of magnitude. As much as we can worry about “potential”
security and misuse issues there is a clear need for stewardship of all these
devices that will be pumped out en masse into our world. I don't think RoHS[1]
was developed with this level of scale in mind and density of devices.

Often I imagine being Geordi La Forge[2] with electromagnetic vision and how
all these devices will be cramming our lives with more electromagnetic noise.
It's not clear to me we understand the effects of this on everything from
health to un-intended side effects to other technology.

I’m not saying I won’t do something in IOT, I’m saying we should all be
thinking more about the overall effects of these types of technology as they
scale.

IMHO nothing will stop the development and deployment of IOT devices. The
smartphone is a perfect example, if people find usefulness in a technology
it’s adoption is almost guaranteed.

Perhaps we need an open dialog on IOT best practices and how each of us can
contribute to some level of thoughtfulness around these technologies as they
develop in our world.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Substa...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Substances_Directive)
[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geordi_La_Forge#Appearances](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geordi_La_Forge#Appearances)

~~~
pling
I'm not worried about the EM or the disposal costs both environmental and
commercial, but about the incredible amount of distractions and maintenance
these devices take.

There was a time back a few years ago, before the "big Internet" companies
where technology was a utility, not an activity. Becoming an activity is
dangerous and the more little distractions these devices cause, the further
the problem with escalate.

It all reminds me of the following scene from The Fifth Element:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnzzWGcdMqY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnzzWGcdMqY)
(technology cannot help him).

------
peterwwillis
Originally, IoT was an idea based on RFID: tag everything, track everything,
and somehow, good things will happen. Now instead of RFID the focus is on low-
power radio ("Chirp Networks"). But as before, there's still no discussion
about _what it 's for_ or _why we need it_.

Remember that there's a difference between "The Internet" and "The World Wide
Web". The WWW is now basically just a user interface platform for internet-
enabled applications. The Internet is all the things that make the WWW work.
So how will the IoT affect the WWW? In theory, once your toaster is Internet-
capable, you could schedule toast every morning from your iPhone (has anyone
yet patented a slot-loading bread box/toaster? probably.). Very Jetsons.

From ideas like this we get the broad-reaching declarations that "The IoT will
change everything!" But being realistic for a moment, think about all the
devices you have now, and how they work. Does it all come together magically?
Or do you still have five remote controls for all your entertainment
equipment? Do you pay rent in apartments that have 15-year-old bargain-bin
appliances? Is your watch synced to the USNO clock? Does your car even have
bluetooth?

I don't know about you, but I still live in a pre-Internet world. All my
devices and appliances are still completely independent mechanisms. Even the
devices that are Internet-capable don't communicate with one another; they're
made by independent companies for independent purposes, and nobody's even
attempting to find ways to combine them; that would probably require whole
separate R&D divisions just to create add-ons.

What would be nice is if somebody started by identifying the major problems in
our lives that actually _need_ an Internet of Things solution. But then we'd
expose the true identity of the IoT: a hammer looking for a nail. I'm pretty
sure that it's only purpose now - as an idea - is to serve as a marketing
platform to get people to spend money on things that don't do anything.

~~~
gurkendoktor
> a marketing platform to get people to spend money on things that don't do
> anything.

Worse, a marketing platform for things that don't do anything but break after
2 years. Even if the hardware lasts, there will always be unpatched security
issues.

~~~
peterwwillis
This could be the secret reason for the hype around IoT. Monthly subscriptions
for your toaster's security patches. Maybe Google will start giving toasters
away for free, and while your toast is toasting, it'll play a jingle for I
Can't Believe It's Not Butter!®

------
ChuckMcM
Pretty content free, new tech could be scary kind of thing.

By and large, the good things that come out of IoT will be larger in number to
the not so good things, by virtue of the fact that folks are generally
designing these things to do useful things. We know that because every
technology that has been developed, its intent leads to a skewed distribution
of 'good' or 'bad' uses. For example 'cars' many more 'good' uses than 'bad'
uses, 'bombs' many more 'bad' uses than 'good' uses. Some things which are
just a basic discovery like 'plastic' about an equal number of good and bad
uses.

I am completely not persuaded that "developing nations won't benefit" as a
stand in for 'bad'. There are two ways that argument fails for me, if this
stuff is going to be a huge enabler, why is the article so glum? If its going
to be a huge problem isn't not having access to it a benefit? That there will
be groups where it will be structurally impossible for them to get this
technology at the same time is probably a good thing from a future planning
perspective.

~~~
nitrogen
I've read stories of farmers in developing nations using modified cellphones
to control distant irrigation pumps via SMS, saving them significant travel
time. I think the IoT will help everyone in the areas they can benefit most,
so long as it remains possible to detach one's equipment from the
manufacturers' cloud services and retain one's privacy.

~~~
toomuchtodo
A gentleman in Greece showcased on HN his Arduino code he wrote for his father
to do just this thing, just a month or two ago:

[http://www.stavros.io/posts/arduino-powered-irrigation-
syste...](http://www.stavros.io/posts/arduino-powered-irrigation-system/)

I live in Illinois and my grandmother lives in Central Florida. I installed a
Nest thermostat, Protect sensors, as well as an IP-enabled sprinkler
controller
([http://www.roslen.com/products.html](http://www.roslen.com/products.html)).
I can manage her entire home remotely for her, so when she calls, its "click
click all done".

The "Internet Of Things" is already here.

------
ChuckFrank
I was interested in the new ICANN nominated member, Dr. Lanfranco, take on the
issue - specifically in regards to the idea that the data field created by the
IOT will be used to set risk assessment for health insurance, car insurance
and other risk services. This may turn out to be the most significant form of
social engineering that we ever embark on, and it might not necessarily be a
bad thing. Though his point is that it's a discussion that we have to have
before we enable those rights to the corporate-sphere.

"With IPv6, the explosion of the Internet of Things, and all the data
generating apps that are there for smart phones, and coming for smart cars,
smart refrigerators, etc, each and every person (and object) will begin to be
surrounded by a datasphere of archived data. That datasphere will be mined by
what I call the "The Invasion of the Data Snatchers". This is beyond
government surveillance, and the rules and regulations about (a) privacy of
one's datasphere, and (b) the terms of access (much given away via the "I
accept" button on apps) are not in place. We are not even sure how they should
be fashioned, and who (at what level) should administer them. The most
problematic area here is service providers who have to assess risk (car,
health, house insurance). We are already seeing denial of service to
individuals, based on access to one's personal datasphere (e.g. cardio wrist
band data resulting in denial of travel insurance). What happens when health
insurance engages in health surveillance via one's networked refrigerator, and
car insurance via one's vehicle? "

Relevant part of the interview here:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6vacuBHYVE](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6vacuBHYVE)

------
Eduardo3rd
It's good to see this discussion happening. Last summer I gave a talk to a non
- technical audience where I tried to capture some of the pros and cons of the
IOT in an easy to digest way. It's a PechaKucha talk so the format is a little
weird, but I've had some good conversations based on it.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpHNSzC2sm4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpHNSzC2sm4)

~~~
fredderist
Thanks for sharing!

------
coldcode
Thinking about the future is always interesting. But the future itself is
usually nothing like what people thought it would be.

------
jgalt212
I really hope I don't own a GE* Brand internet connected refrigerator when
they accidentally re-image my machine and all my food spoils.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7757708](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7757708)

*GE is a just a stand in here.

------
rmrfrmrf
A more practical "worry" is that the IPv4 address space has been exhausted and
most consumer-grade routers have hard-coded limits as to how many devices can
be simultaneously connected. Shame on me for thinking that Wired would include
any technical discussion, though.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
"Internet of Things" pretty much requires IPv6.

------
partomniscient
I am going to assume that the TL;DR is "The inmates are extending the asylum
further and faster than ever."

How close are we to the point where you can't buy a "non-internet enabled" TV?

------
andrewtbham
this is pure FUD

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt)

