That statement assumes the IoT is only the part that is exposed to consumers. It's also increasingly ICS/SCADA and other M2M technologies that as soon as they connect to the wider web are part of it. As @vdnkh points out below it is not new - just rebranding.
But the implications (especially for security) are huge. Not just because of new bugs or design flaws but also because the momentum (and media frenzy) it creates puts these old (buggy) technologies into the limelight of security researchers. E.g. stuff that was lurking in old protocols suddenly becomes relevant (want to stop a train? https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7490-the_great_train_cyber_robbe... ).
There are countless applications not just for BAC but also for logistics, power-grids, industrial automation, e-health, insurance, ... where the IoT is already actively pumping out use-cases, product ideas and actual products.
The "Internet of Things" is to M2M as "Data Science" is to Statistics. There are some differences but on the whole, it's a sexy rebranding of an unsexy industry. I'm a dev working at an industrial monitoring company making websites to our telemetry data. It's a real problem in a lucrative industry which has received a bit of a windfall with the rise of helium ISO shipping.
This is a common refrain and it sums up my attitude, too. Then I heard a discussion the other day on the radio about earthquake alert systems, like the one they have in Japan and one that I guess is in the works for here in California or the US.
I don't know if it currently works like this in Japan, but the idea is that with a reliable enough warning system, vital infrastructure could automatically respond to the few seconds warning an earthquake alert might provide.
Hearing that, an Internet of Things suddenly seemed to me a little more serious and useful. Of course that doesn't excuse poor security or sloppy design. It only makes it that much more important.
Earthquake warning does not require the Internet. It shouldn't even need the Internet. Japan's primary earthquake alerting system uses NHK Radio 1 and Radio 2, which have multiple transmitters and nationwide coverage. Alerts are also broadcast over TV and cellular networks. There are special receivers which detect the alert signal.
The high speed rail system has its own detectors, both along the rail lines and at the coast.
Pretty much this. Even though I say this as someone who built a home automation system that can do this, it is a bit niche and more of a hobby than anything thats really practical to most people.
And then when I see hypothetical discussions about smart appliances ("a fridge that can automatically order food when you're low!", "a dishwasher that can tweet when the dishes are done"), the thing that I really want are open-source hackable everyday appliances, not feature-rich ones.
E.g., I want to be able to confidently replace a busted controller in my dishwasher without necessarily having to shell out $100 to maytag for one that was only produced for a single year.
Sadly, yes, this is a wish born out of experience.
Would it make sense to have single device with microphones that could detect specific sound (i.e. beep of dishwasher) and also could distinguish it from other specific sound (i.e. beep of washing machine) and than push this as a notification via whatever means (i.e. twitter)? With few microphones it could detect direction of sound and than it could learn which appliance makes which sound.
Not that I see a need for something like this, but existence of such device could deter a bit companies from shoving such things to every appliance.
A coworker (at my dayjob) and I were discussing this recently. Supposedly it already exists in products that detect smoke alarms or handclaps. I can conceive of ways to do it in software.
Part of the problem with IoT, as others have pointed out, is lack of a compelling use case for most of the products. I don't think this is a fatal flaw unless all of the also-rans and wannabes and opportunists suck all the air out of the market before someone with a compelling application (and decent reliability!) can gain traction in a non-privacy-invasive way.
actually the idea of my dish washer (and other devises) having both a built in microphone and also the capability to connect to beyond my home network is creeping me out. what does it record when? is it really only listening to the beep or recording other audio, etc ...
Yeah, I feel it too. At the same time I have my smartphone with me all the time... Somehow it gained my trust. My idea is for 3rd party device. I would not trust appliance makers with such things.
It is also a bit like uncanny valley. Because if we will at some point build general purpose robots they will have microphones and cameras. On path to this there is a point at which you must trust having microphone and cameras from less useful devices pointed at you. If not how can we have off-the-shelf general purpose robots at our disposal? It also creeps me out... How can we achieve this? Some can say we shouldn't.
I think a lot of people are missing the point about IoT and in party I blame the term itself.
Try and turn it around.
Instead of calling it Internet of things which indicate it it's own thing, instead think of it as things connected to the internet.
Now you realize that this is already happening and it's a combination of our phones and our fridges, watering systems and load balancers all able to communicate.
So the user stories are already there we just don't think about them as that because of this claim of a separate internet. It's not. It's the same.
We know. A lot of stuff gets connected to the Internet that should not be. The architecture is wrong, too. Sure, I want my fridge to notify me on my phone about shortage of ketchup, or something. But it should not be doing it through third party's crappy server.
In a way, it's the problem of the current Internet, but exported to the hardware world. Just like NATs killed publishing, they also kill sanity in the design of connected things. I wish we could deploy IPv6 faster. Yes, I want my fridge to have its own IP - so that I won't have to proxy the communication through some random fly-by-night web startup.
A friend bought a IoT lock for his house. If someone needs in he can run some app on his phone and remotely unlock the door or give them a code to punch in that's only good for a set amount of time.
