4 ms·

IoT is one of the least well thought out ideas in quite some time, right up there with the "semantic web". Hopefully it dies a quick death and is resurrected i

IoT is one of the least well thought out ideas in quite some time, right up there with the "semantic web". Hopefully it dies a quick death and is resurrected in a more sensible and mature form years down the road. There are worthwhile ideas there, but running headlong into a world where everything has the same quality and security as a typical software project doesn't seem like a notch in the "advance of civilization" column to me.

simoncion 11y ago
What, specifically is poorly thought out about IoT? Is your beef with the typically abysmal quality of software written by hardware companies, or is it something larger than that?
- InclinedPlane 11y ago
  Is there any part of the "Internet of Things" that is well thought out? The idea of our lives becoming surrounded by hojillions of things that are constantly connected to the internet running software written by whomever with no standards, no testing, no regulation or certification, that doesn't seem so great to me. Even the best software written by the most capable engineers who continue to be dedicated to the projects they support is still a horribly bug-ridden mess with occasional enormous security holes. Even if all IoT software was written by, say, a division of Google, it would still be a nightmare. But it will be far, far worse because IoT software will be, and is being, written by anyone and everyone. When you buy a networked device today, how can you tell what level of security it has? What level of testing it's been subjected to? Who has signed off on the design and the code? No such thing of course, it's all at the same level as the kids down the street building stuff out of their garage for kicks. And while there's some merit to that when it comes to innovation, for production, in the modern era, it's not just naive, it's either insane or idiotic. We need more rigor, more standards, and less vulnerability surface-area when it comes to internet-connected devices. IoT is precisely the opposite of that. It's already bad enough that there are millions of zombie PCs in botnets around the globe, we don't need zombie to add toasters, garage doors, light bulbs, and what-have-you to that mess. Anyone who thinks that we can get security and quality in the IoT for free without making a concerted effort is, again, either monstrously naive, insane, or idiotic. It's 2015, that naivete is no longer defensible.
  - simoncion 11y ago
    > Even the best software written by the most capable engineers who continue to be dedicated to the projects they support is still a horribly bug-ridden mess... This is far from universally true. While I agree that the actual security of a system is currently nearly impossible for most purchasers to evaluate, and I agree that in far, far, far, too many cases proper system design and implementation appear to be the least important priority of commercial projects, there do exist well designed, secure, complex systems. > Is there any part of the "Internet of Things" that is well thought out? The part where we use this largely ubiquitous, globally accessible network to give folks the power to control and/or monitor the devices that they own from any place of their choosing? I 110% agree with you that -for an enormous slice of the consumer electronics market- security is -at best- an afterthought. However, just for a moment(!), assume that all IoT devices are secure and only exist to serve your interests, rather than the interests of a national intelligence agency or corporate overlord. In this hypothetical scenario (that's really far from what we have today) doesn't the statement in my previous paragraph highlight a thing that -at worst- provides no benefit to society and -at best- provides a large benefit?
    - pjc50 11y ago
      If we had such a great pony as described in your final paragraph, then yes it would be great. But that's not what we're anywhere near getting at the moment. And it's always worth questioning what value the "things" are providing. Home automation has been around for decades and remains a niche. Even business computerisation (other than communications and ecommerce) seems to result in surprisingly marginal productivity improvements.
      - simoncion 11y ago
        > Even business computerisation (other than communications and ecommerce) seems to result in surprisingly marginal productivity improvements. You must be joking. :) The spreadsheet is an enormous force multiplier. Email -when used for useful communication- often substantially reduces the time to close a decision making loop. You can point to telephones as a replacement for email, but telephone switches -themselves- have been computerized for many, many, many decades. > If we had such a great pony as described in your final paragraph, then yes it would be great. But that's not what we're anywhere near getting at the moment. You appear to be talking as if I don't understand that the state of system security in the consumer electronics space is dire. I... kinda covered that in the comment to which you replied. There was no need to qualify your "Yes.". :) (And yes, I do notice that you're not my original conversation partner.)

simoncion 11y ago

What, specifically is poorly thought out about IoT? Is your beef with the typically abysmal quality of software written by hardware companies, or is it something larger than that?

InclinedPlane 11y ago
Is there any part of the "Internet of Things" that is well thought out? The idea of our lives becoming surrounded by hojillions of things that are constantly connected to the internet running software written by whomever with no standards, no testing, no regulation or certification, that doesn't seem so great to me. Even the best software written by the most capable engineers who continue to be dedicated to the projects they support is still a horribly bug-ridden mess with occasional enormous security holes. Even if all IoT software was written by, say, a division of Google, it would still be a nightmare. But it will be far, far worse because IoT software will be, and is being, written by anyone and everyone. When you buy a networked device today, how can you tell what level of security it has? What level of testing it's been subjected to? Who has signed off on the design and the code? No such thing of course, it's all at the same level as the kids down the street building stuff out of their garage for kicks. And while there's some merit to that when it comes to innovation, for production, in the modern era, it's not just naive, it's either insane or idiotic. We need more rigor, more standards, and less vulnerability surface-area when it comes to internet-connected devices. IoT is precisely the opposite of that. It's already bad enough that there are millions of zombie PCs in botnets around the globe, we don't need zombie to add toasters, garage doors, light bulbs, and what-have-you to that mess. Anyone who thinks that we can get security and quality in the IoT for free without making a concerted effort is, again, either monstrously naive, insane, or idiotic. It's 2015, that naivete is no longer defensible.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > Even the best software written by the most capable engineers who continue to be dedicated to the projects they support is still a horribly bug-ridden mess... This is far from universally true. While I agree that the actual security of a system is currently nearly impossible for most purchasers to evaluate, and I agree that in far, far, far, too many cases proper system design and implementation appear to be the least important priority of commercial projects, there do exist well designed, secure, complex systems. > Is there any part of the "Internet of Things" that is well thought out? The part where we use this largely ubiquitous, globally accessible network to give folks the power to control and/or monitor the devices that they own from any place of their choosing? I 110% agree with you that -for an enormous slice of the consumer electronics market- security is -at best- an afterthought. However, just for a moment(!), assume that all IoT devices are secure and only exist to serve your interests, rather than the interests of a national intelligence agency or corporate overlord. In this hypothetical scenario (that's really far from what we have today) doesn't the statement in my previous paragraph highlight a thing that -at worst- provides no benefit to society and -at best- provides a large benefit?
  - pjc50 11y ago
    If we had such a great pony as described in your final paragraph, then yes it would be great. But that's not what we're anywhere near getting at the moment. And it's always worth questioning what value the "things" are providing. Home automation has been around for decades and remains a niche. Even business computerisation (other than communications and ecommerce) seems to result in surprisingly marginal productivity improvements.
    - simoncion 11y ago
      > Even business computerisation (other than communications and ecommerce) seems to result in surprisingly marginal productivity improvements. You must be joking. :) The spreadsheet is an enormous force multiplier. Email -when used for useful communication- often substantially reduces the time to close a decision making loop. You can point to telephones as a replacement for email, but telephone switches -themselves- have been computerized for many, many, many decades. > If we had such a great pony as described in your final paragraph, then yes it would be great. But that's not what we're anywhere near getting at the moment. You appear to be talking as if I don't understand that the state of system security in the consumer electronics space is dire. I... kinda covered that in the comment to which you replied. There was no need to qualify your "Yes.". :) (And yes, I do notice that you're not my original conversation partner.)