3 ms·

Super-fast is not what we need. We need super-low-power for the next tier of internet of things battery devices - when are we getting that? :)

angersock 13y ago
Why does everybody have such a raging hard-on for the IoT these days? Especially when we know machines are routinely compromised to circumvent user freedom, why on earth would you want to help give a foothold to others in your personal space computationally?
- IgorPartola 13y ago
  Atomic power gave rise to both the nuclear bomb and the nuclear power plant. Does one justify the other? Probably not, but it sure is nice to have a source of clean energy available. I don't think that Internet of Things is that big of a practical gain, but I do see the potential there for some pretty cool applications. Imagine if every power switch in your house could be controlled from your phone. Or if you could do inventory in a warehouse by asking each crate what its contents was. Or a farm where every tomato plant can tell you if it needs more water. The privacy issues are separate from the possibilities that the technology provides. Surely we can figure out a way to build a system that's secure. Or choose not to introduce these things into our daily lives. I think just the industrial uses are very interesting here.
  - angersock 13y ago
    Atomic tech is a red herring here--note that many are still not sold on the utility of nuclear power plants (even if those people are being silly). This is a very real, well-documented problem, and one we have at least a chance of defusing. Let us draw a difference between private and industrial IoT. IIoT (your tomato example, maybe shipping, etc.) is done for practical logistical reasons, and likely as not will end up on a private network or embedded system. There is little likelihood that a government acquiring the tomato files is going to ever truly hurt the consumer, because there is an airgap of commerce between that information and the consumer--I buy the tomato from a supermarket with cash, and the trail goes cold. PIoT, though, means that I have dozens of little spies all reporting on every aspect of my life, and that eventually that data is collected and correlated in one place--as it must, if it is to be of maximum utility. And that data, once concentrated, is something worthy of scrutiny by third parties. It suddenly makes it a lot more useful to spend a little effort to break into a management system or throw the book at a service provider, because the return is so great. Moreover, even without extracting the data, the devices required afford computational capabilities, and the only truly trustworthy computer systems that exist are those that are powered off and disassembled--anything else is suspect (for the truly paranoid). I just don't think that the personal internet of things is a good idea.
    - IgorPartola 13y ago
      So we agree that the technology behind IoT (IPv6, low power connectivity, low power small form factor highly perform any computers) is valuable. We also agree that industrial usage of IoT is probably a net gain. We disagree about the PIoT. I believe it can in fact be built to be secure from spy agencies provided that the hardware and software are OSS. You believe it will be too much of a target for the spy agencies to ignore (I agree with this) and that the agencies will find a way to break any implementation (I disagree).
      - angersock 13y ago
        In essence, yep. The tech behind IoT is basic enough that it is widely valuable--especially because it is not solely for IoT; instead, IoT is a side-effect of those technologies. I would be curious how you think that open source will make PIoT any less risky or a compromise any less dangerous.
        IgorPartola 13y ago
        The compromise would be very dangerous. It's something to design against. Using vetted OSS software, running atop open hardware, and being able to verify that neither has been tempered with is the way to do it. If I decide to run an IoT based on some very basic microcontrollers + bluetooth adapters + a Cubieboard, running OSS software I verified myself, behind a firewall I set up myself, I'd give it a decent amount of trust (all of the above are examples and of course can be swapped for parts that we can give more trust).
noselasd 13y ago
That's what IEEE 802.15 is for.
manacit 13y ago
These are divergent goals - we can have super low energy tech like 802.15.4/ZigBee[1] as well as higher power, super fast wireless tech like 802.11ac. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.15.4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.15.4

angersock 13y ago

Why does everybody have such a raging hard-on for the IoT these days? Especially when we know machines are routinely compromised to circumvent user freedom, why on earth would you want to help give a foothold to others in your personal space computationally?

IgorPartola 13y ago
Atomic power gave rise to both the nuclear bomb and the nuclear power plant. Does one justify the other? Probably not, but it sure is nice to have a source of clean energy available. I don't think that Internet of Things is that big of a practical gain, but I do see the potential there for some pretty cool applications. Imagine if every power switch in your house could be controlled from your phone. Or if you could do inventory in a warehouse by asking each crate what its contents was. Or a farm where every tomato plant can tell you if it needs more water. The privacy issues are separate from the possibilities that the technology provides. Surely we can figure out a way to build a system that's secure. Or choose not to introduce these things into our daily lives. I think just the industrial uses are very interesting here.
- angersock 13y ago
  Atomic tech is a red herring here--note that many are still not sold on the utility of nuclear power plants (even if those people are being silly). This is a very real, well-documented problem, and one we have at least a chance of defusing. Let us draw a difference between private and industrial IoT. IIoT (your tomato example, maybe shipping, etc.) is done for practical logistical reasons, and likely as not will end up on a private network or embedded system. There is little likelihood that a government acquiring the tomato files is going to ever truly hurt the consumer, because there is an airgap of commerce between that information and the consumer--I buy the tomato from a supermarket with cash, and the trail goes cold. PIoT, though, means that I have dozens of little spies all reporting on every aspect of my life, and that eventually that data is collected and correlated in one place--as it must, if it is to be of maximum utility. And that data, once concentrated, is something worthy of scrutiny by third parties. It suddenly makes it a lot more useful to spend a little effort to break into a management system or throw the book at a service provider, because the return is so great. Moreover, even without extracting the data, the devices required afford computational capabilities, and the only truly trustworthy computer systems that exist are those that are powered off and disassembled--anything else is suspect (for the truly paranoid). I just don't think that the personal internet of things is a good idea.
  - IgorPartola 13y ago
    So we agree that the technology behind IoT (IPv6, low power connectivity, low power small form factor highly perform any computers) is valuable. We also agree that industrial usage of IoT is probably a net gain. We disagree about the PIoT. I believe it can in fact be built to be secure from spy agencies provided that the hardware and software are OSS. You believe it will be too much of a target for the spy agencies to ignore (I agree with this) and that the agencies will find a way to break any implementation (I disagree).
    - angersock 13y ago
      In essence, yep. The tech behind IoT is basic enough that it is widely valuable--especially because it is not solely for IoT; instead, IoT is a side-effect of those technologies. I would be curious how you think that open source will make PIoT any less risky or a compromise any less dangerous.
      - IgorPartola 13y ago
        The compromise would be very dangerous. It's something to design against. Using vetted OSS software, running atop open hardware, and being able to verify that neither has been tempered with is the way to do it. If I decide to run an IoT based on some very basic microcontrollers + bluetooth adapters + a Cubieboard, running OSS software I verified myself, behind a firewall I set up myself, I'd give it a decent amount of trust (all of the above are examples and of course can be swapped for parts that we can give more trust).

noselasd 13y ago

That's what IEEE 802.15 is for.

manacit 13y ago

These are divergent goals - we can have super low energy tech like 802.15.4/ZigBee[1] as well as higher power, super fast wireless tech like 802.11ac. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.15.4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.15.4