12

Internet of Things (IoT)

Jeffrey S. Wilkinson, Ph.D. & Isaac D. Pletcher, M.F.A.*

*Wilkinson is Chair and Professor of the Department of Communication, University of Toledo; Pletcher is Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Communication, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio

Introduction

The Internet of things (IoT) refers to the developing connection of objects and devices through computer-based networks. According to Cisco, there were around 500 million networked objects in 2003, compared to 6 billion people worldwide. IoT was officially “born” around 2008-2009 when the ratio of objects-to-people became equal (Evans, 2011). Gartner predicts that by 2020, 25 billion connected items from refrigerators to jet engines will be operating together on a daily basis, while Intel boldly predicts there could be as many as 200 billion networked objects by then (Intel, 2016).

Eventually there will be trillions of trackable objects—thousands for each individual—to help him or her navigate through each day. To get to there, however, we have to address interoperability. Today there is “no coherent set of business or technical models for IoT. Standards remain nascent and most IoT projects will entail custom elements (Gartner, 2016).

Therefore, blue sky predictions of the Internet of Things continue to meld science fiction with science fact. We must anticipate a time when family medical records, home appliances, media and entertainment devices, transportation habits, purchasing, and conversations are all tracked, linked, mined, and archived. There are far reaching implications to this future, and there are just as many unknowns. The boundless benefits are balanced with predictions of equally dire consequences.

This chapter offers an overview to help you understand the potential and future of the Internet of Things. The benefits and dangers this connectivity brings may be the defining technology issue of the 21st century.

Background

Since the beginning of commerce, companies have dreamed of being the end-all, be-all provider of everything a consumer would want. Manufacturers and service providers of homes, cars, appliances, groceries, leisure, banking, utilities and whatever else can be provided for a price are all competing to play a part. The myriad companies moving to provide IoT products and services include familiar giants as well as unknown newcomers.

The Internet of Things concept emerged long before today’s global computer networks. The terms associated with machine-to-machine communication and ubiquitous computing emerged throughout the 20^th century. As early as 1932, Jay B. Nash (1932) anticipated smart machine-slaves in Spectatoritis:

These mechanical slaves jump to our aid. As we step into a room, at the touch of a button a dozen light our way. Another slave sits twenty-four hours a day at our thermostat, regulating the heat of our home. Another sits night and day at our automatic refrigerator. They start our car; run our motors; shine our shoes, and curl our hair. They practically eliminate time and space by their very fleetness. (p.265).

According to Press (2014), the thinking behind IoT evolved throughout the 20^th century, starting with ideas like 2-way wrist radios in the 1940s comic strip Dick Tracy, wearable computers (1955), head mounted displays (1960) and ARPANET (1969), followed by RFID (1973), and the Universal Product Code (1974). As all these technologies matured and converged, new applications were conceived which begat even newer advances.

IoT in all its configurations essentially involves smart objects, machine-to-machine communication, RF technologies, and a central hub of information. The first step in having so many objects connected to the Internet is to have a unique identifier for each object, specifically a unique IP (Internet Protocol) address. One enabling factor for the Internet of Things is the shift from IPv4 addresses (32-bit numbering system) to IPv6 (128-bit) (see Chapter 21). Where IPv4 only provided around 4.3 billion unique addresses, IPv6 can accommodate many times what’s needed, a staggering total of over 340 undecillion addresses (340 billion billion billion billion …), enabling every device on the Internet to have a unique IP address.

With plenty of addresses to allocate, the next decision is whether the object is going to be “active” or “passive.” A passive connection uses RFID tags (radio frequency identification) tags—essentially “smart” chips that contain a small amount of information identifying the object. Since each object has a unique IP address, each object is uniquely identifiable. The RFID tag in the chip allows an object to even gather, store, and transmit certain types of information.

An “active” connection is more robust, using embedded sensors and computing power to allow an object to gather and process information from its own environment and/or through the Internet. In addition to having a unique address, active devices have the capability to initiate the sending and receiving of information.

Add them all together and we have the Internet of Everything and the ability to monitor anything that can be tagged—food, clothing, shelter, streets. The most common application in use today is also the so-called ‘killer app’ for RFID: inventory management, where every product is identified and tracked using a unique ID number. Future applications are only limited by our imagination (and concerns about privacy, to be discussed at the end of the chapter).

The Technology

IoT developer/compiler Postscapes identified necessary technology components for IoT as those that handle: communication, the “backbone,” (this is the RFID and IP considerations), hardware, protocols, software, cloud platforms, and machine learning. Various types of network configurations include PAN (personal area network), LAN (local area network), MAN (metropolitan area network), and WAN (wide area network). Different standards and security systems are needed for each network type.

Another development for IoT is a special set of operating systems designed specifically for IoT devices. An example is Microkernel OS architecture. According to developer QNX, this “microkernel” has complete memory protection for applications as well as OS components, including device drivers and core system files (QNX). As with most operating systems, there are competing developers writing code to allow these operating systems to operate everything from cars to clothes to construction machines.

Besides software improvements, IoT has specialized hardware needs as well. To accommodate the mobility of IoT devices, wireless SoC (system on chip) solutions are necessary. These “self-contained, RF-certified modules” carry any number of protocols with built in security on the chip. Any device with this type of chip can create a super-localized network with its own security features that can also communicate with other networks through RF technology.

The protocols required to allow these IoT technologies to communicate are also being developed. Examples include Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP), which is intended to enable the simplest electronics to work in the IoT; Message Queue Telemetry Transport (MQTT), a machine-to-machine (M2M) protocol for large industrial communication applications; and Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP). XMPP has existed in different guises since 1999 and serves as a way to handle communication needs of Smart Grids—systems that provide, manage, and deliver energy resources from municipal suppliers all the way to domestic consumers.

The systems behind the Internet of Things also include cloud services and machine learning technology, which continue to evolve as programs like Everything, Open.Sen.se, and ThingWorx promise to deliver the environment for the IoT. These advances promise to free up program developers and analytics brokers to “create M2M applications and innovative solutions at the intersection of people, systems, and intelligent connected Things (Postscapes, 2016).” Whether that can be provided as promised is yet to be seen, but the basic infrastructures seem to be coming into line.

Recent Developments

IoT is so big and moves so fast that this chapter can only provide you the briefest of snapshots. TCS (2015) identified 13 primary business sectors to watch because of their size and breadth. The 13 business areas are:

•  Automotive (see Chapter 13)

•  Banking and financial services

•  Consumer packaged goods

•  Energy

•  Health care and life sciences (see Chapter 18

•  High tech

•  Industrial manufacturing

•  Insurance

•  Media and entertainment (most of this book)

•  Retail

•  Telecommunications (Chapters 19 and 20)

•  Travel, transportation, and hospitality

•  Utilities

The same report by TCS recommended that businesses interested in capitalizing on IoT should strategically consider four core areas:

•  Premises monitoring

•  Product monitoring

•  Supply chain monitoring

•  Customer monitoring, (TCS, 2015)

Premises monitoring tracks customers’ experiences at physical locations like stores, branches, and hotels. Product monitoring tracks products or services after the customer has purchased them. Supply chain monitoring tracks the production and distribution of operations. Finally, customer monitoring tracks how customers are using and what they are saying about products or services.

Naturally, there is overlap. For example, smart homes involve several categories (connecting to the car, energy, utilities, media and entertainment, etc.). For manageability this chapter will focus on developments surrounding the smart home, domestic markets, healthcare, manufacturing, media and entertainment, energy, and transportation. But there remain several significant implications for law, government, military, education, religion and every other aspect of modern life. The boundaries continue to expand and converge.

Smart Homes

The family home is a good beginning for considering the impact of IoT technology. By the end of 2016, “there will be 6.4 billon connected things in use world-wide…and one of its prime applications is within the private home (Levy, 2016). In 2008, the Walt Disney Company treated Anaheim guests to a replacement for the 50-year-old “Monsanto Home of the Future” exhibit. In conjunction with Microsoft and HP, the Innoventions Dream Home was a 5,000 square foot technophile’s playground featuring IoT systems such as individualized thermostat settings and personalized room decorations. Kitchen appliances provide recipes and instructions to prepare meals, while the pantry and refrigerator share information about missing or out-of-date ingredients which are then posted on a virtual bulletin board. Smart homes by Samsung and Linq offer similar designs and features.

Figure 12.1

Home Control

An integrated IoT operating system will allow you to run smart house appliances with a finger and any tablet or smartphone.

Source: A. Grant

The IoT “connected home” is different, conceptually, from a “smart home.” A smart home is a closed system that can respond—after proper programming—to those who live and manage the home itself, with each device “geared for central control (Sorrel, 2014).” The connected home takes those closed systems and integrates them with service providers and vendors so they can share information in order to maximize services and revenue opportunities for a constellation of commercial, medical, and accessibility purposes.

Companies including General Electric, Sony, and Samsung have been moving forward with innovation and connectivity in the home. Over the years, as GE expanded and diversified it sought to protect its brand by developing software for its products instead of outsourcing it to other companies. GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt said “the company that makes much of the world’s heavy machinery had little access to the trove of information created by those machines (Lev-Ram, 2016).” By building out the infrastructure to control the software used by the manufacturing arm, GE distinguished itself in the merging markets of information technology/analytics and product manufacturing (which it calls “the Industrial Internet”). GE’s Chief Economist Marco Annunziata said “We’re no longer selling customers just a jet engine, a locomotive, or a wind turbine; we’re bringing data and actionable solutions along with the hardware to reduce costs and improve performance” (Power, 2015).

Besides the corporate giants jockeying across sectors, countless smaller corporations and businesses from almost every sector are working to grab market share. At one end of the scale is the “top five” IoT companies, identified by Lueth (2015) as IBM, Google, Intel, Microsoft and Cisco. On the start-up side, Chicago-based Uptake was created by Brad Keywell, the brain behind Groupon. Despite being valued at over $1 billion, this start-up may find it difficult to outdo GE at the IoT game. The industry giant is partnered with Intel, Cisco Systems, and AT&T—all companies that have a stated interest in manufacturing products that can be connected with their software and run on GE analytics. The opportunity for start-up companies may come in the specialization of IoT technology markets.

Figure 12.2

Smart Home

Source: J. Wilkinson & Technology Futures, Inc.

IoT Technology Markets

The first and most obvious collection of market industries that seek to benefit from IoT connectivity is home industries. From appliance providers to publishers and broadcasters seeking to track media consumption, the connected home is set to emerge as a market force by 2020. The ubiquitous smartphone is the device of choice. Tata (2015) reported Mobile Device App interfacing—smartphone apps—as 62.5% of the operating method employed by companies involved in IoT. The oft-quoted example is using your smartphone app to begin food preparations at home three hours before you leave the office. Or you can start your washer and dryer from the subway so you’re ready to go out later that evening.

Security systems, appliances, and thermostats are standard features of smart homes. According to Martin (2014), a sample list of specific popular smart home applications includes: automated door locks, temperature and ventilation controls, energy monitoring devices (water heaters, dishwasher, dryers, refrigerators), smart appliances (monitoring what’s inside the aforementioned dishwashers, dryers, refrigerators), entertainment systems, lighting systems, vehicle detection systems, and plant or pet monitoring systems. Added features include room-to-room one- or two-way video and audio communication as well as smartphone notifications for various types of events (alarms or emergencies), and specific actions like motion-sensitive faucets, the thermostat adjusting itself while you’re away, and a smart entertainment system that lowers the shades, dims the lights, and starts the movie on the massive HD screen with surround sound (Walsh, 2016).

Healthcare

Monitoring your health and that of your loved ones is also central to IoT. Today it is common to talk about wearable technologies (see chapter 18) like Fitbit, Garmin Vivofit, and the Apple watch. These devices enable us to monitor a variety of activities and conditions. Eventually every type of health information from blood oxygen levels to stride length to blood sugar could be monitored and compiled. And this monitoring is just the beginning.

The National Science Foundation states that by the mid 2020’s, “comfortable, wearable sensors and computers will enhance every person’s awareness of his or her health condition, environment, chemical pollutants, natural resources, and the like (Thierer, 2015).” Your smartphone or some connected device will help monitor all you do, everything from the sweat generated dancing with your date to lingering smoke in the Uber car used to get home. Who has access to your medical health history and what you are allowed to do with it has yet to be settled. Your doctor should know, of course. But what about the hospital staff? And how will your insurance be affected when the system knows you drive too fast or go to places with excessive second-hand smoke?

Media

A growing percentage of media and entertainment content is consumed on digital and mobile devices leading to greater numbers of industry-related IoT connections (eMarketer, 2016a). The growth potential of the entertainment industry appears almost limitless when it comes to IoT technology. Digital formats and wireless distribution has transformed the industry infrastructure. Newer systems enjoy bandwidth thought untenable just a few years ago. The dissemination of 4K, 8K, ultra HD, and 3D entertainment over handheld devices is just one sign of the rapid evolution of entertainment technology.

The entertainment industry actively stays a step ahead of technology trends in order to track what’s hot, what’s not, and at what cost. The industry has benefitted enormously from being able to monitor people’s program choices through handheld devices and mobile apps. Tracking audience behavior now allows advertisers to target consumers like never before. Digital signage (see Chapter 9) can bring up a personalized advertisement on a billboard as you drive past, or your favorite soft drink can appear as product placement in the next YouTube video you call up on your tablet.

Environment/Energy Management

IoT technology is also changing the way we approach and manage the environment around us. Governments have been monitoring air and water quality, and elaborate systems to monitor power consumption have long been in effect. IoT can bring that control to the individual level as well. The sensors in faucets in homes and hospitals can immediately assess what goes in your drinking glass. Perhaps sensors built into smartphones can give them “tri-corder”-like capabilities to detect quality, purity, or any other attribute of things we encounter our lives.

Several cities currently monitor pollutants in the air. Since 2014, cities like Paris and Barcelona have experimented with sensors on public structures (streetlights, trash bins, etc.) to monitor air quality. Smart streetlights in cities like Amsterdam have directly led to energy savings. According to LaMonica (2014), “connected sensors can aid in measuring emissions from factories, detect forest fires, or aid in agriculture.”

Many utility companies now use smart meter technology to better measure usage. Not only do these devices eliminate the need for a human meter reader to go to every location once a month, customers can monitor their own electricity and gas usage. Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) customers in California can see almost real time energy usage with their smart meter (See Your Power, 2016).

The biggest obstacle to implementing IoT technology in many of these systems is cost. Upgrading metropolitan systems is expensive. But over time the technology will diffuse and the reach will expand. Companies like IBM and GE are positioned to offer IoT technologies concurrently with more eco-friendly municipal systems. These companies are able to not only gather data on a massive scale, but also establish working relationships that pave the way for their analytics to be fully integrated into the environmental solutions.

Manufacturing

Perhaps the most obvious application of IoT technology is in manufacturing. As more industrial sectors leverage IoT tech into their products, the expectation of compliance takes precedence. In the automotive sector alone, “the increased consumption and creation of digital content within the vehicle will drive the need for more sophisticated infotainment systems, creating opportunities for application processors, graphics accelerators, displays and human-machine interface technologies (Gartner 2016).” In other words, as more manufactured products come online with the technology, they may have to be integrated in as-yet unanticipated ways. And consumer goods are just one sector witnessing increased need for more advanced technology.

One of the first companies to invest in tech startup Uptake was Caterpillar. Known mostly for its earth movers, Caterpillar was mostly absent from the domestic home market. As GE moved to be the IoT analytics broker for everyday commercial items and consumer goods, Uptake saw a gap in the market. Uptake moved into related industries like construction, aviation, mining, and transportation which led to support from Caterpillar. The analytics that companies like Uptake show for manufacturing industries is functionally distinct from those for household appliances. But what is common is the need for monitoring and real-time data.

The data collected by the IoT software embedded into Caterpillar machinery assesses multiple concerns at once. Not only can an operator see if the machine is in danger of overheating, but can also have constant awareness of environmental factors like hardness of the ground or safety issues like the chance of hitting an underground line. Monitoring can even help with transporting the machine, making sure the truck or train it’s on knows the most efficient routes to deliver it to the next jobsite. Uptake will essentially be the out-of-house software development partner for companies like Caterpillar who want to turn their machines into devices empowered with the IoT but don’t have the expertise to do it themselves (Columbus, 2016).

Transportation

Another area to watch is transportation and infrastructure industries. According to Tata Consultancy Services (2015), the only industry that outspends manufacturing to develop IoT technologies is transportation. Fully 60% of revenue dollars were invested in IoT technologies and upgrades related to transportation in 2015. Transportation networks apply to everything from the family car to large people-moving systems, and municipalities regularly run complex analytical models to find the safest and most efficient ways to get the most people around large metropolitan areas at any given time.

Every automobile manufacturer is experimenting with smart cars (see chapter 13). For example, Tesla CEO Elon Musk admitted “We really designed the Model S to be a very sophisticated computer on wheels.” (Tata, 2015). The cars essentially function as integrated computer systems with display panels like iPod screens and employing software and firmware upgrades as downloadable, executable files.

The projections by Tata researchers suggest that even the most conservative auto companies will spend more than $100 million per year on IoT technology by 2018. This expenditure for systems to monitor product, supply chain, and customers is important since the average consumer spends over 46 minutes each day in a car (Hall, 2015).

The more connected the family auto is to the IoT, the more data it will be possible to extract by simply tracking the car movements. As the car computer systems must be more and more advanced to account for this new interconnectedness, so too will entire transportation networks have to be readjusted to share that burden. According to Gartner (2016), “20% of cars in 2018 will be able to diagnose and communicate their location, things around them, and their mechanical condition.”

As self-driving cars are integrated into the IoT, the ability of those cars to communicate with nearby trains, buses, buildings, and even people will become ubiquitous, leading to the emergence of the IoT integrated transportation network. Several companies are in competition to provide the analytics for those networks.

Current Status

According to Samsung Vice President Rory O’Neil, we should stop referring to the “Internet of Things” because in his mind, it’s still simply all about the Internet. The “of things” add-on is simply jargon that confuses people. His main concern is interoperability because “with so many companies wanting to get in on the action, it’s inevitable that there will be different ecosystems” (Langley, 2016). All the diverse industries, devices and gadgets must talk to each other so they can work together. For example, a smart home that can’t understand a new refrigerator because it’s from a competing system or won’t interface with your smartphone because it’s an Android would create chaos.

The range of products is too great to look at prices for IoT. According to IHS Automotive for example, self-driving technology will add between $7,000 and $10,000 to a car’s sticker price in 2025. That may drop to $5,000 by 2030 and $3,000 in 2035 (Tannert, 2014). Basic network hubs to control applications in the smart home can be as cheap as $199 but quickly ramp up depending on a host of factors and systems.

Factors to Watch

As the Internet of Things develops into an undeniable fact of life, the massive interconnected systematic sharing of digital information raises concerns if not outright fear. The two biggest controversies around IoT technology have to do with the inversely-related concepts of personal privacy and public security.

There is no overriding standard for the myriad systems that will create the Internet of Things. The analytics that drive the inventions are usually proprietary to their respective corporations, and Americans have a long history of being suspicious when there is only one choice.

Society seems to like having dualities like iOS and Android; Democrat and Republican; Coke and Pepsi. But interoperability is a foundation for IoT to become reality and realize its promises. All the IoT devices and objects need to seamlessly interface in order for it to work, but it remains to be seen whether one of the corporate giants can take the lead setting the infrastructure in place, then let go of ownership or control. Can IoT become open source like parts of the Internet? Given the issues of security and privacy in an uncertain world, it seems doubtful.

In 2014, tech giant Google announced an integrative network protocol called Thread. Thread was intended to create standards for the technologies that were being built as part of IoT. The problem was Intel, LG, HTC, Cisco, Microsoft, Qualcomm, and GE were also trying to create network protocol standards. Neagle (2014) said “The complexity of these standardization efforts has evoked comparisons to the VHS and Betamax competition in the 1980s.”

Like the VCR battles before, two main collectives have arisen seeking to set IoT standards. The AllSeen Alliance is a group started at Qualcomm that includes LG, Sharp, Panasonic, HTC, Sony, Electrolux, Cisco, and Microsoft. Their system, called AllJoyn, would ensure any product that passes interoperability and connectivity tests could carry the AllJoyn label. Field tests of product integration have taken place in the U.S. and Asia-Pacific markets.

Their main competitor in the standards game is the Open Interconnect Consortium (OIC), a group that includes Intel, Samsung, and GE. In February 2016, Microsoft, Qualcomm, and Electrolux also joined the OIC and it was rebranded as the Open Connectivity Foundation (OCF). In joining both standards groups, Microsoft Executive Vice President Terry Myerson said “Windows 10 devices will natively interoperate with the new OCF standard, making it easy for Windows to discover, communicate, and orchestrate multiple IoT devices in the home, in business, and beyond. The OCF standards will also be fully compatible with the 200 million Windows 10 devices that are “designed for AllSeen” today (Lev-Ram, 2015).

Therefore, to accomplish the mammoth task of standardizing the Internet of Things, multiple “multi-vendor consortia” are being born, with some vendors joining both. So all the different protocols required to run the interconnected devices in one home or one car can be set up as various arms of the same corporate deliverables.

To complicate matters, two of the largest tech companies have yet to join either the AllSeen Alliance or the OCF. According to Lawson (2015) “Apple’s HomeKit system, and the Wave platform developed by Nest, now part of Google’s Alphabet universe, may also give those standards a run for their money.” It appears the technology fights between Microsoft, Apple, and Google are continuing with the same criticisms, and unfortunately, are still nowhere near being resolved.

The second factor to watch is the inversely-related concern about privacy versus security. In January of 2016, an eMarketer survey of global executives reported the two main issues hindering IoT technology growth in their sectors are security and interoperability. Security was the overwhelming top choice, with 64% of those surveyed saying it was the top factor hindering IoT development (eMarketer., 2016b). Given world events, this is no surprise. On any given day consumers are warned about the dangers of losing their possessions, information, and identity. All our devices and computer-based systems are part of relatively unsecured systems. This has led to the rise of a security industry devoted to providing peace of mind (for a price) to consumers who buy, use, and rely on technology.

There is a distinction between privacy and security. In general terms, tech privacy is maintained by tech security. The fact that one’s bank account information or social security number is recorded as part of Amazon’s information database means that Amazon’s firewalls and methods of encryption secure the information that we all want kept private between ourselves and our vendor. But what happens when the security systems that maintain that privacy are compromised or corrupted? And how does this relate to the Internet of Things?

The technology that will make up the Internet of Things is going to create an ever-growing treasure trove of information that must be kept, stored, and secured. If your smartphone has information from your FitBit, car, house, office, and bank, what happens if you lose that phone or it gets taken from you? It is the very interconnectedness of the IoT that creates the terrifying potential that much more than one’s social security and credit card numbers will be at risk. It may be entire biometric identifications, house/office accessibility, and bank/investment networks.

Even as IoT is in its formative stage we have seen disturbing lapses in security. In 2009, Shodan was launched. This search engine specializes in collecting search results from systems that are IoT compatible. In late 2015, it could be used to search and watch unsecured webcams, creating privacy concerns. “The feed includes images of marijuana plantations, back rooms of banks, children, kitchens, living rooms, garages, front gardens, back gardens, ski slopes, swimming pools, colleges and schools, laboratories, and cash register cameras in retail stores…practically everything you can think of” (Porup, 2016).

Even more disturbing may be that this is possible because of the gap between an ignorant consumer public and a manufacturing industry focused on profit. Security and safety are sometimes omitted. Security researcher Scott Erven warned “when we get into systems that affect public safety and human life—medical devices, the automotive space, critical infra-structure—the consequences of failure are higher than something as shocking as a Shodan webcam peering into the baby’s crib” (Porup).

In November of 2014, Sony Pictures Entertainment was hacked by contractors working for the North Korean government. The discovery was made after a mountain of company information was released on the Internet. Private emails, personal and company finances, executive documents, and even medical records were posted for all to see. The result was millions in lost contracts, ruined deals, and millions in legal and cybersecurity fees. Compared to the potential damage in the IoT, this event might be considered relatively mild.

The nightmare scenario is a hacker gaining access to all aspects of a person’s life through the hundreds or thousands of interconnected monitoring sensors. With 65 billion individual things to target, and an untold number of things that may be systematically connected to that target, the IoT seems to present unprecedented security risks. Phil Levis, the head of Stanford University’s Secure Internet of Things Project said “It’s going to be a security train wreck, much as the Web was for 10 years or so until people figured it out (Metz, 2016).” Even worse, monitoring software will be essentially ineffective because behavior variations will only show up after a device has been compromised or an attack has occurred. For Levis, the best solution is a return to the basics; Tech coders must write secure and clean code for IoT technology from the outset.

With the number of interconnected items that may be vulnerable to privacy breaches through security lapses, the IoT poses a problem that even governments are trying to solve. In the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has distributed documents to leading IoT analytics companies that outline security risks and offer plans to make their products safer. Even the U.S. Air Force has underwritten a program called the Cyber Independent Testing Laboratory to qualify the level of security employed by manufactured products and provide firmware to enhance that security. Details on the procedures and methods are scheduled to be made public in late 2016. However, even these processes are viewed by experts as stopgap solutions at best, and completely useless at worst. Security researcher Rob Graham said these methods don’t “test systems for somebody deliberately trying to attack them… [they] add a lot of bureaucracy for little value.” The bottom line on privacy and security is the chillingly simple truth propounded by Levis and Erven; “Our dependence on technology is growing faster than our ability to secure it.” (Porup, 2016).

Because of these concerns over security and privacy, anyone with the proper training should have no trouble finding a job. The Internet of Things at this stage includes the widest possible range of skills. But certainly programming, electronics, network, and anything to do with communication technology enables one to jump into any of the sectors mentioned earlier.

Conclusion

The Internet of Things will increasingly be an inevitable part of our lives. It fulfills our deepest desires for leisure and a simpler life. The promise for a world that serves us on our terms is seductive, and hundreds of companies are racing to be a part of the chorus that tells us what we want to hear. Several systems and technologies are being launched and put in places that rely upon the Internet, smartphone technology and RFID embedded devices. Some products are already available online or at a store near you.

Futurists have long predicted the wonderful potential of robotics and artificial intelligence (AI). But in an imperfect world with imperfect people, there is also the potential for unmatched destruction. We are at times our own worst enemy. For example, in March 2016, Microsoft had to remove an online AI chatbot less than 24 hours after it was launched because, through social media interactions, people had actually trained it to become racist and genocidal. (Victor, 2016). People trained the chatbot to hate in less than a day. To usher in humankind’s golden age with the Internet of Things, we may have to deal with similar, unforeseen consequences of the Internet’s free communication first.

References:

Columbus, L. (2016, February 28). Gartner’s Top 10 Internet Of Things Technologies For 2017 & 2018. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2016/02/28/gartners-top-10-internet-of-things-technologies-for-2017-2018/#68f1e1521678.

Darrow, B. (2016, February 19). Microsoft, Qualcomm Join Rebranded Internet of Things Club. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2016/02/19/microsoft-qualcomm-join-rebranded-internet-of-things-club/.

Evans, D. (April, 2011). The Internet of Things: How the next evolution of the Internet is changing everything. Cisco Internet Business Solutions Group (IBSG) White paper. Retrieved from www.cisco.com/c/dam/en…/IoT_IBSG_0411FINAL.pdf.

eMarketer. (2016a, February 4). Internet of things is changing how media and entertainment companies operate. Retrieved from http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Internet-of-Things-Changing-How-Media-Entertainment-Companies-Operate/1013545?ecid=NL1001.

eMarketer. (2016b, January 25). What’s Stopping Customers from Buying Internet of Things Devices. Retrieved from http://www.emarketer.com/Articles/Print.aspx?R=1013501.

Gartner, Newsroom. (2016, February 23). Gartner Identifies the Top 10 Internet of Things Technologies for 2017 and 2018 [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3221818.

Gartner, Newsroom. (2015, January 26). Gartner Says By 2020, a Quarter Billion Connected Vehicles Will Enable New In-Vehicle Services and Automated Driving Capabilities [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2970017.

Hall, J. (2015, April 16). New Study Reveals When, Where and How Much Motorists Drive. Retrieved from http://newsroom.aaa.com/2015/04/new-study-reveals-much-motorists-drive/.

Intel (2016). The big data bang. Intel.com. Retrieved from http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/internet-of-things/infographics/guide-to-iot.html.

LaMonica, M. (2014, May 14). What you need to know about the Internet of Things. Retrieved from https://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/05/12/greenbiz-101-what-do-you-need-know-about-internet-things.

Langley, H. (2016). Samsung: It’s time we shut up about the ‘Internet of Things’. Techradar. Retrieved from http://www.techradar.com/us/news/internet/samsung-it-s-time-we-shut-up-about-the-internet-of-things—131497

Lawson, S. (2015, October 19). Internet of Things Standards Groups Get Ready to Rumble at CES. PC World. Retrieved from http://www.pcworld.com/article/2994794/internet-of-things/iot-standards-groups-get-ready-to-rumble-at-ces.html.

Lev-Ram, M. (2015, March 5). The Race To The Internet Of Things. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2015/03/05/the-race-to-the-internet-of-things/.

Leuth, K. L. (July 15, 2015). Top 20 IoT companies: IBM takes #1 spot on back of $3bn investment | Q2/2015 update. IOT Analytics: Market insights for the Internet of Things. Retrieved from http://iot-analytics.com/top-20-iot-companies-q2-2015/.

Levy, O. (2016, February 20). The Future of Smart Home Payments. TechCrunch. Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2016/02/20/the-future-of-smart-home-payments/.

Li-Fi has just been tested in the real world, and it’s 100 times faster than Wi-Fi. (2015, November 24). Retrieved from http://www.sciencealert.com/li-fi-tested-in-the-real-world-for-the-first-time-is-100-times-faster-than-wi-fi

Martin (August 22, 2014). Business, Industry insights, Technology The Smart Home | Intelligent Home Automation. Cleverism. Retrieved from https://www.cleverism.com/smart-home-intelligent-home-automation/.

Metz, R. (2016). Finding Insecurity in the Internet of Things. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/545661/finding-insecurity-in-the-internet-of-things/#/set/id/545376/.

Nash, J. B. (1932). Spectatoritus. New York: Sears Publishing Company. Retrieved From http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015026444193;view=1up;seq=6

Neagle, C. (2014, July 21). A Guide to the Confusing Internet of Things Standards World. Retrieved from http://www.net-workworld.com/article/2456421/internet-of-things/a-guide-to-the-confusing-internet-of-things-standards-world.html

Perignon, S., ed. Internet of Things: The Complete Reimaginative Force. Rep. Vol. 6: Tata Consultancy Services, 2015. Print. Ser.2011. Retrieved from http://sites.tcs.com/internet-of-things/.

Press, G. (2014, June 18). A very short history of the Internet of Things. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/gilpress/2014/06/18/a-very-short-history-of-the-internet-of-things/#524811322df5.

Porup, J. (2016, January 23). Internet Of Things Security Is Hilariously Broken And Getting Worse. Retrieved from http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/01/how-to-search-the-internet-of-things-for-photos-of-sleeping-babies/.

Postscapes (2016). Postscapes: Tracking the Internet of Things. Postscapes.com. Retrieved from http://www.postscapes.com/internet-of-things-technologies.

Power, B. (2015, January 20). Building a Software Start-up Inside GE. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/01/building-a-software-start-up-inside-GE.

QNX (2016). Microkernel Architecture. qnx.com. Retrieved from http://www.qnx.com/developers/docs/660/topic/com.qnx.doc.neutrino.sys_arch/topic/intro_MICROKERNELARCH.html.

See Your Power (2016). PG&G, Retrieved from https://www.pge.com/en/myhome/customerservice/smartmeter/index.page?NT.MC_id=

Solomon, B. (2015, December 17). How Uptake Beat Slack, Uber To Become 2015’s Hottest Startup. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2015/12/17/how-uptake-beat-slack-uber-to-become-2015s-hottest-startup/#1a89eba35f2e.

Sorrell, Steffen. Juniper Research. “Smart Homes—It’s an Internet of Things Thing.” Smart Home Ecosystems & the Internet of Things Strategies & Forecasts 2014-2018. Hampshire, UK. 2014. Print.

Thierer, A. (2015). The Internet of Things and Wearable Technology: Addressing Privacy and Security Concerns without Derailing Innovation, 21 RICH J.L. & TECH. 6. Retrieved from http://jolt.richmond.edu/v2li2/article6.pdf.

Tannert, C. (2014). Will you ever be able to afford a self-driving car? Fastcompany. Retrieved from http://www.fastcompany.com/3025722/will-you-ever-be-able-to-afford-a-self-driving-car.

Tata Consultancy Services (2015). Internet of things: The complete reimaginative force. TCS Global Trend Study. White paper. Retrieved from http://sites.tcs.com/internet-of-things/#.

Victor, D. (2016). Microsoft Created a Twitter Bot to Learn From Users. It Quickly Became a Racist Jerk.NYTimes.com. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/technology/microsoft-created-a-twitter-bot-to-learn-from-users-it-quickly-became-a-racist-jerk.html?_r=0.

Walsh, P. (2016). High-Tech Highlights from HGTV Smart Home 2016. HGTV.com. Retrieved from http://www.hgtv.com/design/hgtv-smart-home/hgtv-smart-home-2016-behind-the-build/articles/high-tech-highlights-from-hgtv-smart-home-2016.