Brexit and the IoT: Let’s Capitalize on the Opportunity, Not Wallow in Despair

Wow: as the old Dinah Washington ditty went, “What a Difference a Day Makes.” Since last Thursday, I doubt even the most diehard IoT zealots have thought about anything but Brexit and its implications.  Now that we’ve had a little time to reflect and digest exactly how dire the possible problems are, I’d like to suggest we look at the bright side, and think the IoT could play a major role in improving everyone’s life in the future — not just the economic elites.

Wei ji: crisis combines danger and opportunity

Wei ji: crisis combines danger and opportunity

I used to be a corporate crisis manager, called in when major corporations had done amazingly stupid things and their reputations and sometimes even their survival was in question. For those occasions, I kept a battered greeting card in my briefcase with the calligraphy for wei ji, the Chinese ideogram for crisis. I’d point out that it c0mbined danger — that was obvious! — with the less-obvious one for opportunity. I still believe that, even in the global confusion and concern resulting from Brexit, and I think there’s a role for the IoT in the new world order.

Above all, this should be a wake-up call for the global economic and political elites that, going forth, change must benefit everyone, not just them.

When it comes to the IoT, that means that it can’t be yet another excuse for automating jobs out of existence, but must instead be a way of empowering workers and creating new opportunities:

  • One that occurred to me is near & dear to my heart, because I thought of a primitive version 25 years ago: creating 30″ high 4′ x 8′ garden “boxes” planted using Mel Bartholomew’s “Square Foot Gardening” methods, that would allow people worldwide to grow their own veggies in very small spaces.  Add in IoT water sensors so that the beds could be watered precisely when and in the amount needed, and people everywhere could become self-sufficient (e-mail me if you’re interested in commercializing the approach)!  It would be the cheapie’s variation on the neat, but costly, Grove Labs home ag solution.
  • smart asthma inhaler

    smart asthma inhaler

    Increasingly, global populations will be centered in cities, so the whole smart cities approach will improve everyone’s quality of living by cutting down traffic, reducing municipal operating costs, and improving public health. Even fat cats get upset when their limos are stuck in traffic, so this is a win-win.
    One of my favorite examples of the smart city approach is the asthma inhaler cum GPS that automatically alerts public health authorities when a user — most frequently, sadly, a low-come minority person — uses the inhaler, allowing them to identify dirty air “hot spots” where cleanup efforts need to be focused.

  • I’ve always been impressed about the outside-the-box mobile device apps coming out of Africa that make their lack of conventional infrastructure into an advantage. One of the coolest examples of that when it comes to the IoT is the example INEX’s Chris Rezendes told me about: how Grundfos, the world’s leading pump company, releases the data from senors on its pumps for village water supplies in Africa and some smart guys have come up with an app that allows the village women to check in advance whether the village well is working before they trudge miles to get the watch (which, BTW, I hope they’re carrying back in these way-cool appropriate technology rolling water carriers, the “Hippo”).

  • Also, the IoT could empower assembly-line workers and others if smart managers realize that they too should be among those sharing real-time IoT data: yes, a lot of IoT data can be used on a M2M basis so one machine’s status will regulate another’s, but there’s also a potential role for workers, with their years of experience and horse-sense, using that data to fine-tune processes themselves to optimize efficiency. Artificial Intelligence is great, but I still think there’s a role for enlightened humans, even if they don’t have a lot of education and prestige within the corporation.

Those are just a few ideas on how the IoT might be used to improve everyone’s lot in the coming years and undermine the current status quo that benefits only a few.  Let me know if you have ideas on how to foster this revolution and make Brexit the catalyst for positive change.

 

 

Live Blogging from the IoT Global Summit

Keynotes:
Came in on end of presentation by Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-WA, co-chair of the House IoT Caucus and an IT industry vet. Her litany of federal inaction in the face of rapidly-evolving 2015_IoT_Summittech — especially regarding privacy protections, where  the key law was enacted in 1986 — was really dispiriting, although it’s good to know there are some members of Congress who are aware of the issue and working on it.

EU Ambassador to the US, David O’Sullivan: the IoT is a “quantum leap” because of combining digital and physical world, and will have huge implications.  Europe has created single digital market. Major investments in IoT & funding research on it.  Very open research projects.  Key is breaking down barriers within the economy. They’re doing research on every aspect of IoT. Priority must be overcoming vertical silos, such as cars and health care. Must balance regulation and innovation. Security and privacy: working on a new set of protections.

Dean Brenner, SVP for Gov. Affairs, Qualcomm: everything will need some form of connectivity. Will need new connectivity paradigm. 4G LTE gives solid foundation for cellular IoT growth.  5G will be fully-deployed by 2020.

Dr. Rakesh Kushwaha, Mformation (hmmm?) Business Leader, Alcatel-Lucent: securing IoT devices. Tech & standards that are already in place to secure mobile devices can be model for I0T devices: they worked with whole range of devices. Fundamental principle of the security: securely update through device/firmware update package.   Only about 40% of IoT will be cellular-based.  Alcatel securing vehicle-mounted devices using FW/SW updates. They will launch a project called IoT Connect.

Session 2: Security for the IoT

Dean Garfield, president & CEO, Information Technology Industry Council: think of security as a design feature, not afterthought. Have to think of it in global sense (including between vertical silos). Chinese government security demands are actually counterproductive. Security can be a differentiating feature.

Joseph Lorenzo-Hall, chief technologist, Center for Democracy and Technology: “IoT Spectrum of Insanity” — such as #IoT door locks, require protections be built in. Security by design. He thinks privacy is a bigger factor than security.

Stephen Pattison, vp of Public Affairs, ARM. Hacker only has to get it right once. You have to get it right every time!  Sensors will have to be very cheap ($5 or less), which will require real creativity.  Security will drive acceptability of IoT. Security breaches will be a major risk for IoT companies.

Chris Boyer, asst. vp, Global Public Policy, AT&T: different security concerns in each vertical domain. Functional classification determines the risk (for example, some affect interruption on critical infrastructure, or life risk). Virtualize security around the end device. Industry activities: application layers, service layer, network layer, access technologies. Looking 4 acceptable risk management levels.

Rory Gray, global head of sales, Intercede: “need world of trusted digital identities.” “Identity is the new currency.”

Government procurement standards may drive privacy and security by design.

Adam Thierer: are we overestimating how much people really care about IoT security (vs. the “cool” factor??).

Afternoon Privacy Panel:

Gary Shapiro, president & CEO, CSA: he disagrees that you should HAVE to give permission to have your info shared: cites all the benefits of sharing data. Thinks we went overboard with HIPPA & privacy. Announcing agreement on guiding principles for sharing health info from #QS devices. A sense that products will be unwelcomed if they create privacy or security issues: example of an Intel engineer who has vision problems. On a personal basis, his mother had terrible time with Alzheimer’s: he’s upset he won’t have access to a Google face recognition technology.

Rob Atkinson, president, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation: “privacy fundamentalists” argue really heavy regulation is way to protect privacy.  BUT, no empirical studies underlying that. Pew survey showed few people believe their landline or credit card data will be private, YET almost everyone uses credit cards or phones: i.e., no correlation between people’s belief in privacy of various technologies and their actual use of the technology.  Overly stringent privacy regulations will reduce their availability. Much of real value of IoT data is from secondary use of the data, which would be undermined by tough regulation. Way too early to put regulatory regime into place for IoT: too early.

Maneesha Mithal, assoc. director, Division of Privacy & Identity Protection, Bureau of Consumer Protection, FTC: two fairly controversial aspects of their 2013 workshop: minimizing data collection debate — said you shouldn’t collect all sorts of data forever, BUT, perhaps collect less sensitive data if they could still derive value. Second issue was “notice and choice.” Tried a middle ground: room for notice and choice,  Discussion of regulation: middle ground on regulation: shouldn’t have specific IoT regulation, but should have general, baseline privacy and security protections. We don’t bring “gotcha cases.”  Could have program that would provide incentives for self-regulation.

Gilad Rosner, Founder, Internet of Things Privacy Forum:  “notice & choice” has been the default privacy & security approach for Internet, but it “fundamentally places the burden of privacy protection on the individual.” A presidential group said the responsibility should rest with the provider, not the user.  Hallmark of a civil society is being regulated.

Day Two:

smart health panel:

You can access my “Smart Aging” presentation on Slide Share.

Peter Ohnemus of dacadoo, a Swiss company, gave an overview of IoT and healthcare and talked briefly about his company’s Health Score, a 0-1000 score assigned to participating individuals based on their real-time scores on factors including movement, nutrition, sleep and stress.

Chantal Worzala of the American Hospital Association gave an overview of issues such as information interoperability and new wellness incentives.

Robert Jarrin, senior director of gov. affairs for Qualcomm, talked about some of the policy issues. FDA now has dedicated staff for electronic devices, and they are now not requiring regulatory compliance for some basic devices.

Smart Home panel:

Hmm. Little actual focus on smart homes in this one…

Cees Links, ceo, Green Peak Technologies: they are a chip manufacturer, “wireless plumbers.” Shipped 1M Zigbee chips. “IoT is not about things, it’s about services.” “Smart Home should be called a butler.” Confusion about IoT standards: thinks ZigBee & Bluetooth will survive, proprietary standards won’t.

Ilkka Lakaniemi, chair, European Commission’s Future Internet Public-Private Partnership Program: working on smart cities strategies, esp. ones that are scalable. Working with NIST on common standards for the demo grants in US & EU. 61 cities involved.

Tobin Richardson, president & ceo, ZigBee Alliance. ZigBee, wi-fi & Bluetooth will form basis of a stable ecosystem. Dollar chip is the goal, getting there quickly.

Paul Feenstra, sr. vp of government & external affairs, The Intelligent Transport Society of America: evolution over last 5 years from car focus to a really varied multi-modal transportation industry. Shocking how we accept the high death rate & congestion on highways. 80% of crashes could be avoided by connected cars.

Business Models for the IoT:

Ana Sancho, Libellium: they manufacture sensor networks for the IoT. Solve problems from smart cities to agriculture & water resources. More than 90 different sensors. They just see very early testing the water with IoT on part of their clients: not widescale implementation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I’ll Speak Twice at Internet of Things Global Summit Next Week

I always love the Internet of Things Global Summit in DC because it’s the only IoT conference I know of that places equal emphasis on both IoT technology and public policy, especially on issues such as security and privacy.

At this year’s conference, on the  26th and 27th, I’ll speak twice, on “Smart Aging” and on the IoT in retailing.

2015_IoT_SummitIn the past, the event was used to launch major IoT regulatory initiatives by the FTC, the only branch of the federal government that seems to really take the IoT seriously, and understand the need to protect personal privacy and security. My other fav component of last year’s summit was Camgian’s introduction of its Egburt, which combines “fog computing,” to analyze IoT data at “the edge,” and low power consumption. Camgian’s Gary Butler will be on the retail panel with me and with Rob van Kranenburg, one of the IoT’s real thought leaders.

This year’s program again combines a heady mix of IoT innovations and regulatory concerns. Some of the topics are:

  • The Internet of Things in Financial Services and the Insurance sector (panel includes my buddy Chris Rezendes of INEX).
  • Monetizing the Internet of Things and a look at what the new business models will be
  • The Connected Car
  • Connected living – at home and in the city
  • IoT as an enabler for industrial growth and competition
  • Privacy in a Connected World – a continuing balancing act

The speakers are a great cross-section of technology and policy leaders.

There’s still time to register.  Hope to see you there!

 

 

More evidence U.S. lags dangerously behind EU on IoT privacy

There’s new confirmation that the U.S. remains dangerously behind the European Union on the twin issues of Internet of Things privacy and security. As I’ve warned before, especially in the context of the continued outrage over the NSA surveillance, if these issues aren’t solved collaboratively by the private sector and government, they threaten to derail the IoT express.

In her Stanford Masters thesis, I believe Mailyn (sic) Fidler accurately summarizes the US’s stance:

“The IoT in the United States is characterized by late but strong entry of companies to the market and by recent, but minimal, interest from the federal government. Specifically, the federal government views the IoT largely as part of the ongoing privacy and security discussion in Washington, D.C. Complicating analysis of the IoT in the United States is that the “Internet of Things” is not a generally recognized term. In the U.S., the IoT is viewed as a natural evolution of American innovation rather than as a unique field.”

http://m3.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrink_80_80/p/2/000/0dc/3bd/392d2fe.jpgFidler contrasts this lack of concern by the government to the EU, which, while also

Mailyn Fidler

viewing IoT privacy in the broader context of general privacy policy, has made IoT personal privacy and security a priority — more about that in a future post about the “Butler Project” report):

“The IoT has been a political priority for the European Union. Even with the recent recession, interest and funding in IoT enterprises has not slowed, and the EU has invested 70 million Euros in at least 50 research projects since 2008. In addition to the EU’s hopes that the IoT will bring economic benefits, particularly to small businesses and public institutions, the EU’s interest in the IoT reflects its concerns about who controls emerging technologies. Indeed, EU officials have stated an ambition to build an IoT ‘that will bring about clear advantages for Europe.’

However, despite the EU’s investments, a lack of legislative clarity, slow technical progress, and pressure from international strategic interactions threaten to slow EU efforts to develop a globally competitive, European-centric IoT.

The EU considers privacy a societal priority and has a history of regulating technologies to prevent privacy risks, as its Data Protection Directive indicates. The IoT is no different. The privacy risks the IoT presents, however, are discussed in the context of ongoing data protection reform in the EU. EU officials are debating how to author broad, technology-neutral guidance while, at the same time, many officials seem convinced that technology-specific guidance will be necessary. The EU’s political prioritization of the IoT fuels attempts at lobbying for IoT-specific regulation, as the myriad, overlapping attempts at IoT guidance demonstrate. The IoT’s advancement, then, is mired in this larger debate about the future of technology policy.”

Even with this greater focus, Fidler says the EU hasn’t made as much progress as might be hoped. Only 1 of the 33 2010 Cluster of European Research Projects on IoT explicitly investigated security, and, in a study the same year of IoT standards, only 2 or 175 explicityly investigated security — and none have addressed IoT cybersecurity.

In other words, they ain’t great, but we’re worse (in fact, among US agencies, only the FTC seems to give a fig about the IoT). Pathetic.

Fidler’s report also covers China. You can bet that privacy and security aren’t high on their priority list, LOL.

The EU, while perhaps lagging behind on IoT technology, may get the last laugh on the privacy and security issues. As we’ve seen with successful suits against Microsoft and Google on other Internet issues, the EU has prevailed in the past on questions of privacy and security, and, according to Fidler, it may happen again:

“The EU, faced with the IoT approaches of the United States and China—arguably the leading centers of technological innovation—may stand behind its social parameters and emphasis on new international governance mechanisms as a way of asserting alternative power. With such laws and institutions, economic activities involving the EU and the IoT would have to conform to EU-based standards. The EU, thus, compensates for technological disadvantages in innovation through social and governance parameters. Similarly, the United States and China are seeking to maintain or create their technical edge in new cyber technologies by encouraging unique standards regimes or more aggressive development environments.”

If so, I say bully for them! Someone has to stand up for the individual in this brave new world, and it looks as if the Obama Administration isn’t taking the challenge. Shame!

Fidler concludes that the geopolitical competition among the U.S., E.U., and China may have negative effects on the IoT’s overall growth if it results in incompatible standards:

“This geopolitical competition at such an early stage of the IoT’s development could create international interoperability problems, with negative political, economic, and social consequences. How governments and societies navigate the technological and political aspects of the emergence of the IoT will determine if the IoT’s benefits will be ubiquitously available or if the Internet’s foray into the realm of things will be interrupted.”

FADE TO Youngbloods singing “Get Together”…..