The International Telecommunications Union has released a full report on what I've been calling The World of Always On, which they call The Internet of Things.
The report correctly identifies the biggest problem, user acceptance:
Concerns over privacy and data protection are widespread, particularly as sensors and smart tags can track a user’s movements, habits and preferences on a perpetual basis. Fears related to nanotechnology range from bio medical hazards to robotic control.
None of these are unreasonable fears. Addressing them requires acceptance of some very new, and important societal values:
- Privacy
- Personal control of personal data
These must be enforceable to have meaning. The technology and tools for all this have been around for years now, but the business has not gone anywhere because no country on the face of the Earth has yet accepted the fact that it must give up absolute rights to its citizens' data before people can trust the technology enough to use it.
This can be done in the U.S., through a simple contract. We need a model contract, written in laymans' language, something like the GPL which can be enforced when businesses or government violate it.
It can be done in other countries as well. Any nation with respect for private contracts, or which will write an enforceable endorsement of Data Contracts into its laws, can gain the benefits of Always On technology.
What benefits?
- Medical -- monitoring that keeps people healthy by letting care-givers know automatically when it's time to intervene.
- Environmental -- Automated management of heating costs, lights, and water usage.
- Personal -- Remote access to your home's appliances, and instant knowledge of where your stuff is. Real security at declining cost.
That's just the beginning, of course. If you control your personal data, if that right is guaranteed, then everything you own can become intelligent, subject to your command.
It's all waiting out there for all of us. But what I didn't acknowledge when I first began writing about this, two years ago now, was the difficulty of taking that first step.
Because it's a doozy.
Government, private enterprise, give it up for the individual. You have all to gain.
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
1. Brian Thomas on December 6, 2005 02:54 PM writes...
I'm just a bit confused, Dana. You talk about law as though it had control over bits.
The issue with users controlling their private information is not a matter of law; it's a matter of bits. Law can only specify what ought to happen, and punish those who fail to comply - and then only if they're caught, which the ubiquitous, anonymous Internet makes harder.
I mostly agree that the requisite technology is there, but standards and how to use them are still murky. When full participation requires trust of the "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" variety, a lot of experience and understanding have to be gained in order to make reliable risk calculations.
Permalink to Comment