Internet of things: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 307: Line 307:
| title=The Creepy New Wave of the Internet (Internet of things)
| title=The Creepy New Wave of the Internet (Internet of things)
}} (2014-11-02), ''[[New York Review of Books]]''
}} (2014-11-02), ''[[New York Review of Books]]''
* [http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/internet-of-things-market-573.html Internet of Things], increasing the inter-connectivity between objects and devices. It is expected that by 2019, the market projected to $947.29 Billion.

{{Ambient intelligence}}
{{Ambient intelligence}}


Revision as of 04:38, 19 November 2014

The Internet of Things

The Internet of Things (IoT) is the interconnection of uniquely identifiable embedded computing devices within the existing Internet infrastructure. Typically, IoT is expected to offer advanced connectivity of devices, systems, and services that goes beyond machine-to-machine communications (M2M) and covers a variety of protocols, domains, and applications.[1] The interconnection of these embedded devices (including smart objects), is expected to usher in automation in nearly all fields, while also enabling advanced applications like a Smart Grid.[2]

Things, in the IoT, can refer to a wide variety of devices such as heart monitoring implants, biochip transponders on farm animals, automobiles with built-in sensors, or field operation devices that assist fire-fighters in search and rescue.[3] Current market examples include smart thermostat systems and washer/dryers that utilize wifi for remote monitoring.

According to Gartner, there will be nearly 26 billion devices on the Internet of Things by 2020.[4] ABI Research estimates that more than 30 billion devices will be wirelessly connected to the Internet of Things (Internet of Everything) by 2020.[5] As per a recent survey and study done by Pew Research Internet Project, a large majority of the technology experts and engaged Internet users who responded—83 percent—agreed with the notion that the Internet/Cloud of Things, embedded and wearable computing (and the corresponding dynamic systems [6]) will have widespread and beneficial effects by 2025.[7] It is, as such, clear that the IoT will consist of a very large number of devices being connected to the Internet.[8]

Integration with the Internet implies that devices will utilize an IP address as a unique identifier. However, due to the limited address space of IPv4 (which allows for 4.3 billion unique addresses), objects in the IoT will have to use IPv6 to accommodate the extremely large address space required. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Objects in the IoT will not only be devices with sensory capabilities, but also provide actuation capabilities (e.g., bulbs or locks controlled over the Internet).[14] To a large extent, the future of the Internet of Things will not be possible without the support of IPv6; and consequently the global adoption of IPv6 in the coming years will be critical for the successful development of the IoT in the future. [10] [11] [12] [13]

The embedded computing nature of many IoT devices means that low-cost computing platforms are likely to be used.[15] In fact, to minimize the impact of such devices on the environment and energy consumption, low-power radios are likely to be used for connection to the Internet. Such low-power radios do not use WiFi, or well established Cellular Network technologies, and remain an actively developing research area.[16] However, the IoT will not be composed only of embedded devices, since higher order computing devices will be needed to perform heavier duty tasks (routing, switching, data processing, etc.).[15] Companies such as FreeWave Technologies have developed and manufactured low power wireless data radios (both embedded and standalone) for over 20 years to enable Machine-to-Machine applications for the industrial internet of things.[17]

Besides the plethora of new application areas for Internet connected automation to expand into, IoT is also expected to generate large amounts of data from diverse locations that is aggregated and very high-velocity, thereby increasing the need to better index, store and process such data.[18][19]

Diverse applications call for different deployment scenarios and requirement, which have usually been handled in a proprietary implementation. However, since the IoT is connected to the Internet, most of the devices comprising IoT services will need to operate utilizing standardized technologies. Prominent standardization bodies, such as the IETF, IPSO Alliance and ETSI, are working on developing protocols, systems, architectures and frameworks to enable the IoT.[20][21]

Early history

As of 2014 the vision of the Internet of Things has evolved due to a convergence of multiple technologies, ranging from wireless communication to the Internet and from embedded systems to micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS).[3] This means that traditional fields of embedded systems, wireless sensor networks, control systems, automation (including home and building automation), and others, all have contributions to enable the Internet of Things (IoT).

The general concept of a network of smart devices has been discussed since at least 1982, with a Coke machine at Carnegie Mellon University becoming the first internet connected appliance.[22][23] Mark Weiser's seminal 1991 paper on ubiquitous computing, "The Computer of the 21st Century", as well as academic venues such as UbiComp and PerCom produced the contemporary vision of IoT.[24][25] In 1994 Reza Raji described the concept in IEEE Spectrum as "[moving] small packets of data to a large set of nodes, so as to integrate and automate everything from home appliances to entire factories".[26] However, only in 1999 did the field start gathering momentum. Bill Joy envisioned Device to Device (D2D) communication as part of his "Six Webs" framework, presented at the World Economic Forum at Davos in 1999.[27] Kevin Ashton proposed the term "Internet of Things" in the same year.[28]

In a seminal 2009 article for the RFID Journal, "That 'Internet of Things' Thing", Ashton made the following assessment:

Today computers—and, therefore, the Internet—are almost wholly dependent on human beings for information. Nearly all of the roughly 50 petabytes (a petabyte is 1,024 terabytes) of data available on the Internet were first captured and created by human beings—by typing, pressing a record button, taking a digital picture, or scanning a bar code. Conventional diagrams of the Internet … leave out the most numerous and important routers of all - people. The problem is, people have limited time, attention and accuracy—all of which means they are not very good at capturing data about things in the real world. And that's a big deal. We're physical, and so is our environment … You can't eat bits, burn them to stay warm or put them in your gas tank. Ideas and information are important, but things matter much more. Yet today's information technology is so dependent on data originated by people that our computers know more about ideas than things. If we had computers that knew everything there was to know about things—using data they gathered without any help from us—we would be able to track and count everything, and greatly reduce waste, loss and cost. We would know when things needed replacing, repairing or recalling, and whether they were fresh or past their best. The Internet of Things has the potential to change the world, just as the Internet did. Maybe even more so.[29]

— Kevin Ashton, "That 'Internet of Things' Thing", RFID Journal, July 22, 2009

The concept of the Internet of Things first became popular[when?] through the Auto-ID Center at MIT and related market-analysis publications.[30] Radio-frequency identification (RFID) was seen[by whom?] as a prerequisite for the Internet of Things in the early days[when?]. If all objects and people in daily life were equipped with identifiers, computers could manage and inventory them.[31][32] Besides using RFID, the tagging of things may be achieved through such technologies as near field communication, barcodes, QR codes and digital watermarking.[33][34]

In its original interpretation,[when?] one of the first consequences of implementing the Internet of Things by equipping all objects in the world with minuscule identifying devices or machine-readable identifiers would be to transform daily life in several positive[weasel words] ways.[35][36] For instance, instant and ceaseless inventory control would become ubiquitous.[36] A person's ability to interact with objects could be altered remotely based on immediate or present needs, in accordance with existing end-user agreements.[31] For example, such technology could grant motion-picture publishers much more control over end-user private devices by enforcing remotely copyright restrictions and digital restrictions management, so an ability to watch a movie of a customer who bought a Blu-ray disc becomes dependent on so called "copyright holder's" decision, similarly to failed Circuit City's DIVX.

Applications

The ability to network embedded devices with limited CPU, memory and power resources means that IoT finds applications in nearly every field.[37] Such systems could be in charge of collecting information in settings ranging from natural ecosystems to buildings and factories,[14] thereby finding applications in fields of environmental sensing and urban planning.[38]
On the other hand, IoT systems could also be responsible for performing actions, not just sensing things. Intelligent shopping systems, for example, could monitor specific users' purchasing habits in a store by tracking their specific mobile phones. These users could then be provided with special offers on their favorite products, or even location of items that they need, which their fridge has automatically conveyed to the phone.[39][40] Additional examples of sensing and actuating are reflected in applications that deal with heat, electricity and energy management, as well as cruise-assisting transportation systems.[41]

However, the application of the IoT is not only restricted to these areas. Other specialized use cases of the IoT may also exist. An overview of some of the most prominent application areas is provided here.

Environmental Monitoring

Environmental monitoring applications of the IoT typically utilize sensors to assist in environmental protection by monitoring air or water quality, atmospheric or soil conditions,[42] and can even include areas like monitoring the movements of wildlife and their habitats.[43] Development of resource constrained devices connected to the Internet also means that other applications like earthquake or tsunami early-warning systems can also be used by emergency services to provide more effective aid. IoT devices in this application typically span a large geographic area and can also be mobile.[14]

Infrastructure Management

Monitoring and controlling operations of urban and rural infrastructures like bridges, railway tracks, on- and offshore- wind-farms is a key application of the IoT.[44] The IoT infrastructure can be used for monitoring any events or changes in structural conditions that can compromise safety and increase risk. It can also be utilized for scheduling repair and maintenance activities in an efficient manner, by coordinating tasks between different service providers and users of these facilities.[14] IoT devices can also be used to control critical infrastructure like bridges to provide access to ships. Usage of IoT devices for monitoring and operating infrastructure is likely to improve incident management and emergency response coordination, and quality of service, up-times and reduce costs of operation in all infrastructure related areas.[45] Even areas such as waste management stand to benefit from automation and optimization that could be brought in by the IoT.[46]

Industrial Applications

Network control and management of manufacturing equipment, asset and situation management, or manufacturing process control bring the IoT within the realm on industrial applications and smart manufacturing as well.[47] The IoT intelligent systems enable rapid manufacturing of new products, dynamic response to product demands, and real-time optimization of manufacturing production and supply chain networks, by networking machinery, sensors and control systems together.[14]

Digital control systems to automate process controls, operator tools and service information systems to optimize plant safety and security are within the purview of the IoT.[44] But it also extends itself to asset management via predictive maintenance, statistical evaluation, and measurements to maximize reliability.[48] Smart industrial management systems can also be integrated with the Smart Grid, thereby enabling real-time energy optimization. Measurements, automated controls, plant optimization, health and safety management, and other functions are provided by a large number of networked sensors.[14]

Energy Management

Integration of sensing and actuation systems, connected to the Internet, is likely to optimize energy consumption as a whole.[14] It is expected that IoT devices will be integrated into all forms of energy consuming devices (switches, power outlets, bulbs, televisions, etc.) and be able to communicate with the utility supply company in order to effectively balance power generation and supply.[49] Such devices would also offer the opportunity for users to remotely control their devices, or centrally manage them via a cloud based interface, and enable advanced functions like scheduling (e.g., remotely powering on or off heating systems, controlling ovens, changing lighting conditions etc.).[14] In fact, a few systems that allow remote control of electric outlets are already available in the market, e.g., Belkin's WeMo,[50] Ambery Remote Power Switch,[51] etc.

Besides home based energy management, the IoT is especially relevant to the Smart Grid since it provides systems to gather and act on energy and power-related information in an automated fashion with the goal to improve the efficiency, reliability, economics, and sustainability of the production and distribution of electricity.[49] Using Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) devices connected to the Internet backbone, electric utilities can not only collect data from end-user connections, but also manage other distribution automation devices like transformers and reclosers.[14]

Medical and Healthcare Systems

IoT devices can be used to enable remote health monitoring and emergency notification systems. These health monitoring devices can range from blood pressure and heart rate monitors to advanced devices capable of monitoring specialized implants, such as pacemakers or advanced hearing aids.[14] Specialized sensors can also be equipped within living spaces to monitor the health and general well-being of senior citizens, while also ensuring that proper treatment is being administered and assisting people regain lost mobility via therapy as well.[52] Other consumer devices to encourage healthy living, such as, connected scales or wearable heart monitors, are also a possibility with the IoT.[53]

Building and Home Automation

IoT devices can be used to monitor and control the mechanical, electrical and electronic systems used in various types of buildings (e.g., public and private, industrial, institutions, or residential).[14] Home automation systems, like other building automation systems, are typically used to control lighting, heating, ventilation, air conditioning, appliances, communication systems, entertainment and home security devices to improve convenience, comfort, energy efficiency, and security.[54][55]

Transport Systems

The IoT can assist in integration of communications, control, and information processing across various transportation systems. Application of the IoT extends to all aspects of transportation systems, i.e. the vehicle, the infrastructure, and the driver or user. Dynamic interaction between these components of a transport system enables inter and intra vehicular communication, smart traffic control, smart parking, electronic toll collection systems, logistic and fleet management, vehicle control, and safety and road assistance.[14]

Large Scale Deployments

There are several planned or ongoing large-scale deployments of the IoT, to enable better management of cities and systems. For example, Songdo, South Korea, the first of its kind fully equipped and wired smart city, is near completion. Nearly everything in this city is planned to be wired, connected and turned into a constant stream of data that would be monitored and analyzed by an array of computers with little, or no human intervention. [citation needed]

Another application is a currently undergoing project in Santander, Spain. For this deployment, two approaches have been adopted. This city of 180000 inhabitants, has already seen 18000 city application downloads for their smartphones. This application is connected to 10000 sensors that enable services like parking search, environmental monitoring, digital city agenda among others. City context information is utilized in this deployment so as to benefit merchants through a spark deals mechanism based on city behavior that aims at maximizing the impact of each notification.[56]

Other examples of large-scale deployments underway include the Sino-Singapore Guangzhou Knowledge City;[57] work on improving air and water quality, reducing noise pollution, and increasing transportation efficiency in San Jose, California;[58] and smart traffic management in western Singapore.[59]

Another example of a large deployment is the one completed by New York Waterways in New York City to connect all their vessels and being able to monitor them live 24/7. The network was designed and engineered by Fluidmesh Networks, a Chicago based company developing wireless networks for mission critical applications. The NYWW network is currently providing coverage on the Hudson River, East River, and Upper New York Bay. With the wireless network in place, NY Waterway is able to take control of its fleet and passengers in a way that was not previously possible. New applications can include security, energy and fleet management, digital signage, public Wi-Fi, paperless ticketing and much more.

Unique addressability of things

The original idea of the Auto-ID Center is based on RFID-tags and unique identification through the Electronic Product Code however this has evolved into objects having an IP address or URI.

An alternative view, from the world of the Semantic Web[60] focuses instead on making all things (not just those electronic, smart, or RFID-enabled) addressable by the existing naming protocols, such as URI. The objects themselves do not converse, but they may now be referred to by other agents, such as powerful centralized servers acting for their human owners.

The next generation of Internet applications using Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) would be able to communicate with devices attached to virtually all human-made objects because of the extremely large address space of the IPv6 protocol. This system would therefore be able to scale to the large numbers of objects envisaged.[61]

A combination of these ideas can be found in the current GS1/EPCglobal EPC Information Services[62] (EPCIS) specifications. This system is being used to identify objects in industries ranging from aerospace to fast moving consumer products and transportation logistics.[63]

Trends and characteristics

Technology Roadmap: Internet of Things

Intelligence

Ambient intelligence and autonomous control are not part of the original concept of the Internet of Things. Ambient intelligence and autonomous control do not necessarily require Internet structures, either. However, there is a shift in research to integrate the concepts of the Internet of Things and autonomous control,[64] with initial outcomes towards this direction considering objects as the driving force for autonomous IoT.[65][66] In the future the Internet of Things may be a non-deterministic and open network in which auto-organized or intelligent entities (Web services, SOA components), virtual objects (avatars) will be interoperable and able to act independently (pursuing their own objectives or shared ones) depending on the context, circumstances or environments.

Embedded intelligence[67] presents an "AI-oriented" perspective of Internet of Things, which can be more clearly defined as: leveraging the capacity to collect and analyze the digital traces left by people when interacting with widely deployed smart things to discover the knowledge about human life, environment interaction, as well as social connection/behavior.

Architecture

The system will likely be an example of event-driven architecture,[68] bottom-up made (based on the context of processes and operations, in real-time) and will consider any subsidiary level. Therefore, model driven and functional approaches will coexist with new ones able to treat exceptions and unusual evolution of processes (Multi-agent systems, B-ADSc, etc.).

In an Internet of Things, the meaning of an event will not necessarily be based on a deterministic or syntactic model but would instead be based on the context of the event itself: this will also be a semantic web.[69] Consequently, it will not necessarily need common standards that would not be able to address every context or use: some actors (services, components, avatars) will accordingly be self-referenced and, if ever needed, adaptive to existing common standards (predicting everything would be no more than defining a "global finality" for everything that is just not possible with any of the current top-down approaches and standardizations). Some researchers argue that sensor networks are the most essential components of the Internet of Things.[70]

Building on top of the Internet of Things, the Web of Things is an architecture for the application layer of the Internet of Things looking at the convergence of data from IoT devices into Web applications to create innovative use-cases.

Complex system

In semi-open or closed loops (i.e. value chains, whenever a global finality can be settled) it will therefore be considered and studied as a Complex system[71] due to the huge number of different links and interactions between autonomous actors, and its capacity to integrate new actors. At the overall stage (full open loop) it will likely be seen as a chaotic environment (since systems have always finality).

Size considerations

The Internet of objects would encode 50 to 100 trillion objects, and be able to follow the movement of those objects. Human beings in surveyed urban environments are each surrounded by 1000 to 5000 trackable objects.[72]

Space considerations

In an Internet of Things, the precise geographic location of a thing—and also the precise geographic dimensions of a thing—will be critical. Open Geospatial Consortium, "OGC Abstract Specification" Currently, the Internet has been primarily used to manage information processed by people. Therefore, facts about a thing, such as its location in time and space, have been less critical to track because the person processing the information can decide whether or not that information was important to the action being taken, and if so, add the missing information (or decide to not take the action). (Note that some things in the Internet of Things will be sensors, and sensor location is usually important. Mike Botts et al., "OGC Sensor Web Enablement: Overview And High Level Architecture") The GeoWeb and Digital Earth are promising applications that become possible when things can become organized and connected by location. However, challenges that remain include the constraints of variable spatial scales, the need to handle massive amounts of data, and an indexing for fast search and neighbour operations. If in the Internet of Things, things are able to take actions on their own initiative, this human-centric mediation role is eliminated, and the time-space context that we as humans take for granted must be given a central role in this information ecosystem. Just as standards play a key role in the Internet and the Web, geospatial standards will play a key role in the Internet of Things.

A Basket of Remotes

According to the CEO of Cisco, the remote control market is expected to be a $USD 19 trillion market.[73] Many IoT devices have a potential to take a piece of this market. Jean-Louis Gassée (Apple initial alumni team, and BeOS co-founder) has addressed this topic in an article on Monday Note,[74] where he predicts that the most likely problem will be what he calls the "Basket of remotes" problem, where we'll have hundreds of applications to interface with hundreds of devices that don't share protocols for speaking with one another.

There are multiple approaches to solve this problem, one of them called the "predictive interaction",[75] where cloud or fog based decision makers [clarification needed] will predict the user's next action and trigger some reaction.

For user interaction, new technology leaders are joining forces to create standards for communication between devices. While AllJoyn alliance is composed the top 20 World technology leaders, there are also big companies that promote their own protocol like CCF from Intel.

This problem is also a competitive advantage for some very technical startup companies with fast capabilities.

  • AT&T Digital Life provides one solution for the "basket of remotes" problem. This product features home-automation and digital-life experiences. It provides a mobile application to control their closed ecosystem of branded devices;
  • Nuve has developed a new technology based on sensors, a cloud-based platform and a mobile application that allows the asset management industry to better protect, control and monitor their property.[76]
  • Muzzley motd controls multiple devices with a single application[77] and has had many manufacturers use their API[78] to provide a learning ecosystem that really predicts the end-user next actions. Muzzley is known for being the first generation of platforms that has the ability to predict form learning the end-user outside World relations with "things".
  • my shortcut[79] is an approach that also includes a set of already-defined devices and allow a Siri-Like [clarification needed] interaction between the user and the end devices. The user is able to control his or her devices using voice commands;[80]
  • Realtek "IoT my things" is an application that aims to interface with a closed ecosystem of Realtek devices like sensors and light controls.[citation needed]

Manufacturers are becoming more conscious of this problem, and many companies have begun releasing their devices with open APIs. Many of these APIs are used by smaller companies looking to take advantage of quick integration.[citation needed]

Sub systems

Not all elements in an Internet of Things will necessarily run in a global space. Domotics running inside a Smart House, for example, might only run and be available via a local network.

Frameworks

Internet of Things frameworks might help support the interaction between "things" and allow for more complex structures like Distributed computing and the development of Distributed applications. Currently, some Internet of Things frameworks seem to focus on real time data logging solutions like Jasper Technologies, Inc. and Xively (formerly Cosm and before that Pachube): offering some basis to work with many "things" and have them interact. Future developments might lead to specific Software development environments to create the software to work with the hardware used in the Internet of Things. Companies such as ThingWorx,[81][82] Raco Wireless,[83][84] nPhase[85] and Carriots[86][87] and EVRYTHNG[88] are developing technology platforms to provide this type of functionality for the Internet of Things.

The XMPP standards foundation XSF is creating such a framework in a fully open standard that isn't tied to any company and not connected to any cloud services. This XMPP initiative is called Chatty Things.[89] XMPP provides a set of needed building blocks and a proven distributed solution that can scale with high security levels. The extensions are published at XMPP/extensions

The independently developed MASH IoT Platform was presented at the 2013 IEEE IoT conference in Mountain View, CA. MASH’s focus is asset management (assets=people/property/information, management=monitoring/control/configuration). Support is provided for design thru deployment with an included IDE, Android client and runtime. Based on a component modeling approach MASH includes support for user defined things and is completely data-driven.[90]

Criticism and controversies

While many technologists tout the Internet of Things as a step towards a better world, scholars and social observers have doubts about the promises of the ubiquitous computing revolution.

Privacy, autonomy and control

Peter-Paul Verbeek, a professor of philosophy of technology at the University of Twente, Netherlands, writes that technology already influences our moral decision making, which in turns affects human agency, privacy and autonomy. He cautions against viewing technology merely as a human tool and advocates instead to consider it as an active agent.[91]

Justin Brookman, of the Center for Democracy and Technology, expressed concern regarding the impact of IoT on consumer privacy, saying that "There are some people in the commercial space who say, ‘Oh, big data — well, let’s collect everything, keep it around forever, we’ll pay for somebody to think about security later.’ The question is whether we want to have some sort of policy framework in place to limit that."[92]

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) expressed concern regarding the ability of IoT to erode people's control over their own lives. The ACLU wrote that "There’s simply no way to forecast how these immense powers -- disproportionately accumulating in the hands of corporations seeking financial advantage and governments craving ever more control -- will be used. Chances are Big Data and the Internet of Things will make it harder for us to control our own lives, as we grow increasingly transparent to powerful corporations and government institutions that are becoming more opaque to us."[93]

Security

A different criticism is that the Internet of Things is being developed rapidly without appropriate consideration of the profound security challenges involved and the regulatory changes that might be necessary.[94] In particular, as the Internet of Things spreads widely, cyber attacks are likely to become an increasingly physical (rather than simply virtual) threat.[95] In a January 2014 article in Forbes, cybersecurity columnist Joseph Steinberg listed many Internet-connected appliances that can already "spy on people in their own homes" including televisions, kitchen appliances, cameras, and thermostats.[96] Computer-controlled devices in automobiles such as brakes, engine, locks, hood and truck releases, horn, heat, and dashboard have been shown to be vulnerable to attackers who have access to the onboard network. (These devices are currently not connected to external computer networks, and so are not vulnerable to Internet attacks.)[97]

The U.S. National Intelligence Council in an unclassified report maintains that it would be hard to deny "access to networks of sensors and remotely-controlled objects by enemies of the United States, criminals, and mischief makers… An open market for aggregated sensor data could serve the interests of commerce and security no less than it helps criminals and spies identify vulnerable targets. Thus, massively parallel sensor fusion may undermine social cohesion, if it proves to be fundamentally incompatible with Fourth-Amendment guarantees against unreasonable search."[98] In general, the intelligence community views Internet of Things as a rich source of data.[99]

Design

Given widespread recognition of the evolving nature of the design and management of the Internet of Things, sustainable and secure deployment of Internet of Things solutions must design for "anarchic scalability."[100] Application of the concept of anarchic scalability can be extended to physical systems (i.e. controlled real-world objects), by virtue of those systems being designed to account for uncertain management futures. This "hard anarchic scalabilty" thus provides a pathway forward to fully realize the potential of Internet of Things solutions by selectively constraining physical systems to allow for all management regimes without risking physical failure.

Brown University computer scientist Michael Littman has argued that successful execution of the Internet of Things requires consideration of the interface's usability as well as the technology itself. These interfaces need to be not only more user friendly but also better integrated: "If users need to learn different interfaces for their vacuums, their locks, their sprinklers, their lights, and their coffeemakers, it’s tough to say that their lives have been made any easier."[101]

Environmental impact

A concern regarding IoT technologies pertains to the environmental impacts of the manufacture, use, and eventual disposal of all these semiconductor-rich devices. Modern electronics are replete with a wide variety of heavy metals and rare-earth metals, as well as highly toxic synthetic chemicals. This makes them extremely difficult to properly recycle. Electronic components are often simply incinerated or dumped in regular landfills, thereby polluting soil, groundwater, surface water, and air. Such contamination also translates into chronic human-health concerns. Furthermore, the environmental cost of mining the rare-earth metals that are integral to modern electronic components continues to grow. With production of electronic equipment growing globally yet little of the metals (from end-of-life equipment) being recovered for reuse, the environmental impacts can be expected to increase.

Also, because the concept of IoT entails adding electronics to mundane devices (for example, simple light switches), and because the major driver for replacement of electronic components is often technological obsolescence rather than actual failure to function, it is reasonable to expect that items that previously were kept in service for many decades would see an accelerated replacement cycle, if they were part of the IoT. For example, a traditional house built with 30 light switches and 30 electrical outlets might stand for 50 years, with all those components still being original at the end of that period. But a modern house built with the same number of switches and outlets set up for IoT might see each switch and outlet replaced at five-year intervals, in order to keep up-to-date with technological changes. This translates into a ten-fold increase in waste requiring disposal.

While IoT devices can serve as energy-conservation equipment, it is important to keep in mind that everyday good habits can bring the same benefits[citation needed]. Practical, fundamental considerations such as these are often overlooked by marketers eager to induce consumers to purchase IoT items that may never have been needed in the first place[citation needed].

See also

References

  1. ^ J. Höller, V. Tsiatsis, C. Mulligan, S. Karnouskos, S. Avesand, D. Boyle: From Machine-to-Machine to the Internet of Things: Introduction to a New Age of Intelligence. Elsevier, 2014, ISBN 978-0-12-407684-6.
  2. ^ O. Monnier: A smarter grid with the Internet of Things. Texas Instruments, 2013.
  3. ^ a b I. Wigmore: 'Internet of Things (IoT). TechTarget, June 2014.
  4. ^ "Gartner Says the Internet of Things Installed Base Will Grow to 26 Billion Units By 2020". Gartner. 12 December 2013. Retrieved 2 January 2014.
  5. ^ More Than 30 Billion Devices Will Wirelessly Connect to the Internet of Everything in 2020, ABI Research
  6. ^ Fickas, S.; Kortuem, G.; Segall, Z. (13–14 October 1997). "Software organization for dynamic and adaptable wearable systems". International Symposium on Wearable Computers: 56–63. doi:10.1109/ISWC.1997.629920.
  7. ^ Main Report: An In-depth Look at Expert Responses|Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project
  8. ^ http://www.theconnectivist.com/2014/05/infographic-the-growth-of-the-internet-of-things/
  9. ^ Kushalnagar, N; Montenegro, G; Schumacher, C (August 2007). "IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPANs): Overview, Assumptions, Problem Statement, and Goals". IETF RFC 4919.
  10. ^ a b http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9248043/Stop_using_Internet_Protocol_Version_4_
  11. ^ a b http://www.cio.de/news/cio_worldnews/2014/2955669/index.html
  12. ^ a b http://podcasts.infoworld.com/d/networking/stop-using-internet-protocol-version-4-241722
  13. ^ a b http://www.idgnews.in/content/stop-using-internet-protocol-version-4
  14. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Ersue, M; Romascanu, D; Schoenwaelder, J; Sehgal, A (4 July 2014). "Management of Networks with Constrained Devices: Use Cases". IETF Internet Draft < draft-ietf-opsawg-coman-use-cases>.
  15. ^ a b Bormann, C; Ersue, M; Keranen, A (May 2014). "Terminology for Constrained-Node Networks". IETF RFC 7228.
  16. ^ Francis daCosta, Intel Technical Books, Rethinking the Internet of Things
  17. ^ Brittany Walters-Bearden, M2M Evolution
  18. ^ Violino, Bob. "The 'Internet of things' will mean really, really big data". InfoWorld. Retrieved 9 July 2014.
  19. ^ Hogan, Michael. "The 'The Internet of Things Database' Data Management Requirements". ScaleDB. Retrieved 15 July 2014.
  20. ^ Ishaq, Isam; Carels, David; Teklemariam, Girum; Hoebeke, Jeroen; Van den Abeele, Floris; De Poorter, Eli; Moerman, Ingrid; Demeester, Piet (25 April 2013). "IETF Standardization in the Field of the Internet of Things (IoT): A Survey". Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks. 2 (2): 235–287. doi:10.3390/jsan2020235.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  21. ^ Bandyopadhyay, Debasis; Sen, Jaydip (May 2011). "Internet of Things: Applications and Challenges in Technology and Standardization". Wireless Personal Communications. 58 (1): 49–69. doi:10.1007/s11277-011-0288-5.
  22. ^ "Internet of Things Done Wrong Stifles Innovation". InformationWeek. 7 July 2014. Retrieved 10 November 2014.
  23. ^ "The "Only" Coke Machine on the Internet". Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved 10 November 2014.
  24. ^ Weiser, Mark (1991). "The Computer for the 21st Century" (PDF). Scientific American. 265 (3): 94–104. Retrieved 5 November 2014.
  25. ^ Mattern, Friedemann; Christian Floerkemeier (2010). "From the Internet of Computers to the Internet of Things" (PDF). Informatik- Spektrum. 33 (2): 107–121. Retrieved 3 February 2014.
  26. ^ Raji, RS (June 1994). "Smart networks for control". IEEE Spectrum.
  27. ^ Jason Pontin: ETC: Bill Joy's Six Webs. In: MIT Technology Review, 29 September 2005. Retrieved 17 November 2013.
  28. ^ Ashton, Kevin (22 June 2009). "That 'Internet of Things' Thing, in the real world things matter more than ideas". RFID Journal.
  29. ^ Kevin Ashton: That 'Internet of Things' Thing. In: RFID Journal, 22 July 2009. Retrieved 8 April 2011.
  30. ^ Analyst Anish Gaddam interviewed by Sue Bushell in Computerworld, on 24 July 2000 ("M-commerce key to ubiquitous internet")
  31. ^ a b P. Magrassi, T. Berg, A World of Smart Objects, Gartner research report R-17-2243, 12 August 2002 [1]
  32. ^ Commission of the European Communities (18 June 2009). "Internet of Things — An action plan for Europe" (PDF). COM(2009) 278 final.
  33. ^ Techvibes From M2M to The Internet of Things: Viewpoints From Europe 7 July 2011
  34. ^ Dr. Lara Sristava, European Commission Internet of Things Conference in Budapest, 16 May 2011 The Internet of Things - Back to the Future (Presentation)
  35. ^ P. Magrassi, A. Panarella, N. Deighton, G. Johnson, Computers to Acquire Control of the Physical World, Gartner research report T-14-0301, 28 September 2001 [need quotation to verify]
  36. ^ a b Casaleggio Associati The Evolution of Internet of Things February 2011 [need quotation to verify]
  37. ^ Vongsingthong, S.; Smanchat, S. (2014). "Internet of Things: A review of applications & technologies" (PDF). Suranaree Journal of Science and Technology.
  38. ^ Mitchell, Shane; Villa, Nicola; Stewart-Weeks, Martin; Lange, Anne. "The Internet of Everything for Cities: Connecting People, Process, Data, and Things To Improve the 'Livability' of Cities and Communities" (PDF). Cisco Systems. Retrieved 10 July 2014.
  39. ^ Narayanan, Ajit. "Impact of Internet of Things on the Retail Industry". PCQuest. Cyber Media Ltd. Retrieved 20 May 2014.
  40. ^ CasCard; Gemalto; Ericsson. "Smart Shopping: spark deals" (PDF). EU FP7 BUTLER Project.
  41. ^ Kyriazis, D.; Varvarigou, T.; Rossi, A.; White, D.; Cooper, J. (4–7 June 2013). "Sustainable smart city IoT applications: Heat and electricity management & Eco-conscious cruise control for public transportation". IEEE International Symposium and Workshops on a World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks (WoWMoM). doi:10.1109/WoWMoM.2013.6583500.
  42. ^ Li, Shixing; Wang, Hong; Xu, Tao; Zhou, Guiping (2011). "Application Study on Internet of Things in Environment Protection Field". Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering Volume. 133: 99–106. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-25992-0_13.
  43. ^ FIT French Project. "Use case: Sensitive wildlife monitoring". Retrieved 10 July 2014.
  44. ^ a b Gubbi, Jayavardhana; Buyya, Rajkumar; Marusic, Slaven; Palaniswami, Marimuthu (24 February 2013). "Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions". Future Generation Computer Systems. 29 (7): 1645–1660. doi:10.1016/j.future.2013.01.010.
  45. ^ Chui, Michael; Löffler, Markus; Roberts, Roger. "The Internet of Things". McKinsey Quarterly. McKinsey & Company. Retrieved 10 July 2014.
  46. ^ Postscapes. "Smart Trash". Retrieved 10 July 2014.
  47. ^ Severi, S.; Abreu, G.; Sottile, F.; Pastrone, C.; Spirito, M.; Berens, F. (23–26 June 2014). "M2M Technologies: Enablers for a Pervasive Internet of Things". The European Conference on Networks and Communications (EUCNC2014).
  48. ^ Tan, Lu; Wang, Neng (20–22 August 2010). "Future Internet: The Internet of Things". 3rd International Conference on Advanced Computer Theory and Engineering (ICACTE). 5: 376–380. doi:10.1109/ICACTE.2010.5579543.
  49. ^ a b Parello, J.; Claise, B.; Schoening, B.; Quittek, J. (28 April 2014). "Energy Management Framework". IETF Internet Draft <draft-ietf-eman-framework-19>.
  50. ^ . Belkin http://www.belkin.com/us/Products/home-automation/c/wemo-home-automation/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  51. ^ . Ambery http://www.ambery.com/prreposwphco.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  52. ^ Istepanian, R.; Hu, S.; Philip, N.; Sungoor, A. (30 August – 3 September 2011). "The potential of Internet of m-health Things "m-IoT" for non-invasive glucose level sensing". Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC). doi:10.1109/IEMBS.2011.6091302.
  53. ^ Swan, Melanie (8 November 2012). "Sensor Mania! The Internet of Things, Wearable Computing, Objective Metrics, and the Quantified Self 2.0". Sensor and Actuator Networks. 1 (3): 217–253. doi:10.3390/jsan1030217.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  54. ^ Alkar, A.Z.; Buhur, U. (November 2005). "An Internet based wireless home automation system for multifunctional devices". IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics. 51 (4): 1169–1174. doi:10.1109/TCE.2005.1561840.
  55. ^ Spiess, P.; Karnouskos, S.; Guinard, D.; Savio, D.; Baecker, O.; Souza, L.; Trifa, V. (6–10 July 2009). "SOA-Based Integration of the Internet of Things in Enterprise Services". IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS): 968–975. doi:10.1109/ICWS.2009.98.
  56. ^ Rico, Juan (22–24 April 2014). "Going beyond monitoring and actuating in large scale smart cities". NFC & Proximity Solutions - WIMA Monaco.
  57. ^ "Sino-Singapore Guangzhou Knowledge City: A vision for a city today, a city of vision tomorrow". Retrieved 11 July 2014.
  58. ^ "San Jose Implements Intel Technology for a Smarter City". Retrieved 11 July 2014.
  59. ^ Coconuts Singapore. "Western Singapore becomes test-bed for smart city solutions". Retrieved 11 July 2014.
  60. ^ Dan Brickley et al., c. 2001
  61. ^ Waldner, Jean-Baptiste (2008). Nanocomputers and Swarm Intelligence. London: ISTE. pp. p227–p231. ISBN 1-84704-002-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  62. ^ "EPCIS - EPC Information Services Standard". GS1. Retrieved 2 January 2014.
  63. ^ Miles, Stephen B. (2011). RFID Technology and Applications. London: Cambridge University Press. pp. 6–8. ISBN 978-0-521-16961-5.
  64. ^ Uckelmann, Dieter; Isenberg, Marc-André; Teucke, Michael; Halfar, Harry; Scholz-Reiter, Bernd (2010). "An integrative approach on Autonomous Control and the Internet of Things". In Ranasinghe, Damith; Sheng, Quan; Zeadally, Sherali (eds.). Unique Radio Innovation for the 21st Century: Building Scalable and Global RFID Networks. Berlin, Germany: Springer. pp. 163–181. ISBN 978-3-642-03461-9. Retrieved 28 April 2011. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
  65. ^ Kortuem, G.; Kawsar, F.; Fitton, D.; Sundramoorthy, V. (January–February 2010). "Smart objects as building blocks for the Internet of things". IEEE Internet Computing: 44–51. doi:10.1109/MIC.2009.143.
  66. ^ Kyriazis, D.; Varvarigou, T. (21–23 October 2013). "Smart, Autonomous and Reliable Internet of Things". International Conference on Emerging Ubiquitous Systems and Pervasive Networks (EUSPN). doi:10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.059.
  67. ^ "Living with Internet of Things, The Emergence of Embedded Intelligence (CPSCom-11)" (PDF). Bin Guo. Retrieved 6 September 2011.
  68. ^ Philippe GAUTIER, « RFID et acquisition de données évènementielles : retours d'expérience chez Bénédicta », pages 94 à 96, Systèmes d'Information et Management - revue trimestrielle N°2 Vol. 12, 2007, ISSN 1260-4984 / ISBN 978-2-7472-1290-8, éditions ESKA. [2]
  69. ^ "3 questions to Philippe GAUTIER, by David Fayon, march 2010"
  70. ^ Charith Perera, Arkady Zaslavsky, Peter Christen, and Dimitrios Georgakopoulos (2013). "Context Aware Computing for The Internet of Things: A Survey". Communications Surveys Tutorials, IEEE. PP (n/a): 1–44. doi:10.1109/SURV.2013.042313.00197.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  71. ^ Gautier, Philippe; Gonzalez, Laurent (2011). L'Internet des Objets… Internet, mais en mieux (PDF). foreword by Gérald Santucci (European commission), postword by Daniel Kaplan (FING) and Michel Volle. Paris: AFNOR editions. ISBN 978-2-12-465316-4.
  72. ^ Waldner, Jean-Baptiste (2007). Nanoinformatique et intelligence ambiante. Inventer l'Ordinateur du XXIeme Siècle. London: Hermes Science. pp. p254. ISBN 2-7462-1516-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
  73. ^ Cisco CEO says it will be a 19 trillion dollar market
  74. ^ Jean-Louis Gassée opinion
  75. ^ intel predictive interaction analysis
  76. ^ IoT for the Asset Management Industry
  77. ^ Integrations with a world of IoT's like Nest, Belkin WeMo and others
  78. ^ API's for joining the ecosystem
  79. ^ his shortcust website
  80. ^ TechCrunch debuts a Siri-Like IoT app
  81. ^ Rizzo, Tony (12 March 2013). "ThingWorx Drives M2M and IoT Developer Efficiency with New Platform Release". TMCnet.
  82. ^ Bowen, Suzanne. "ThingWorx CEO Russell Fadel on M2M and the Connected World". DIDX Audio Podcast Newspaper. Retrieved 9 April 2013.
  83. ^ Bowen, Suzanne. "Raco Wireless John Horn on the Connected World and M2M". DIDX Audio Podcast Newspaper. Retrieved 9 April 2013.
  84. ^ Fitchard, Kevin (26 February 2013). "T-Mobile's M2M provider Raco goes international with Sprint, Telefónica deals". GigaOm.
  85. ^ Bowen, Suzanne. "Interview with nPhase (Qualcomm - Verizon) Steve Pazol on M2M". DIDX Audio Podcast Newspaper. Retrieved 9 April 2013.
  86. ^ "What is Carriots". Carriots official site. Retrieved 10 October 2013.
  87. ^ Higginbotham, Stacey. "Carriots is building a PaaS for the Internet of Things". GigaOM. Retrieved 26 April 2013.
  88. ^ "IoT Startup EVRYTHNG Secures $7M Series A From Atomico, BHLP, Cisco And Dawn". Techcrunch.
  89. ^ XMPP IoT systems
  90. ^ http://www.youtube.com/user/MASHPlatform "YouTube channel"
  91. ^ Verbeek, Peter-Paul. "Moralizing Technology: Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things." Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2011.
  92. ^ DIANE CARDWELL, At Newark Airport, the Lights Are On, and They’re Watching You, The New York Times, 2014.02.17
  93. ^ Catherine Crump and Matthew Harwood, The Net Closes Around Us, TomDispatch, 25 March 2014
  94. ^ Christopher Clearfield Why The FTC Can't Regulate The Internet Of Things, Forbes, 18 September 2013
  95. ^ Christopher Clearfield "Rethinking Security for the Internet of Things" Harvard Business Review Blog, 26 June 2013/
  96. ^ Joseph Steinberg (27 January 2014). "These Devices May Be Spying On You (Even In Your Own Home)". Forbes. Retrieved 27 May 2014.
  97. ^ http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2010-05/researchers-hack-car-computers-shutting-down-brakes-engine-and-more
  98. ^ Disruptive Technologies Global Trends 2025. National Intelligence Council (NIC), April 2008, P. 27.
  99. ^ Spencer Ackerman. CIA Chief: We’ll Spy on You Through Your Dishwasher. Wired, 15 March. 2012.
  100. ^ Roy Thomas Fielding, Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-based Software Architectures (2000), Dissertation - Doctor of Philosophy in Information and Computer Science
  101. ^ Littman, Michael and Samuel Kortchmar. "The Path To A Programmable World". Footnote. Retrieved 14 June 2014.

Further reading

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_of_things&oldid=634486195"