The Internet of Things or The Internet of Far Fewer Things
Dan Caprio, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, was a speaker and panelist at the “Internet of Things” in Brussels. The conference addressed fundamental issues relating to the future of the Internet, the concerns regarding embracing its development for the benefit of European society and the challenges ahead.
The premise of the Internet of Things assumes an evolution from today’s networks of interconnected computers to a future network of interconnected objects. The future Internet of Things promises many societal benefits including e-accessibility, home health monitoring systems, sustainable development, smart electric grids, and environmental protection to name a few.
The premise of the Internet of Things, however, assumes direct connections to the Internet and ignores likely deployment scenarios where connectivity will be via machines and appliances that are read on local area networks. The so-called the Internet of Things would involve hundreds of identifier namespaces with countless authoritative sources of information about the objects with those identifiers. There are many different namespaces in existence that are managed by a broad range of organizations and the registries of the different namespaces can be private or public depending on their respective applications and business models. Most, if not all, items will be “tagged” in some fashion, and readable. It seems less likely that they will be directly linked to the Internet.
Some have opined that an Internet of Things gives rise to greater privacy and security concerns. However, this view fails to take into account the capability to build security and personal controls into devices and machines. Given the evolving aspect of the Internet of Things we need to take a flexible, forward-looking policy approach with a view toward maintaining an environment that promotes innovation.
These points reinforce the notion that governance questions concerning the Internet of Things must be considered in a contextual setting. While the commonly shared objective is to promote economic growth and support a globally interoperable platform, there is no “one-size fits all” policy approach.
Rather, a flexible framework that considers the public and private/closed nature of the network(s), the diversity of identifier systems and the multiplicity of technological solutions resulting from an innovation-friendly environment should be the goal. While we see the potential of the Internet of Things, an overly regulatory regime, at this point, will surely lead to an Internet of far few things.
The Connection between People, Policies, Practices and Technology
Solutions will exist at the intersection of these topics, treating them in isolation leads to an unreasonable belief that any one of the topics alone can provide a solution. The Internet of Things must not create a false dichotomy rather -- it must prompt us to consider a
Continuum of Internet connectivity. Mobile commerce, things, people, and machines will all be part of our future Internet connectivity. Tags, devices, and services will require different levels of information and will contain and protect that information in different ways.
DNS and ONS
Comparisons between the Domain Name System (DNS) and the Object Name System (ONS) bring an overly broad perspective. Since they are not completely analogous systems, drawing ONS conclusions based on DNS issues is not advisable. It would be more useful to assure an adequate understanding of how ONS functions today, posit future developments and effectively address issues as they arise. Data over the ONS is not publicly available despite the fact that it uses the Internet infrastructure.
FRAMEWORK
Our discussions should focus on the framework conditions of fairness, access, transparency, competition, interoperability, trust and confidence. Only where these issues cannot be appropriately resolved should alternative infrastructure concepts be considered and then with a view to avoiding fragmentation.
The Internet of Things is by definition global (if not universal,e.g. items in Space may also be connected) and should be considered in a global context even while recognizing that legislative and regulatory inquiries must by nature consider a locality, nation or region. In concert with global considerations, a focus on interoperability may be more useful than harmonization as it is easier to find ways for systems and regulatory policies to work together short of mandating identical regulatory approaches. So, our solutions must be technology neutral.
The Internet is ultimately a collection of private and public networks with an open architecture that can both accommodate many different needs and encourage innovation. Any future Object Namespace will build on this flexibility and create its own customized networks based on their respective applications and business models. The Internet of Things is too undefined (and its adoption too slow) at this point to commit its future parameters to a concrete control model. It would be premature to base any such decision on considerations of control that go beyond the concern for a technologically optimal governance structure.
While parallels may appear to exist between the Internet and the Internet of Things, borrowing concepts from Internet Governance discussions (i.e. “control” issues) and applying them to the Internet of Things may not achieve desired results given the different network nature and needs of the Internet of Things. Such efforts may result in misplaced emphasis on certain technological aspects of the Internet of Things which themselves may become less critical as the Internet of Things evolves. Moreover, innovative technologies and business practices, shaped by the Internet of Things network and user environment, may have the effect of minimizing what appear to be potentially significant “control” issues today.
CONCLUSION
The Internet of Things must be seen as a vision where "things”, especially everyday objects, such as home appliances, furniture, vehicles, roads and smart materials, and more, are readable, recognizable, locatable, addressable and/or controllable via the Internet. This vision will surely change with time, especially as synergies between Identification Technologies, Wireless Sensor Networks, Intelligent Devices and Nanotechnology will enable a number of advanced applications and societal benefits.
On the other hand, the Internet will continue to go through many transformations. Taking a very simplistic yet useful short-cut to the history and destiny of the Internet, it is possible to distinguish three main trends that partially overlap and have the potential to change the way the Internet works and affects how we live. Internet 1.0 was been about linking and computers and sharing data. Internet 2.0 is about sharing content. Applications like Myspace.com, Facebook, and Linkedln are becoming the hub of the Internet activity. Internet 3.0 with sensor networks, connectivity, smart grids, environmental sustainability, e-accessibility, and many other societal benefits is the future.
A dialogue addressing privacy and governance is healthy and a necessary component of the Internet of Things. These discussions can not be focused on one particular technology; rather the focus should be on principles that both ensure a vibrant Internet that supports privacy, security and innovation.
