From Westworld to Best World for the Internet of Things (03zittrain) (03zittrain)

Having read all the comments, perhaps I missed it, but there doesn't seem to be much or any enthusiasm for the Internet of Things. If that's the case, why are gadgets like Amazon's Echo selling by the millions? Are the commenters totally unrepresentative? Or is it rather they, sorry we, represent the sliver actually thinking about the idiocy of Internet hooked light bulbs and coffee pots.

Devices definiteyl need to work without WiFi but already I am not sure my printer does. Yea what about when the networked service provider jacks up the price roo much? A very ugly scenario!

A somewhat mitigating network architecture is to use IoT Gateways between the Things and the Cloud/Datacenter. These can decouple the Things and their expected lifetimes from the Wide Area Network vastly reducing the attack surface and, to some degree, preserving the lifetime of the attached Things.

I agree with everything in Professor Zittrain's article. However, I found nothing in it that couldn't have been foreseen three or more years ago. At root, the issues are neither terribly complicated nor abstruse. Remember the famous engineering maxim ("Murphy's Law"): Anything that *can* go wrong *will* go wrong. In an urgent way, we must ask: • Where have responsible engineering societies gone AWOL? • Why are our legislators and regulators in such thrall to the so-called "tech" industries? • Why have they let things come to such a pass? •. How massive an "internet-of-things"-induced crisis will have to occur to shake them and the American public from their torpor?

That's one reason why this Internet of Things is a bad idea. Instead of fixing it, it should be stuffed in a sack and drowned. Another reason is that instead of interacting with your stuff, you are interacting just with a computer or smart phone. It gets old. I'll make that cup of coffee myself. I'll write my own grocery list. I'll turn on my own lights, thankyouverymuch!

Requiring that all devices be able to still work while offline is a great idea since, as the author suggests, older devices which will no longer be updated can just be turned permanently offline (by the manufacturer). This will make the devices safe from future attacks while still allowing them to make coffee, or whatever.

I have no need or want at present for Internet-connected home systems. Our new heating/cooling system is internet-connectable, but we never connected it. Ditto TVs. No electronic assistants here either. As long as I can physically get up to turn off a light or find my iPad to look something up, I will continue to do so and benefit from the expenditure of those few calories. My life isn’t so busy or complicated, or my home so large and expensive to heat/cool, that I need off-site home temperature management. I turn down the heat or AC when I leave, and turn it back up when I am home. I am no Luddite: I shop and make travel arrangements online, I sell vintage goods in my Etsy shop, post on Instagram, reserve books at my library and much more. But I don’t need to control everything online (or have it control me), especially with the kinds of privacy and obsolescence concerns you caution about here.

"Putting aside the strangeness that for once power-cycling a device could perform an effective exorcism upon it..." Strange? RAM and Flash Memory are pretty fundamental elements of computational systems, last I checked. Harvard has made quantum leaps since Jared Kushner, it appears.

Requiring manufacturers of net-enabled goods to post a bond like they're going to potentially create a gold mine with toxic tailings? Too little too late when any hobbyist or bargain Hunter can pick up a net-enabled drone or tv for a pittance on any number of direct to consumer china export sites or a local flea market. that's what Trump would be interested in if he was truly worried about trade and national security.

The mass rush to connect everything to the internet without thinking through the consequences is endangering our personal and national security.

I worked 25 years in the 80's-early 2000's writing software to control large industrial plants - chemical refineries, power plants etc. Whenever I had to install new software or updates, I had to travel to the plant to do so - sometimes flying as far as Europe. In all that time, it was absolutely unheard of for any such critical control computer to be connected to the internet (and yes - it DID exist back then). The risk of tampering was simply considered unacceptable. But these days, convenience trumps security. For large computers, handling thousands of transactions per second, it just isn't practical not to be connected to the internet. OTOH, the benefits of connecting anything in your home to the internet, beyond things such as scheduling a TV show to be recorded on your DVR, are minuscule compared to the risks. Not to mention adding a level of complexity which practically guarantees a plethora of things that can go wrong.

>"Putting aside the strangeness that for once power-cycling a device could perform an effective exorcism upon it, the episode reveals more than just the potential for disruption of internet access for people using equipment they never expect to have to physically manage."< Worst sentence I've read in quite awhile.

My question is this - as connectivity becomes a default "feature" and not an option (as it has in cars, and will in other appliances) will there be a way to buy a "dumb" car, refrigerator, toaster, coffeemaker without paying more for the privilege? Is there someway to ensure a market for dis-connected appliances or prohibit charging more for them?

Your idea about the need to disengage from our absolute dependency of the electronic world is worth it's weight in 'gold'. I remember, as a guy from last century's vintage, the ability to make do with the mechanics of a truck when the electric system fouled out; now, with the marvels of electronic automation, if the battery dies, not even a window can be opened, nor the car re-started by pushing it (I know, I know, primitive thinking; but still). When was the last time you 'played' with a toy not dependent on batteries? Sorry, I can't hear you. But apart from playing dumb, have you noticed that, in this exciting digital world of extensive (and wild) information, we seem to know and understand ever less, however dependent (addicted) we seem to the technological gadgets, made indispensable by the industries that depend on us buying and using them? Is procrastination what may save our souls, by reverting to the old ways? I know your answer already: impossible, right?

I absolutely refuse to have any internet connected appliances, etc. in my home. If necessary, I will make do with whatever "ancient" non-connected versions that I have or can obtain or else do without.

The choice is start: In the future we can either become machines or be ruled by them.

A "smart coffee pot". That would be me. Boil some water in a pan (or -- heavens above, a kettle), pour it over grounds in a filter or a French press. Drink. I absolutely do not want, let alone need, my refrigerator to call Amazon and tell it to deliver low quality and over priced food!

Mr. Zittrain says “later” doesn’t mean “never.” Of course, in practice that's often exactly what it means. There's also such a thing as "later" being too late, as Facebook's role in the election of Donald Trump has proved.

This piece doesn't mention Westworld at all. Shame on the NYT for such clickbait. (And shame on me for clicking on it.)

SOFTWARE SUBSCRIPTIONS AND EXPIRATION DATES Subscription pricing and connectivity expiration dates can be used to prompt inactivation of neglected or unused devices. Since all such devices will be managed though some sort of controller, that controller can be the single contact point for subscription billing and device inactivation. If there are specific weaknesses in this proposal, I bet better minds can improve the specifics while supporting the intents.

The reason the FBI has encouraged people to power-cycle their home routers, which normally are kept on perpetually, is that the process overlays firewall protocols that may have been intentionally corrupted by bad actors over the Internet with factory-original protocols; then, those routers seek the latest firewall updates online from secured servers. This process will make them as protected as they can be made – keeping them on perpetually short-circuits this refreshment process, and providers can’t force such refreshments and updates on their customers without becoming as genially despised as Microsoft, which does force regular updates and reboots in its latest operating systems, which in turn interrupt work in process in which users may be engaged. There’s a modicum of attractiveness to an “Internet of things” that summons a vision of automatic maintenance of billions of connected devices, in order to spare users the inconvenience of applying very basic knowledge and suffering a minimum of inconvenience. But it could result in cybernetic intelligences created by the sheer billions of neural connections that would comprise a “Skynet”, give Arnold and his “Exterminator” franchise another lease on life, and enslave us all to the prurient peccadilloes of such intelligences gleaned from our ubiquitous Internet porn (fake news).

The professor is right on ideas but the idea of fixing old software it suspect. Fixing new software is difficult even in the same company due to many factors: change in staff, retirement of "old" languages, old operating systems, etc. Look at the issues that NASA faces in converting older tapes, etc to new technology Fixing really "old" software I think would be impossible. I know I've tried. I spent many, many decades building software and for example in the retail and industrial areas. A sorta IOT before the Internet in terms of software. For example fixing or modifying a Point of Sale system that was at least 10 years old was nearly impossible. Why? No one on the current team that built the software, documentation almost non existent (who keeps 10 year old design / coding documents?), Compilers for that version of software long gone, Poor coding techniques ( ever look at software code that has been maintained over the years... not good), hardware needed no longer exists or is hard to find. I agree that something needs to be done, but having long shelf life of products is a problem regardless of the industry. There is a whole large industry of supplying parts for old cars for example, not all product could have that type of support. I really liked the idea that most products should have a fall-back strategy based on no internet. Just why anyone would want a fully connected set of kitchen appliances is beyond me.

The "internet of things" is utterly terrifying, not least because it already makes the spread of creepycans like Amazon Echo seem innocent by comparison. Ever wanted Russian agents, your health "insurance" megacorp, or your own employer(!) to know your real diet? With creepyfridges, they can! (Hope you saved for those raised premiums now that you got fired for drinking Diet Coke between shifts of bottling Pepsi.) As for *this* problem, a couple thoughts: (a) Any cure for the Great Internet Thing Abandonfest will involve free(dom-respecting) software, of course. That'd make the cross-platform issue moot, and ease the foundation transition. (By contrast, if the maker REALLY wants to be foolish, they'll make the device check the firmware is company-signed! The folks who design graphics cards at Nvidia, and perhaps think they'll never go bankrupt, are at the vanguard of that colossal idiocy.) (b) Many manufacturers, and stingy (naturally, USA) ISPs like Verizon[1], STILL don't implement IPv6, which would support a larger number of devices—the kind of device count you'd see in, oh I dunno, an INTERNET OF THINGS. In that sense, a lot of the internet in the States is already abandoned. (c) But better yet, DON'T DO THIS. Some fads are not worth adopting. Facebook barely was, Twitter never was, and the "IoT" never will be, so be happy you can't afford those "smart" hangers for your closet. Vote with your wallet! [1] For homes, not (rather bizarrely) Verizon Wireless.

The author dismisses in one sentence the option of not having our appliances internet connected. But this is the logical and obvious solution given the dismal state of our online security.

Why is the internet so vulnerable to hacking, and why do malicious players including foreign states, continue to enjoy immunity or negligible consequences for overtly criminal conduct? Why am I still getting spoofed phone calls? Surely the phone companies could determine in advance the who, how, where, when and why of it all. Financial incentives and criminal penalties seem like the only way to tame the beast.

Of course, the obvious option is simply not to have or use networked devices at all. I have none, and do not miss the supposed convenience at all. But then, I've been around for 82 years, and am used to doing things for myself. Perhaps out attitude has something to do with this. hmmmmm.

What sane society would allow for an ‘internet of things’ to be developed and foisted on the public? It’s an absurdity and seems to prove that we are hardly in control of this often malignant technology. It has become our established harasser and our controlling overlord.

Manufacturers: know this ...I will not be the first customer to avoid your "networked" appliance, and when it comes to the point when the only coffeemaker/refrigerator, etc. I can buy is networked, then I will be among those passing out free info on how to rip out the network guts of said appliance. You will not get my info! "Can you sing 'Daisy' for me HAL?" Networking: a solution seeking a problem to justify itself...and the real problems seldom exist.

Why anyone would want or need a coffeepot or refrigerator that is networked is beyond me. Lunacy.

"Terminator: Rise of the Machines" is upon us. With mobile phones, people have gradually learned better social etiquette in public spaces. That includes not texting while driving, which can be lethal (particularly among teens) and which has spurred many new laws. With e-cigs, people have realized that they have the same annoying effects as regular cigarettes, and when and where they can be smoked has become ever more regulated. The weak link with the Internet of things will always be humans, with hardware, software, and peopleware. Peopleware will allow the air jump from the thing to the person, such as the car slamming on its brakes unexpectedly. It is synonymous with our lack of awareness of the inherent dangers in allowing machines to exercise so much (effectively) unregulated control over us. Will we be able to harness this tsunami of technology barreling toward us? Will we eventually succumb and revert atavistically to some global tribe of new-age Luddites? Who knows? As Arthur C. Clarke wrote in "2001": "In the caves, between spells of fitful dozing and fearful waiting, were being born the nightmares of generations yet to be." For now, I'll just try not to worry about toasters and light bulbs coming for me in the middle of the night.

The original Star Trek episode called "The Ultimate Computer" illustrates how the writers of said series were prescient. The computer in the episode was built to make a star ship crew obsolete. It wreaks havoc until Kirk and Spock are able to shut it down. And now in 2018 what was once considered science fiction is now becoming a reality.

Or make a decision that these rather small conveniences are not worth the risk. Currently, there appear to be no cost-effective ways to make these technologies safe from hacking. Whenever, we are told the technologies are safe, that seems to be the time to be most concerned. I for one can easily do without them, but admittedly I'm part of an older generation.

All technologies have unintended consequences. But we have become so infatuated with technology for its own sake that we eagerly buy & celebrate them even when there are no advantages. Are our lives really made miserable by the necessity of flipping a light switch, or making toast? Isn't there a small pleasure, even, in using your hands to relate to the world instead of to a screen? What about the ever increasing waste of energy? And, there is an enormous unintended consequence rarely noted: new technologies that achieve commercial success are always one-way doors. Once a critical mass of young or easily beguiled people start using the latest gadget, the habits & institutions of the culture and economy adapt, and the older (often easier, & almost always cheaper) way of doing things becomes difficult or unavailable.

There are two spheres of use of the Internet of Things. In industry the applications have a valuable use in automation. That it will reduce employment is a side effect. The greater danger is the probability of serious damage due to hacking where IoT has little to protect itself. I think that in the home it is totally unnecessary. As an 89 year old professional engineer I can still switch on the lights as I enter a room or deal successfully with ordinary coffee pots. IoT is I consider a danger we should avoid.

What about some of the more glaring vulnerabilities? Most advanced Western democracies such as Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Denmark, Finland and 53 other countries protect the integrity of their elections with hand-counted paper ballots. Why does the U.S. still rely on "private" companies to build and maintain machines, related software and vote tabulation software? Especially when they can still be hacked by the Russians? The federal agency--the Election Assistance Commission, that’s in charge of regulating voting machine security, was hacked! https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-we-know-and-dont-know-about-el... https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/03/15/russian-election-hacki...

I've been an early adopter and enthusiast of computers (Radio Shack Model I to Macbook), online communication (Compuserve to high speed broadband), and smartphones (currently Google Pixel 2). I believe these have enriched my life in a multitude of ways, but I have yet to see how the gadgets of the internet of things provide any significant value. Instead they offer to invade our privacy to an unknowable extent and, in too many cases, genuinely put our safety and wellbeing at risk. I recognise the possibility of the tech I do use being subverted to my detriment, but I view the risk as small compared to the benefits I accrue. I find no such value in a device that sends every word I speak to its manufacturer or in a refrigerator that wants to make my shopping list.

Or - maybe many of these things don't really need to be on the internet. Coffee makers? Much of this stuff is just gee wiz gimmickry that serves a marginal purpose at best. Even if there are devices that work on a local home network, how often do they need to be accessible via the internet from the outside?

There is no need for the internet of things that is as intense as the need for the tech companies to find new sources of revenue. Do I really need to turn my home into a hornets nest of threats from hackers and hostile foreign governments in order to save a few minutes or steps to turn on an appliance or unlock a door? What is my paltry need for this compared to the needs of Google, Amazon and all the others to keep their stock prices up by forever finding new revenue streams? Are we all going to make them more our masters than they already are, for the sake of a few more conveniences? In earlier eras of tech, labor-saving devies saved us from real labor - backbreaking, spirit-draining labor. THIS is ridiculous, and increasingly dangerous. And what for?

There are few universal laws, but one that has historically applied to all forms of technology, is the Law of Unintended Consequences. At some point, even the best and most creative “ploughshare” has been turned into a “sword” – literally or figuratively. Professor Zittrain has suggested three Internet security solutions, each of which would require social and political actions that are unlikely in the current environment. Businesses just want to sell more stuff with the least amount of regulation and accountability irrespective of potential dangers, a situation in which the present administration and Congress are enthusiastic participants. Most people, myself included, do not have a clue regarding the nature of the computer hardware and software that we use on a daily basis, and as the machines become more elaborate and sophisticated, that situation will worsen. Professor Zittrain notes but dismisses the easiest solution, namely, “Short of rejecting internet integration with appliances, dealing with this is not easy.” It seems to me, that on an individual basis, that is PRECISELY what people ought to do. In other words, I intend to keep my “Un-smart” car, house, and appliances until they pry my cold, dead fingers away from the “On-Off” switch. Just because Ned Ludd failed does not mean that he was wrong.

The obvious solution is glossed over. Don’t use these devices! Are we so crippled we cannot turn on lights or adjust thermostats ourselves etc. And Alexa? Echo? Are we all insane? Just say no!

The original sin was failing to build security into the internet at its "birth". (There were arguments about it at the time and the "no need to worry" crowd won.) We are all paying the price. I find the IoT completely unnecessary, and have no intention of allowing snoops into my house as long as I have any alternative.

"Short of rejecting internet integration with appliances, dealing with this is not easy." Um, why does my refrigerator, dishwaser, thermostat, etc need to be connected to the internet? This is absurd. We sell our souls for convenience over and over. Please keep the internet out of my appliances.