The internet of Things.

Tying back to the first post of the session the reoccurring idea that all nodes are connected and a re vibrating away in a mass of communication, the internet of things is the idea of interconnectivity between objects through cyberspace allowing the sending and receiving of data.  Bleecker (2006) introduces the idea of a Blogject, an object that has blogging capabilities.  For example Wired magazine posted an article about ‘Making Your Gadgets Twitter’, “Just about any device can be enabled to send and receive tweets by using simple hardware platforms called microcontrollers. These tiny computers can be plugged into different modules — a motor, a thermostat, a light-sensitive cell — to detect a change in the environment or in the device’s operating state. The microcontroller can then be programmed to send an alert whenever something specific changes.” The example used by the magazine is that of a toaster which tweets when it is done cooking the bread.

Of course, Bleecker’s idea of Blogjects is not the only aspect of the internet of things, Lupton (2013) describes the idea of the human machine and self tracking. Wearable trackers are created so people can monitor their movements and other physical day to day activities.  The data is collected, pooled and then indexed so as to be useful for the user.

Both the ideas introduced, blogjects and self tracking, have potentially serious privacy issues.  Webber (2010) discusses  that this new connectivity poses potential privacy threats stating “Measures ensuring the architecture’s resilience to attacks, data authentication, access control and client privacy need to be established”.  His argument holds weight in relation to the first topic due to the growing nature of the internet of things and the widespread-ability of the blogjects potential risks may come about if say a car were to post a location of a person.  Although there are measures in place to stop these postings, it is still a risk. Congruently the culmination of data may also be considered dangerous due to building an online profile that could be accessed.  Overall however, these problems are already in place prior to the growth of blogjects and wearable tech. The information shared as per blogjects is also readily available on social media sites such as Facebook, also as discussed in my previous post, information which may be gathered from wearable tech may be accessed online through social media, or illegally through hacking.

Overall the internet of things, although posing some risks, due to its communicative capabilities has great potential to enrich human lives.

References

Weber, R.H. 2010, “Internet of Things – New security and privacy challenges”, Computer Law and Security Review: The International Journal of Technology and Practice, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 23-30.

Lupton, D. (2013) ‘Understanding the human machine’, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Vol. 32, (4), pp. 25 – 30.

Bleecker, J. (2006) ‘Why Things Matter: A Manifesto for networked objects’ P1-17

Users: loresjoberg, as32wefwf, amcer, neil80, billstewart, suedallin, horse, alexa33, susanz32x, beckyh22z, katinala33, mirgrl33b, to_admin, 2011, ‘Make Your Gadgets Twitter’, Wired Magazine, 31st March, Viewed 24/10/14.

Advertisements

One thought on “The internet of Things.

  1. once again my friend a great post. it still amazes me how you are able to get so much content into your posts whilst still making them really engaging and a good read. i don’t know about you but im really looking forward to this internet of things. thanks for the good reads mate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s