Will the Internet linked to EVERYTHING in the future?

[Cesrate]

I've seen radical predictions that all the things will be in Internet, will be the one. I have questions:

• Do we actually need EVERYTHING to be linked?
  
• Is that secure enough for us to do that?
  

[Nibb31]

What do you mean by everything? are you talking about personal information or appliances ?

I think that just about everything about you is on a computer that is already connected to the Internet, so the cat is already out of the bag.

[shand]

Need, No. Want, Yes. think about the present: any time you phone up a company you can here the tapping of keys. everything about you financially is already there. Use google search? your preferences, topics that interest you ect, are all online.

there are now wi-fi enabled cameras, phones, tvs, coffee machines, lights, windows, blinds,heating, car,trains, planes. Need i go on?

in the future it will be near impossible NOT to be connected.

[Seret]

You're talking about The Internet of Things, where everything from your car, fridge, the train you take to work, your house, and everything in it, to your wristwatch and running shoes will all be networked.

It's already happening, so there's definitely some demand. How much remains to be seen. I'd certainly love a fridge that could track what was in it and reorder stuff before it ran out, for example.

The Internet of Things is one of the reasons we need IPv6. There just aren't enough IPv4 addresses to put everything online.

As for security, things are as secure as they're designed to be. If your toaster manufacturer can learn how to implement good security into the firmware then it'll be secure. Lots of work going for people specialised in those skills over the next few decades...

[shand]

The Internet of Things is one of the reasons we need IPv6. There just aren't enough IPv4 addresses to put everything online.

But IPv6 doesnt have NATs! NATs are good! (says nobody who knows anything ever)

[jwenting]

Call me old fashioned, but I try to keep as much offline as possible...

No smartphone, no twitter, no facebook, no "smart meter" that allows my energy company or the government to shut down my fridge if they think I'm using too much electricity, no "smart bulbs" that allow anyone with a smartphone to turn the lights in my home off so they can break in in darkness, no "smart locks" on the doors that some kid with an iPad can break and open when I'm not home, no "smart car" that a hacker or police kid can stop the engine of while I'm doing 120kmh on the highway, laughing while I crash and die..., no "smart fridge" that can order groceries for me but can also be used by my health insurance company or some government flunky to determine I've been naughty and ate something different from vegetable smoothies yesterday.

All those things are already here, I don't want or need them.

[shand]

<snip>

I can completely understand where you are going up until facebook. but beyond that i think you may be overestimating the hackablity of such things. also bear in mind there are "analogue" equivilents to almost everything you just said.

your energy company can turn your power supply off anytime it likes - but it doesnt because you wouldnt be paying you.

Who turns lights off to burgle places? if the lights are on - turning them off is suspicious and noticeable! Also, its a risk that you are there!

smart locks are a bad idea, but mostly because they arent overly reliable and you need a physical key backup in case. kinda agree with you on that one.

Your car is electronic as it is already (if bought within the last 5 years or so) - and i bet it supports bluetooth. but more importantly there is no way to completely disable a car, for that exact reason, the best the technology can come up with is to disable the engine or force it into neutral, anything else is blindingly dangerous and there are failsafes to prevent it.

And as for the smart fridge spying on you - if the terms of your insurance are that you eat smoothies everyday then you damned well have those damned smoothies, if not, then why the hell would they care?!

And that final point refers to all of them. even if some hacker or police kid COULD cause you to die a horrible car related death (which they could do with a rock) why would they? assuming it was random you'd have more chance of winning the lottery . and if it wasnt random - well there are easier low tech ways to kill a guy.

The biggest threat from all of this is targeted advertising! imagine a world where everytime your favourite flavour chocolate (chocolate) came on offer your fridge notified you. i'd be ruined!

You are by all means free to beleive what you will and not be connected to the internet - but the statements you make above are overreactions to very low probability chances (assuming they exist at all).

That said - I'm careful with what i put online and would never trust the security of my physical items solely with a wifi device. If it isnt insured/protected against online tinkering i dont use it.

also, i wish i had a car that WASNT electronic so i could fix the damned thing.

PS: thats a wall of text - sorry, do spoiler tags work these day?

[Seret]

But IPv6 doesnt have NATs! NATs are good! (says nobody who knows anything ever)

They're NATty!

[magnemoe]

But IPv6 doesnt have NATs! NATs are good! (says nobody who knows anything ever)

Should be possible to add NAT functionality to IPv6, however only reason to do it is security. Nothing in IPv4 who specify NAT.

[Gniuz]

Me and a group of people from University had to do an investigation and presentation on this.

I personally believe there is no need for an internet of everything, but with that being said it all boils down to money. If companies can makes integrated fridges, toasters, kettles that make people lives easier, even just slightly, and they can do it for cheap then sell for high then it will happen no matter what. Home automation is already becoming more popular and we will only see more of it as technology becomes better.

I'd be happy with a hoverboard - Back to the future style, more so than a fridge that will email me telling me I need milk while I'm at work which I forget on my way home anyway.

G.

[gloowa]

I can completely understand where you are going up until facebook. but beyond that i think you may be overestimating the hackablity of such things. (...)

And i'm an IT guy / server administrator / programmer, and tell you that you overestimate people programing those devices. Moreover, the very hardware it runs on cannot be tested in full (can't wind wiki page for law, but basically, electronic components with x inputs and y outputs and z logic gates inside test so long to test each possible combination that even with 1000 tests per second it would take several hundred years at relatively low numbers, not even remotely close to several million transistors modern cpus/gpus have). So combine those two factors and i can assure you with 100% certainty that there is a way inside every system. It may require some ridiculous circumstances, proper air humidity and Mercury in retrograde, but every system can be breached.

That said, the time to find a way into system by brute-forcing (not talking 'bout password here) is even longer then hardware testing, but there there's a reason my linux updates libSSL about once every two months - some possible attack vectors are being found through analisys.

[The Jedi Master]

I've seen radical predictions that all the things will be in Internet, will be the one.

No.

• Do we actually need EVERYTHING to be linked?

No.

• Is that secure enough for us to do that?
  

No.

1.The fact of the matter is that the internet isn't magic. You do actually have a limited amount of 'space' (called bandwidth) in which to put things. That space is pretty big, but it isn't infinite. We don't have ROOM to store everything on the internet.

2.I don't see why. There is absolutely NO REASON we can't just stick to pen and paper. I repeat, NONE.

3.Dear God, no! You'd have people crashing world economies within days!

[Nuke]

i certainly hope not. i see the internet eventually degrading into either a government or corporate controlled network that babysits its users and tells the cops to get you when you do something they dont like. it could also go the other way and become subdivided into internets owned by various entities, youd have a hacker/pirate network, government networks, commercial networks, entertainment networks. each with their own backbones and servers.

[King Arthur]

i certainly hope not. i see the internet eventually degrading into either a government or corporate controlled network that babysits its users and tells the cops to get you when you do something they dont like. it could also go the other way and become subdivided into internets owned by various entities, youd have a hacker/pirate network, government networks, commercial networks, entertainment networks. each with their own backbones and servers.

If the latter ever happens, I'll see you over by the hacker/pirate network. I hear the rum they have is fantastic.

[NGTOne]

What it works out to is simple: security.

Whether the "Internet of things" happens or not is almost irrelevant - that's something that will be driven by market forces, one way or the other. But the biggest problem, one way or the other, will ALWAYS be security. There is no 100% secure system. Period. NORAD isn't 100% secure. Sure, you need to bypass a lot of physical security to get to it (it's not connected to the wider Internet), but a skilled enough bulls*****r could pull it off (he'd have to be VERY skilled, though). That's your vulnerability, and it always will be - the people using the system. Doesn't matter how many software safeguards you put in place, an idiot user responding to an e-mail asking for their password will bypass all of that in an instant.

And I somehow doubt your fridge will require a password. And, if it's as smart as you say, and can order new food on its own, it has to store your financial data somewhere inside itself. Chilling stuff, huh?

If you want me, you can find me on the other side of the Tor network.

[Diche Bach]

Wow, you guys didn't take the red pill didja?

Hate to break it to ya, but there already IS an Internet of Everything, and Kevin Warwick, cyborg professor is calling the shots.

[Seret]

And I somehow doubt your fridge will require a password. And, if it's as smart as you say, and can order new food on its own, it has to store your financial data somewhere inside itself. Chilling stuff, huh?

No, it would only need the username and password of your online groceries account. My computer and smartphone already have that. Online commerce is a proven technology, the risks aren't any greater than shopping in the street.

Security is an issue, but for most things it needn't be any more so than current technology. People mention things like smart locks, but the current system of carrying a physical token (ie: key) with you for access isn't particularly secure either, as the lock still doesn't know if the person carrying the key is the one who should have access. I'm not saying current locks don't work, because they clearly do. Just that the status quo isn't always the only way to do things.

[shand]

And i'm an IT guy / server administrator / programmer, and tell you that you overestimate people programing those devices. [...]every system can be breached.

And all doors can be lockpicked or battered down. all windows be smashed and all pockets picked.

every system designed to limit access can be bypassed/forced. my point is the hacking is lower risk then physical crime is now.

the problem still comes back to the individual its protecting - locking ymself out my house or dropping my key on the pavement is the physical side. forgetting my pincode or saying it outloud as i type it is the digital equivilent. the system is only as secure as the weakest link. US.

That said. the wifi enabled toilets they released they hardcoded the pincode into the system as 0000 with no way to change it. so... perhaps the weakest link there was the hardware/software designer. but surely you'd buy it, try and change the pin, and if you couldnt send it packing.

[jwenting]

i certainly hope not. i see the internet eventually degrading into either a government or corporate controlled network that babysits its users and tells the cops to get you when you do something they dont like.

which is exactly what "smart meters" are all about.

They're already marketed as "allowing us to tell you when you're using too much energy" and "allowing us to turn your lights off for you". In other words, to allow someone in some office building to control on a device by device basis what you're allowed to use and when.

So some government flunky decides that using lights between 10PM and 6AM is "bad", they now have the means to monitor exactly who's "naughty" and arrest them as "enemies of the environment" which according to some (many?) in the radical green movement should carry mandatory prison sentences up to and including the death penalty, or to forcibly put you in the dark by selectively turning off your lights.

Or they determine you're posting to some blog they don't like, and just set your smart meter to prevent you from turning on your computer, charge your cellphone, etc.

Welcome to 1984.

And "smart bulbs" are already here. They're sold as being so handy because you can turn them on and off remotely using an app on your cellphone.

There have also already been security experts putting out warnings against them, ignored until now by the manufacturers, because they've already been cracked.

[TheCardinal]

[*]Do we actually need EVERYTHING to be linked?

[*]Is that secure enough for us to do that?

No and no. Still, it will happen as many companies see the advantages for them.

[Nibb31]

which is exactly what "smart meters" are all about.

They're already marketed as "allowing us to tell you when you're using too much energy" and "allowing us to turn your lights off for you". In other words, to allow someone in some office building to control on a device by device basis what you're allowed to use and when.

Smart meters can warn you when you are using too much energy, which is a good thing. It's nice to be warned if you have a faulty appliance or if something is wrong with your installation, rather than having to pay an huge bill later on. And even conventional meters will cut off if your installation starts pulling too much power.

However, there is no way it could control actual devices or individual power sockets without some extra wiring or installing networked smart sockets.

So some government flunky decides that using lights between 10PM and 6AM is "bad", they now have the means to monitor exactly who's "naughty" and arrest them as "enemies of the environment" which according to some (many?) in the radical green movement should carry mandatory prison sentences up to and including the death penalty, or to forcibly put you in the dark by selectively turning off your lights.

Or they determine you're posting to some blog they don't like, and just set your smart meter to prevent you from turning on your computer, charge your cellphone, etc.

Welcome to 1984.

If you are living in the sort of fascist country where people are being arrested for having their lights on, then you have bigger problems than your electrical installation... It's time to move to Canada or Europe or some other friendlier place...

Edited August 28, 2013 by Nibb31

[shand]

<snip>

Agree with every word.

people make out that internet connectivity is evil because people can do x y z. usually x is physically impossible, y they can do anyway and all three are illegal under existing laws.

BTW: add in that in addition to any illegal actions (stealing your money, crashing your car) its also illegal to gain unauthorised access to computers and networks. even by guessing the password.

As the world becomes more connected - crime fighting will step up to the plate and become better at tracking and sorting out the issues.

And a final note: the invention of the car has caused unumerable deaths, rediculously high levels of crime, and been financially crippling to millions. but its been great for society. (not the deaths, crime or crippling... that sucked, but the cars are kinda useful)

[jwenting]

If you are living in the sort of fascist country where people are being arrested for having their lights on, then you have bigger problems than your electrical installation... It's time to move to Canada or Europe or some other friendlier place...

it's exactly in Europe where such things are suggested...

[Seret]

it's exactly in Europe where such things are suggested...

Don't be silly.

[TheCardinal]

Unfortunately, he (she?) isn't being silly.