Internet era, the things you have but I don’t belong to you

the Internet era. My friends, let’s cheer up!

the Internet of things can open our vision for the public, then let’s go to the contact with real-time data, and then we will get new insights and efficiency. This undoubtedly to save lives. Oh, by the way, as we know, it will subtly to redefine the ownership. You will no longer have those you already have the most expensive and most complex objects. You might think they are your exclusive. But, you are wrong.

the people said, “the law” is about nine over ten of the property. But even if you are in life and law have a Smart Thing (Internet of things intelligent device), you can’t really control it. Ownership will be with a three-legged stool: a has right to use; With a possession; Another have the final control. In a word, each has permissions.

this is not a hypothetical situation. Your phone might, for example, there are three separate computer (processor, the baseband processor and SIM card). In most cases, you may not have the habit of setting permissions, and that is why some people holding a cell phone as a “call tracking equipment”. The New York times recently released a report about the car, because consumers pay day late, car won’t start. Recent discoveries also pointed out that the Belkin router clearly before the rest of the connected to the Internet, is connected to the server Belkin.

as The Atlantic said: one of The items The more intelligent, because it was implanted into The greater The likelihood of “conspiracy”, although you may never have thought of, probably won’t like it.

and the fundamental problem now is that the Internet of things is no a set of open to the consumers can use the standard API. (although there has been a thingspeak, but it is not widely used by real.) You can’t let your Tesla will all data dump to the server you specified. Although the Nest has a public API, but they keep the network gatekeeper role. (you might think: “this is of course!” But please imagine, if you were told that if there is no apple explicit consent and approval, can’t you use Safari browser to access any Google services, and what you think of that?) When you buy a Smart Thing, you will be restricted to its software system. Whether you like it, it is controlled by the manufacturer.

as mobile era has been confirmed, technology visionaries think open systems tend to be successful, but it is not always correct. Android is more open than iOS, but when it comes to most intents and purposes, they both are “walled garden”. In other words, they own has its limitations.

first of all, I think, to some extent, for the first time in the Internet of things, open APL and get permission would be a big selling point. Whether it is a quite a number of clients, particularly business customers really need them, or Smart hardware the commercialization will be enough, they will enable emerging companies began to sell Smart Things, so buyers can get the permissions, and install to select server to dialogue with them.

however, let me more interested in the possibility of decentralized management of things. Smart Things don’t communicate with any center server. But it is not equivalent, and are more likely to be based on blockchain network. Think about FireChat is the use of case in Hong Kong, although the authorities can control the mobile communication network, but still can use the protesters. In fact, in most cases you do not need a central server, especially when you have a distributed – consistent system – like blockchain — coordinated long-term data storage and computing program.

just as some people think that capitalism needs development, technical innovation of our society and economy, so I’m not against to ably “ownership” to redefine. But I don’t want this means “to remote jurisdiction by the company to me, for full and detailed control”. In the end, we will usher in an open, diversified Internet of things. Sports a control enough already.

Source:

You may also like...