Do you guys remember
that one time when Cartman pretended to be retarded so he could enter and theoretically have the advantage at the Special Olympics?
The US Department of Commerce has published a green paper [PDF] on the Internet of Things, the first step in a process to develop formal governmental policies on the technology. Following a public request for comments back in April, the green paper attempts to summarize what a large number of companies, advocacy groups and …
"the prospect of a company storing data about customers’ faces and fried-chicken preferences raises the ever present trade-off between convenience and privacy. One woman tells me she wouldn’t use the machine for that reason, but most customers are nonplussed. “In China, you don’t have any privacy anyway,” said Li.
He’s right, sort of. Beyond the world of fast-food, personal data in China is becoming an increasingly valuable commodity. A Chinese newspaper recently conducted an experiment, which found that a citizen’s private data, including apartments they’d rented and internet cafés they’d visited, could be bought using their personal ID number at the cost of just (£82). Meanwhile, the government is rolling out a “social credit” system of digitally stored information about a person’s credit history, consumption habits and incidences of “conduct that seriously undermines the normal social order”. The system also awards points for good behaviour; a person’s point score affects their ability to travel abroad, buy property and enrol their children in certain schools, among other privileges.
It’s unlikely that a person’s lunchtime KFC order will determine whether or not they get a mortgage. KFC has stressed that the data it collects is “highly secured” and “will not be used for other purposes”. But with facial recognition technology planned to be expanded to KFC’s 5,000 stores around China, and potentially normalised into other public-facing services, it’s a glimpse into a future where nothing is private, not even your guilty eating habits."
This post has been deleted by its author
Wandered over to post much the same.
Possibly better to mandate non-routeable IPv4 addresses? Never going to run out of those. Unless they are envisaging stand alone deployment e.g. mobile enabled devices which go direct to the Internet and don't rely on an existing network. Interesting approach to anarchy combined with central control. Buy a camera, stick it up on a wall, and register the serial number and password with a central server. Pay a rental for the mobile access. Bundled service or your own SIM? Instant surveillance of anywhere in the country in reach of a mobile network. I'll stop thinking about it now and go and take my dried frog pills.
However, regardless, they will probably have immediate free access to the Internet with no action requied by the owner/victim.
Mandating passwords and basic security checking before sale is shirley more productive in securing the Internet.
Ah, I'll put it back since it's got a reply, looks weird otherwise. Wasn't convinced it added much apart from my general uneasiness with arbitrary companies having endpoints in my premises.
As I understand it, IPV6's addressing will allow a direct link between the IoT widget and the mothership. That feels more or less the opposite from what I want. Guaranteeing that the widget is landfill as soon as either the mothership or my net feed hiccups, and unfettered comms between the widget and the mothership. I can't see how to firewall this, the widget is either going to be connected or it isn't going to work. Do I just hope it's benign?
Nope. Still not keen on this interpretation of IoT.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021