IoT is creating new opportunities and providing a competitive advantage for businesses in current and new markets. It touches everything—not just the data, but how, when, where and why you collect it. The technologies that have created the Internet of Things aren’t changing the internet only, but rather change the things connected to the internet—the devices and gateways on the edge of the network that are now able to request a service or start an action without human intervention at many levels.
NVIDIA looks inside Parker and automotive-grade
‘Parker’ is a fascinating name for a chip designed for autonomous vehicles – more likely, the project name was pulled off a map as a bedroom community near Denver. First highlighted on the roadmap in 2013, and advertised as inside the DRIVE PX 2 platform shown at CES 2016, NVIDIA revealed some details of Parker at Hot Chips 2016. Continue reading “NVIDIA looks inside Parker and automotive-grade”
What you need to Know about Bluetooth 5
The rate of development in IoT is staggering. Not only are there millions of new devices entering the market every year, but there are numerous emerging technologies for wireless communications, especially those that focus on low power. Keeping track with all of the latest technologies can be difficult, even for industry professionals.
One upcoming technology that is going to be essential to IoT is Bluetooth 5. Promising more range and higher bandwidth, familiarizing yourself with this technology can offer a glimpse into one of the protocols that will power much of our wireless world in the near future.
Bluetooth 5 Requires new Hardware
In 2016, it should not be a complete surprise that a new wireless spec will also require new hardware. While newer Bluetooth 5 enabled devices will be backwards compatible, older devices will not comply with the new specification. This means that current generation devices won’t be able to take advantage of services that use the new specification exclusively.
The level of compatibility between new and old spec devices will depend entirely on developers. With literally billions of older Bluetooth devices around the world, it should be expected that developers will allow basic compatibility between new and old spec machines.
Even Better Battery Life
For some time now, Bluetooth has been well known as a low power network. For consumer devices like smartphones, headsets, and wireless input devices, this has allowed for tiny batteries and small form factor designs. While the Bluetooth Special Interests Group hasn’t specifically stated the power savings of the new spec, they have confirmed that it will use less than the previous generation’s low power mode. For isolated IoT sensors and machines, lower power draw is something that developers will appreciate.
Increased Speed
The current bluetooth spec is incapable of maintaining high bandwidth connections. With 5G fast approaching, and Wi-Fi that exists almost everywhere in developed areas, Bluetooth needed to bring an increased bandwidth solution. The new spec won’t disappoint, and will double the maximum bandwidth of version 4.2. For streaming media, the increase will be significant. Bluetooth should now be able to stream (in ideal conditions) HD video without interruption. Device to device data rates will be increased, and connectivity with Bluetooth beacons and kiosks could benefit from the improved capability.
Four Times the Range
Bluetooth has traditionally been used for machine to close machine communications and local area networks. While some IoT observers may have wished for Bluetooth to become more of a LPWAN solution, this will not be the case with version 5. However, range will be increased by up to 400%, which means better connectivity between devices, and fewer dropped packets in urban transmission. Anyone who has experienced stuttering with Bluetooth audio over distance will appreciate the new developments and (presumably) the new devices that will take advantage of them.
What does all this mean for the Internet of Things? Essentially, Bluetooth 5 promises to bring stronger connections with more bandwidth over longer distances. This could make private Bluetooth networks more viable for home automation, and may even replace Wi-Fi for network access in certain situations.
Ultimately, it will be up to developers to make the most of the new specification, which makes it an exciting addition to the options that innovators have for their future IoT services and devices.
For More Info and our most recent Blog check out www.internetofthingsrecruiting.com
Keeping your design files organized
Men marry women wishing they will never change, but they do.Women marry men wishing they will be able to change them, but they don’t.
When I was young, even during my University studies, I was a real disaster in anything related to order. My room was always a mess. Whenever my mother or any other would try to change my ways (even a little bit), I would say what many like me love to say:
Continue reading “Keeping your design files organized”
Is AMD for Sale?
AMD has been artificially pumping up their stock of late so the question I have is; why? What is with the short term strategy? The only answer that I deem noteworthy is that AMD is trying to get acquired and there is a strong case emerging to support that. Also note that AMD CEO Lisa Su is currently the largest single AMD stock holder which may be an added incentive to sell the company.
During the last investor call, Lisa Su proudly said, “We achieved profitability this quarter, for the first time since 2014.” Unfortunately AMD could not have achieved that without selling a majority interest (85%) in their assembly and test operations to another firm to raise cash. As a result they recorded a significant profit on this sale ($127M after provisions for taxes). Without this one-time operations spin-out, the net operating results would have been a significant loss.
Also read: Why is AMD Stock Jumping?
A more recent stock pump is AMD releasing a questionable benchmark for their new Zen processor (coinciding with the Intel Developers Forum) that sent the stock on another run up. According to computer history, benchmarking CPUs is more of an art than a science. In this case AMD used an Open Source benchmark (Blender) which can easily be manipulated. AMD also did not disclose specifics of the configuration such as memory and they throttled (clocked down) the Intel CPU to match the Zen Part.
Bottom line: This is a classic case of benchmark smoke and mirrors. If AMD had nothing to hide they would have enlisted a third party to test the part and run a suite of benchmarks. To me this follows a pattern of deceptive behavior which should be of great concern.
AMD also hinted at yet another delay of Zen which was originally announced in 2015. AMD had hoped to get the 14nm Zen part into PCs for the 2016 back to school and holiday buying frenzy but now it looks more like it will be the 2017 back to school and holiday season. This delay will now put Zen against Intel’s planned 10nm PC launch next fall.
AMD did not mention their 10nm strategy but it would have been wise for them to use Samsung 10nm since their preferred wafer supplier, GlobalFoundries, will be skipping 10nm. The Zen part is currently being manufactured by GF using 14nm technology licensed from Samsung so it would have been a much easier transition to Samsung 10nm than say TSMC 10nm. Samsung 10nm will be in production in 1H 2017 so in theory a 10nm Zen part could have been ready for the 2017 fall shopping season if AMD was thinking ahead and had been on schedule.
Also Read:The 2016 Leading Edge Semiconductor Landscape
This 10nm scenario is highly unlikely however since AMD recently modified their wafer agreement with GlobalFoundries to add 7nm. The new contract expires in 2020 and AMD will take a one-time charge of $335 million in the third quarter of 2016.
The other interesting piece of news is that Intel released their 14nm+ version which offers more than a 10% process performance increase. I was also told that it offers a cost reduction as well so this is what the AMD Zen part will be competing against. At 10nm Intel will again do multiple versions that should be well ahead of, and competitive to, GF 7nm which should keep AMD at bay.
Bottom line:The epic Intel vs AMD battle is back which will benefit the semiconductor industry but I wonder if this is yet another false start for AMD, one that could ultimately kill them?
Also read: AMD Zen and the Art of Microprocessor Maintenance
Will Unicorn Tech Startups Go the Way of the Unicorns?
After a record pace achieved in 2015, there’s no doubt the rate of billion-dollar valuations for startups has cooled down in 2016. But it is too soon to tell if the pause is temporary or reflects a return to the past when billion-dollar valuations for startups were as rare as unicorns.
Success in general brings greater scrutiny and builds even higher expectations for the future. Unicorn tech startups are no different. After pouring in large amounts of money at rich valuations the investors have huge expectations from Unicorns both in terms of the level of success they need to achieve and the time period within which that success should be achieved.
A Unicorn is a private company with a valuation from private investors of US$1 billion or more. The term entered the Silicon Valley vernacular around 2013. By then there were 39 such companies with a combined valuation of $100 billion. Previously, Unicorns had been relatively rare.
By the end of Q1 2015, there were 95 Unicorn tech startups globally, growing to 167 by the end of Q2 2016 with a combined value of more than US$600 billion. Although the number of Unicorns grew each quarter during the last six, the pace decreased from double-digit growth to single digits recently; 10 companies joined the Unicorn club in Q2 2016 with an aggregate valuation of US$15.4 billion.
Private financings in recent quarters have produced lower valuations due to the overall tight IPO market, as reported in our Q2 2016 Tech IPO report, and to what is becoming a buyer’s M&A market.
Enabled by widespread adoption of mobile computing and cloud computing, the growth in “technology as a service” (such as SaaS, PaaS and IaaS) has allowed start-ups to overcome the previous barriers of large capital investments in technology, resulting in smaller capital investments and more operational flexibility. This has created low barriers to entry. Compared with even five years ago, young firms no longer need a large or complex infrastructure to achieve global reach and penetration. And these operating models are not only agile, they are highly efficient, allowing start-ups to undercut prices.
The original unicorn was a mythical horse-like creature with a single horn on its head. One legend has it that unicorns really did exist, but disappeared because none made it onto Noah’s ark. Although reports of the Unicorn startup’s demise are premature, it appears at least some Unicorns could miss the boat when they go public, by posting IPOs worth much less than their billion-dollar valuations. Some could sink entirely (fail) while others will go on to become buoyant publicly held companies.
This much seems clear: Current Unicorns are not likely to receive new funding rounds at existing or higher valuations unless they can demonstrate a clear path to profitability in the not too distant future, not just the possibility of future revenue growth. If they are unable to pave a clear path to above average revenue growth with profitability, they will have a difficult time convincing the investors that they are worthy of Unicorn valuations. With the pace of change and technological disruption moving fast, some of the existing Unicorns also run the risk of being disrupted by newer startups before they finish executing on their plans.
Despite the above cautions, there are three mitigating factors that seem to favor Unicorns: their liquidity needs differ; market conditions, and investor patience.
Different liquidity needs
Because they have already raised large amounts of money at higher valuations, most Unicorns should have options that many other startups may not have. Many Unicorns are highly liquid and may not need to access capital markets just for the liquidity.
If they need more capital because their business models call for higher levels of investment for global expansion or for developing new markets, Unicorns should in general be able to raise new money, though in many cases at relatively lower valuations. The lower valuations may not excite existing investors, but they could attract opportunistic new investors who may have previously deliberately stayed on the sidelines during the earlier rounds.
Although budgets vary from company to company, Unicorns should in general have more options for managing cash than most startups. For example, they could choose to stretch their budgets by slowing global expansion or entry into new markets that require greater investment or initial losses. One side benefit: wrestling with these decisions and executing them will teach the management team lessons it needs to learn for the long haul.
Successful startups often choose business models that call for limited investment in infrastructure until they have a proven path to growth and profitability with a respectable customer base. When access to capital at high valuations is difficult, this forces the companies to be more thoughtful in choosing where to spend their resources. Fortunately, emergence of cloud and associated new business models using “everything as-a-service” offer multiple options to all companies to stretch their budgets without sacrificing access to needed services.
Market conditions and investor patience
Because a Unicorn has achieved high valuations prior to its IPO, any IPO valuation must be significantly higher than the private valuation to be considered successful, and that requires stronger IPO markets than we’ve seen in recent quarters. This is especially true for Unicorns that raised money in 2014 and 2015 when valuations were often very rich.
In fact, from 2014 through June 2016, more than two-thirds of Unicorns have seen their values plummet after going public (trading today below their IPO closing price), according to a recent report by SVB Analytics. Of the 17 Unicorns that went public during this period, nine were trading below their final private valuation. Of those nine, 80% are US-based, while only half of those trading abovetheir final private valuation are US companies. This suggests that US investors are clearly willing to take greater risks, but as a result may bid up valuations to unrealistic levels.
A weaker IPO market means reduced risk tolerance by investors, which causes greater focus on demonstrated profitability. By its nature, that focus would extend the IPO time line for many companies. Once again, this is good training for management teams, and for testing and adapting the business model –perhaps a blessing in disguise.
When it comes to achieving liquidity, the investor’s patience is impacted by several factors. The most important may be time elapsed from when they made the investment. Many startups achieved Unicorn status during the past 12 to 18 months; most investors understand the era of the quick flip is over, and that now they must wait three to four years from the time they invested. Investors understand that their impatience could lead to an IPO at a valuation that may be lower than the private market Unicorn valuation, or to the outright sale of the company at a lower amount.
Conclusion
It is too soon to predict whether the recently minted Unicorns will achieve success at a much higher rate and in a shorter time period than the historical success rates and gestation periods for startups.
There is an inflection point wherein the passage of time reduces the likelihood of success. While the inflection point would vary from company to company and by sector, most Unicorns have not reached the inflection point yet.
The dotcom bust of 2000 proved that if access to capital becomes too easy and cheap, it is not valued and often contributes to reckless spending and wishful business models that lead to failures.
If the capital markets of 2016 had proven to be much stronger than 2015, then the Unicorns of 2015 would have had the fortune of achieving IPOs at even higher valuations. But, they may also have fallen into the same trap from the dotcom boom, which led entrepreneurs to believe success was possible on the strength of ideas (that appear great) without demonstrated revenue growth and profits.
In many respects, it is better for Unicorns born in strong markets to experience challenges of a normal or weaker market as a test of the resilience of their product, business model, and management team.
Raman Chitkara leads the global technology practice at PwC.He has more than 30 years of experience working in the technology industry in the Silicon Valley. His clients have included technology companies with global operations ranging from start-ups to multibillion-dollar multinationals in semiconductor, software, internet, computing and networking sectors.Read his full biography here.
IoT Tutorial: Chapter 14 – Wearables IoT Systems and Applications
Introducing Wearables
Wearables are small electronic devices, which comprise one or more sensors and are associated with clothing or worn accessories such as watches, wristbands, glasses and jewelry. Wearables come also with some sort of computational capability, which enables them to capture and process data about the physical world. In several cases they provide the means for presenting data in some sort of display. Wearable devices are not always connected to the internet, yet they usually offer some sort of connectivity such as Bluetooth or NFC (Near Field Communications) based connectivity to smartphones and the applications that are executed over them. The latter smartphones and applications support Internet based connections to cloud computing infrastructures and other devices for the purpose of exchanging data and invoking services (e.g., collecting and aggregating data within cloud infrastructures, triggering alerts). Despite the fact that not all wearables are connected to the Internet, wearable devices are considered a characteristic example of IoT devices, as they enable the blending of embedded sensors, software and connectivity towards supporting automated data exchanges and interaction between humans and devices.
Wearable devices serve multiple purposes and applications, as different types of wearables provide a wide range of different sensors such a light, sound, speed/acceleration, humidity, and more, while also providing a variety of calculations ranging from simple speed averages to electrocardiography values. Therefore, wearable devices are increasingly used in many industries, including both consumer and non-consumer oriented ones. The consumer oriented industries where wearables are extensively used including fitness and sports, fashion and apparel, home automation, as well as gaming. On the other hand, non-consumer oriented applications are typically found in defense and security, enterprise and industrial and healthcare. According to most market reports, the wearables consumer market is growing more rapidly than the non-consumer one; both however are witnessing significant growth, in the areas of tens of billions dollars between today and 2020. The proliferated use of wearables devices in the above listed market segments is likely to transform whole sectors of the economy, especially when combined with IoT technologies,including the Big Data and IoT analytics technologies discussed in earlier chapters.
Nowadays, the wearables sector with the highest penetration among consumers is probably the sports and wellness segment. This includes activity tracking and body operations monitoring devices, such as Apple Watch (which includes a heart rate sensor, a GPS and an accelerometer) and Sensoria Fitness T-shirt (which comprises embedded textile sensors that enable tracking of heart rate). In general, vendors with significant potential in these markets are those that have already established consumer ecosystems, including access to large numbers of end customers. Prominent examples of such vendors include Samsung, Google, Apple, Fitbit, Nike, Adidas and Sony. Popular products of these vendors include:
- Adidas (http://www.adidas.gr/) Smart Run, which is a wrist device that monitors the wearer’s heart rate and location data. Note that the device is blended into Adidas miCoach system, which provides applications that improve the wearer’s training and performance.
- FitBit’s Flex (https://www.fitbit.com/), which is a sleek wristband that provides real-time statistics on a user’s daily fitness activity.
- Google’s Google Glass (https://www.google.com/glass/start/), which is a head-mounted wearable computer that projects a transparent screen in front of the user’s field of vision.
- Nike’s Nike+ Sportwatch (http://www.nikeplus.com.br/), which is a wearable device that measures the distance traveled as well as the pace and speed of the wearer’s run.
- Samsung’s Galaxy Gear (http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/mobile-devices/wearables/), an Android-based smart watch that synchronizes with a cellphone to achieve smartphone-like capabilities.
- Sony’s Sony Core (http://www.sonymobile.com/global-en/products/smartwear/), a wrist-worn waterproof wearable smart band with a built-in sensor, which records activity levels throughout the day.
IoT and Wearables Convergence
During recent years, the above-listed wearable devices are becoming part of wider platforms and ecosystems that are provided by their vendors. Google and Apple are prominent examples of vendors that link their wearable products with wider wearables ecosystems. The latter are not limited to device level innovations, since they also include complete programming environments and related support services, which enable solution integrators and service providers to develop and provide a wide range of user-centred context-aware applications. These emerging wearable ecosystems enable the interaction of devices with people and other internet connected devices, thus empowering the convergence of wearable computing with the Internet-of-Things (IoT) paradigm.
The IoT and wearables convergence is the next evolutionary step in the development and deployment of added-value user-centric services based on wearables devices. This convergence will enable the development of secure, scalable, cost-effective and easy to deploy applications that leverage data and services from multiple wearable devices regardless of their vendor and/or their IoT ecosystems. It will also shift the value proposition from the proposition of the wearable vendor’s product (i.e. “best product”) to the provision of added-value services for end-users, notably services that combine data from multiple devices (i.e. “best IoT service”). To this end, there will be a need for interconnecting diverse ecosystems, taking into account a wide range of technical, technological, societal, business and regulatory issues. At the technological forefront there are already solutions for interconnecting ecosystems in a secure and (semantically) interoperable way, as we have discussed in an earlier chapter of this tutorial dealing with semantic interoperability. However, these solutions have not been customized and validated based on the needs of the wearables industry. Furthermore, no efforts have been undertaken towards resolving the associated business issues (including viable business models) and regulatory issues including the ever important security, privacy and data protection challenges.
An overview of the challenges and limitations that currently hinder the wider penetration and uptake of IoT wearables technologies follows.
Challenges for End-Users:
- Vendor Lock-in: Once end-users purchase a wearable device and associated services, they suffer from vendor lock-in which tights them to the ecosystem of their device vendor. End-users have no way of switching to another vendor’s device (and associated ecosystem) without essentially disrupting the operation of the service(s) that are offered to them.
- Repurpose devices for other contexts and applications: Most wearables are currently deployed in order to deliver services in a specific application area (e.g., fitness or healthcare). There is no easy way to repurpose and reuse the data and/or the services provided by a wearable device in other contexts, which restricts the use and limits end-users’ Return-on-Investment (ROI) on wearable devices.
- Empower users to control their data: End-user data represent the most precious resources in a wearables technology context, while at the same time being a main vehicle for personalizing applications and services. However, users are currently forced to abide by predetermined and rather inflexible agreements with services providers and vendors regarding the sharing and use of their data (in-line with available laws and regulations). Likewise, they are not offered with flexibility in controlling their data and are not empowered to selectively share them in exchange of appropriate incentives.
- Provide user-friendly and engaging applications: The interaction with the devices and application must be intuitive so end-users can easily know how to use their wearables and how to personalize all of that interaction. Most of current devices and applications overload end-users with functionalities and data without considering their individual competence level and preferences.
Challenges for IoT Applications Developers:
- Open and Device Independent development: Wearables application developers are currently tied to specific ecosystems, since their applications are bound to specific devices and APIs. While this boosts specialization, it also results in a fragmentation of knowledge and skills, which can be a serious setback to wearables innovation in an IoT context, where applications are likely to comprise multiple devices from more than one vendors.
- Increased Reuse of IoT services in a wearables context: IoT applications involving wearable devices should be able to benefit from the proliferating number of services on IoT data (such as IoT analytics). The reuse of such services could facilitate the rapid bootstrapping of the development of novel wearables applications, while at the same time facilitate a best-of-breed blending between the IoT and wearables worlds.
- Increased user-acceptance: Integration of human-centred (e.g., such as artistic) aspects are key prerequisites for the acceptance of wearables devices and associated IoT applications by end users. However, these aspects have not still received adequate attention by vendors and integrators.
- Simplified data management (including security, privacy and data protection): Developers’ have nowadays no easy ways to manage end-users data, especially when it comes to dealing with devices and services from multiple wearables devices and ecosystems.
Challenges for Wearables Vendors and Producers
- Enrich the wearable services ecosystem: Wearables vendors’ business opportunities are currently limited to their own ecosystems (including devices and associated programming environments). Vendors could benefit from additional business opportunities stemming from a richer ecosystem, which will enable IoT applications deploying multi-vendor wearables.
- Improved Design and End-User Acceptance: Wearables vendors’ participation in an IoT ecosystem that combines wearable devices from multiple vendors will provide opportunities for improved design of devices and increased end-user acceptance. The latter will be highly based on the delivery of the above-listed benefits to end-users, such as control over their data and opportunities for data control and repurposing.
- Enable vendors’ and producers participation in an open innovation ecosystem: Wearables innovation is nowadays constrained in the realm of specific vendors and their ecosystem. An additional wave of open innovation applications will generate more business and market opportunities.
Wearables and Interoperability
Interoperability across wearables devices, services and ecosystems is a key to alleviating several of above-listed limitations (e.g., cross-ecosystem development, vendor lock-in the more). In particular interoperability at multiple levels is required including:
- Interoperability across different wearables devices, towards enabling machine-to-machine (M2M) communication between them. This requires interoperability in communication protocols and devices, as needed in order to enable direct (M2M) communication between two or more different devices.
- Interoperability in terms of different data formats, through adherence to a well-defined syntax and encoding. This will facilitate consistent data field level interpretation regardless of wearable vendor, API and software drivers used to access wearables data. JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) is a popular format used
- Interoperability regarding the meaning of the data of each wearable device, towards facilitating a common interpretation (i.e. semantic interoperability).
All these interoperability levels can be addressed on the basis of the technical, syntactic and semantic interoperability techniques for IoT, which have been discussed in earlier chapters of this tutorial.
Overall, wearable technologies enable a host of new opportunities for novel IoT services, which are expected to go far beyond the standards set of services that come with the devices we purchase nowadays. Blended with wearables, IoT will boost a shift from the “Best Wearable Product” to the “Best IoT Wearables Service”. End-user’s ability to access such services will provide a strong incentives for end-users to overcome existing concerns about wearable adoption, such as concerns associated with privacy and data protection, vulnerability to security breaches and the use of too many electronic devices.
Acknowledgements
I acknowledge help and valuable contribution from my former student Ms Athina Klaoudatou (currently ICT Presales Engineer at Hellenic Telecommunications Organisation) for providing an analysis of the wearables market.
How to Save 10,000 Lives
It’s Labor Day weekend in the U.S. and the National Safety Council (NSC) has forecast that approximately 400 deaths will occur on the nation’s highways. This death toll is about on par with past Labor Day weekends, with no big increase or reduction anticipated.
This routine slaughter is greeted by most observers with a yawn, but in the context of a 7.2% jump in annual highway fatalities last year and a subsequent 9% increase in fatalities forecast by the NSC for the first half of 2016, the U.S. is facing the prospect of 40,000 fatalities in 2016. The last time 40,000 lives were lost in a year on U.S. highways was 2007.
Having personally seen the aftermath of two crashes while driving in the Washington, DC, area over the past couple days the prospect appears very real. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is so concerned as to have suddenly opened up access to its crash databases just last week for individuals and organizations to pore over and pitch in to the effort to find an immediate solution to the scourge.
Most crash mitigation and fatality reduction strategies boil down to saving a couple hundred lives here or there. Whether considering the soon-to-be-implemented back-up camera mandate or recommending the adoption of automatic emergency braking, lane departure warning, blind spot detection a la the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, there are few good options for immediately curtailing crashes.
Driver distraction – mainly in the form of texting while driving – has garnered a substantial amount of attention in the press. NHTSA even claims that distracted drivers are responsible for 10% of all highway fatalities in the U.S. But mitigating driver distraction remains an elusive challenge in spite of a wide range of laws and enforcement efforts across the U.S. – and around the world.
There is one solution that has gotten little attention of late but which promises to immediately reduce the rising body count: Alcohol Detection Systems.
Nearly half of all fatal crashes during Labor Day weekend are ultimately attributable to alcohol consumption. Globally, alcohol consumption is blamed for 500,000 of the 1.25M annual highway fatalities.
Since 2011, NHTSA has been studying the development and implementation of touch- and breath-based alcohol detection systems as standard features in cars. The agency’s public statements describe the research as setting the stage for making such systems available as a vehicle option – but standard implementation in the form of a mandate or voluntary fitment by auto makers is on the table in view of the carnage attributed to drunk drivers.
The breath-based system is under development by Autoliv while Takata has partnered with TruTouch to work on the touch-based system. (The Autoliv system is designed to only capture the driver’s breath. The TruTouch system can be mounted on the engine start button, gear shift or steering wheel.) The agency and cooperating car companies (which comprise a long list including most car makers) are seeking a system capable of delivering an inobtrusive, accurate and swift (sub-second) reading of driver blood-alcohol level prior to enabling operation of the motor vehicle.
Among the considerations for NHTSA, Autoliv, Takata and car maker partners are the societal impacts and implications of such a standard system. The concept is hard to argue against – unless you believe drunk drivers have a right to drive. At the same time, it seems to put the freedom to drive at will in question.
A single vehicle is currently on the road in the U.S. with some somewhat unwieldy test equipment installed. But as this technological solution gets closer to market the voices of safety advocates and the insurance industry can be expected to rise in support of proceeding directly to a standard. With highway fatalities on a trajectory to hit a nine-year high, NHTSA will be looking closer than ever before at solutions capable of delivering an immediate reduction in highway fatalities.
The stubbornly high rate of crashes and fatalities related to drunk driving suggest that nothing less than a mandate will curb this very low tech problem. Ten thousand fatalities every year is simply too many too ignore.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/Vehicle+Safety/DADSS – Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety
http://www.dadss.org/ – Video
What’s on the Horizon for IoT and CCTV?
Smart devices are transforming the world that we live in, but is change always positive? When it comes to the internet of things (IoT), there are two strongly opposing viewpoints. Some see connected devices as a natural evolution of technology and the internet, with far reaching benefits for consumers, industry, and general business. There is also another viewpoint that sees IoT as too risky, too pervasive, and frighteningly unregulated.
The truth may be somewhere in the middle, although both viewpoints raise valid concerns and benefits. If designed and implemented correctly, IoT can increase efficiency, reduce cost, improve safety, and deliver convenience. However, without necessary attention to security and good judgement, IoT technologies can compromise privacy and sensitive data. When considering both viewpoints, it can help to look at a single technology group, such as CCTV cameras with internet connectivity.
The Benefits of Wireless CCTV Cameras
CCTV cameras and IoT can provide clear benefits over older systems. They can backup footage to local or cloud connected storage, which can then be made available for any user with internet access to the system. An embedded chip could also allow for live streaming so that monitoring can be performed off-site, without the need for wired infrastructure. This can reduce costs and improve convenience, while also shattering the old notion that monitoring requires a dedicated video room, staffed by full time employees. Smart cameras can even be configured to record and notify an elected group or individual when movement is detected. This essentially combines the functions of a video monitoring system and an intruder alarm, in a single technology.
With benefits like these, it’s easy to see why businesses and home users would be interested in a networked CCTV system, but when the risks are considered, connected cameras may become less appealing.
What are the Dangers of Current and Future Devices?
A CCTV system that is connected to the internet can theoretically be breached by any party, from anywhere in the world where there is internet access. Unauthorized access can mean that cameras could be disabled or hijacked to steal footage, potentially leaking sensitive trade or manufacturing information. In the case of domestic cameras, unauthorized access can open up the home to prying eyes. Not only can privacy be invaded, but criminals could potentially use cameras to track people’s movements and schedules to plan burglaries, home invasions, or other crimes.
What looks on paper to be a robust and futuristic security system, could just as easily be made to serve malicious parties, so what is the solution?
Security is Key
Like with most IoT devices, security will be the all-important layer that determines whether the benefits can be enjoyed without compromising privacy or increasing the risk of data theft. In commercial business and industry, there are typically more resources available to ensure that networks and devices are secured. Data transfer can be encrypted, and wireless and wired networks can be made safe through enterprise level firewalls and other safeguards. In the home, security is less likely to be effectively managed. Many home CCTV users may be ignorant to the needs of security, and may even be unaware of whether their home network and devices are secured.
This presents a significant challenge which should be addressed in two ways. Manufacturers and innovators have a responsibility to develop IoT systems that are secure by design, with safeguards in place to ensure that even user error cannot compromise the security of a system. At the same time, there needs to be a push to educate consumers (private and business) on the importance of security and the risks of poorly protected IoT devices like CCTV cameras. Government bodies can potentially strengthen security implementations and awareness through regulation and legislation.
With analysts expecting up to 50 billion embedded chip devices to be in use by 2020, it is essential that security and education challenges are met, so that IoT can reach its full potential without compromising the safety and security of organizations and users around the world.
For more information check out our new website. www.internetofthingsrecruiting.com
We Have Met the Enemy (of Security) and It Is Us
(With apologies to Pogo.) For all the great work that we are seeing in improving both software and hardware security, we – not the technology – are in many ways the weakest link in the security chain. Recent reports indicate we are surprisingly easy to fool, despite our much proclaimed awareness of risks.
In a recent experiment at FAU, over half of email recipients clicked on links from an unknown sender, as did 40% of Facebook users, even though ~80% of participants said they were aware of the risks in clicking on unknown links. Emails were engineered with a sender name common in the target group and said the link would lead them to pictures taken at a recent party. My inference is that the appeal of seeing who was there and whether the recipients were in any pictures was more immediately compelling than the risk they might incur.
Separately, a study at BYU found that security messages were ignored by nearly 90% of users if they appeared at an inconvenient time (while typing, watching a video, ..). The inference drawn by the researchers is that (surprise, surprise) we’re not nearly as good at multitasking as we think we are and (my inference) we tend to prioritize what we were doing, not the interrupt.
Of course there are well-known problems with USB flash drive and related products. Most of us will still happily pick these up at trade shows, conferences and other promotional campaigns. We all too frequently use them ourselves or hand them out to friends and family. And yet vendors buy such devices as cheaply as they possibly can (wouldn’t you if you were going to hand them out like candy?), sourced through murky distribution chains, despite proven examples of pre-installed viruses. One instance at mobile network provider O2 was particularly embarrassing.
Then there are the “accidentally” dropped USB sticks that many of us will happily pick up. This story at times seems like a viral meme, but a recent study confirmed this behavior is very real and very current. Recently researchers dropped ~300 flash drives round the campus of U Illinois. At least half of the drives were picked up and connected to a computer within 6 minutes. Motives were apparently altruistic (trying to find the owner of the drive so it could be returned), especially if keys were attached to the drive. Only a small percentage of users who opened a drive first checked the drive with anti-virus software.
The point of all this is that, while improvements in hardware and software security are very necessary, as these walls get higher evil-doers will naturally turn (and are already turning) to easier paths. There’s no better place to go than attacks on flaws in human architecture which aren’t easily fixed with brilliant hardware and software innovations.
We might imagine that we ourselves are too clever and too wise to be tricked in this way, but really, none of us are justified in having this level of confidence. A sufficiently interesting/convincing email could trick the best of us, especially if we’re even a little bit distracted. And unless we want to retire into a life of paranoid seclusion we will continue to share data and links with family members and friends who may not be as vigilant as us (or perhaps we are not as vigilant as them?)
So while we’re busy engineering even more impenetrable walls around our hardware and software, spare a thought for how we might improve security in the weakest link – us. The FAU study is HERE, the BYU study HERE, the O2 incident HERE and the USB study HERE. For an entertaining list of some of the best social engineering attacks, see HERE.