Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Vint Cerf: CS Programs Must Change To Adapt To Internet of Things

samzenpus posted about 5 months ago | from the get-to-learning dept.

Education 163

chicksdaddy (814965) writes "The Internet of Things has tremendous potential but also poses a tremendous risk if the underlying security of Internet of Things devices is not taken into account, according to Vint Cerf, Google's Internet Evangelist. Cerf, speaking in a public Google Hangout (video) on Wednesday, said that he's tremendously excited about the possibilities of an Internet of billions of connected objects. But Cerf warned that it necessitates big changes in the way that software is written. Securing the data stored on those devices and exchanged between them represents a challenge to the field of computer science – one that the nation's universities need to start addressing. Internet of Things products need to do a better job managing access control and use strong authentication to secure communications between devices."

cancel ×

163 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Coonz!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46645721)

hee hee what a bunch of niggers dumbass jigaboos what a bunch of coons haa haa stupid bunch of nigjigs laa laa dumb ass tribal speakchuckers!! you say african american i say nigger american whats the difference? theyre both niggers you dumb cunt!! dumb stupid civilization destroying welfare eating bastardchildfactory primitive gangstatribal bunch of criminal breeding NIGGERS yeah! that's what they are uh huh.

even libtardbedwetters wouldnt visit a black ghetto they know how violent niggers are! no matter how not-racist the libtard is!! hahahaha you preach something but you cant live the way you preach you niggerloving libtards,yeah thats right pretend to be the niggers friend to get his nigger vote you niggerlover but dont ever live with niggers because you wouldnt like that! hahaa hahahaa bunch of PC nigger lovers wow only nigger lovers like them are even worse than niggers who steal your car and smoke crack!

niggers think being a thug is cool what a bunch of niggers! niggers beat up black kids that study because they act white, what a bunch of dumb niggers! hey why dont the niggers just work hard to keep other niggers dumb, oh wait thats what they do!! dumb fucking niggers! hey why dont the niggers just try real hard to keep more niggers in prison than niggers in college at any given time? oh wait thats what they do!! dumb fucking niggers! hey why dont the niggers hurt and kill each other till black on black crime is much higher than white on black crime everwas? oh wait thats what they do!! dumb fucking niggers! hey niggers why dont they always defend niggers who fuck up and do stupid shit just because they are fellow niggers like treyvon? oh wait thats wha they do, he's a nigger youre a nigger so you niggers act like niggers!! dumb fucking niggers!

hey why dont niggers get nigger slashdot accounts like a great big bunch of niggers and mod shit like this down because niggers dont wanna hear what a big nigger every nigger really is so they mod it down and hope it goes away!! oh wait thats wha they do!! hahahaha mod the truth down niggers then you forget the truth and what do you end up with? niggertruth! oh wait thats what they do!!

wow niggers are too stupid even niggers think niggers are stupid, dumb niggers! hahahaha nigger nigger nigger yes read it and weep you niggers and you nigger lovers hahaaha yeah he said NIGGER do you get upset when somebody says NIGGER? unless you know theyre black then its ok to say NIGGER? how do you know im not black you NIGGER? you dont you fucking nigger! you just assume i must not be black because you stereotype what races are and what they do and you think you fucking know everything! you don't! you know less than a nigger!! what if I am black and say NIGGER then what you NIGGER! didn't niggers wait so long for the freedom to say NIGGER on the internet? didn't think of that NIGGER did you NIGGER?! yeah. you NIGGER!

Re:Coonz!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46646295)

Your mom's going to be pissed when she sees what you've been doing with her computer while she's "out for the night".

Could they possibly come up with a dumber name? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46645725)

"Internet of things" sounds like some retarded proprietary crap from some big-name company

Re:Could they possibly come up with a dumber name? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46645823)

What if the PENISBIRD flappity flaps into your mouth?!

Re:Could they possibly come up with a dumber name? (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 5 months ago | (#46646387)

It dies if it touches any of his/her teeth or tonsils.

Re:Could they possibly come up with a dumber name? (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 5 months ago | (#46647253)

I'm sure that a properly souped-up hosts file is the answer.

Re:Could they possibly come up with a dumber name? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46647397)

Agreed. These things are called "phones" now.

Re:Could they possibly come up with a dumber name? (1)

Livius (318358) | about 5 months ago | (#46647401)

"Internet of things" sounds like some retarded proprietary crap from some big-name company

So, you're saying it didn't come from a big-name company?

They can teach whatever they want. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46645735)

But until lawsuits make fixing things more affordable than ignoring the gaping holes, you're going to be playing guinea pig. That's just the free market at work.

Re:They can teach whatever they want. (5, Interesting)

Cryacin (657549) | about 5 months ago | (#46645753)

This. A thousand times This. I have been in meetings where security has explicitly been regarded as irrelevant, where one way encrypting passwords from plaintext on the client is irrelevant, and where we can trust our employees to always do the right thing with all of our users passwords, and "what could they do with the passwords that is outside of our irrelevant application" was bandied around the room as acceptable.

They should not be teaching the importance of such things to CS students, but much rather to the MBA's and BBus students. It's not the knowledge of the need for security amongst those that build, but the desire to pay for it from Management.

Re:They can teach whatever they want. (4, Insightful)

mlts (1038732) | about 5 months ago | (#46645883)

Nail, head, hit. Even if someone had a device that had obvious security failings that were unfixable, the EULA/TOS by opening it up and turning it on would ensure that lawsuits would not proceed (either by forcing arbitration, or just a clause stating that it isn't their fault, no matter what.)

I have no interest in IoT. Realistically, what has to be on the Internet all the time and take commands? Why do we need to give devices full exposure if it isn't needed?

If someone wants status messages from devices, why not just have devices communicate via BlueTooth to a log box, and said log box present the data to where it needs to go? This would force an intruder to have to hack that core box, then use BlueTooth weaknesses to jump to actual devices, rather than just run scripts blindly and hope someone's widget shows up.

Re:They can teach whatever they want. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46646447)

so much good stuff in this thread, I needn't comment ;o)

well said people

Re:They can teach whatever they want. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46645945)

I know a student in UCF, who is in CS102(? - he called it CS 2) who didn't even know what a cryptographic function was. Had _never_ heard of the term "md5", "bcrypt", etc. And he's about to get his CS degree. I don't know what in hell they're teaching these kids, but it sure isn't computer science. Most of the work he's shown me, has been reimplementing bubble sort and the like...

Re:They can teach whatever they want. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46646481)

well to be fair, as a physics major who did a couple of stage 1 CS papers, they just don't teach that shit at that level....hell, they don't even teach hexidecimal, its somewhat of assumed knowledge to be sure and by no means essential, but i have heard from stage 2 CS students that kids are asking what the '0x' means in front of a hex number. that is just ricockulous.

I get your point having been there as i realised that even at university CS courses that I was missing out on some more fundamental stuff at that course level as we were writing snake games in applets and doing sorts etc. The thing with computing is (and I say this as a minor league developer fyi) is that there is a lot of stuff you simply have to learn for yourself. No one (or institute) can teach you everything and if you think that it can you are seriously misguided.

Re:They can teach whatever they want. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46646841)

but i have heard from stage 2 CS students that kids are asking what the '0x' means in front of a hex number. that is just ricockulous.

To be fair that is language specific.
I had been programming assembler for years before I first saw '0x' indicating hexadecimal, before that it was always '$' to me. Other languages uses 'h' to indicate hex.

On the other hand, what CS student doesn't know basic C syntax?

Re:They can teach whatever they want. (3, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 5 months ago | (#46646733)

No thanks. I don't want to be responsible for intractable problems. Security is one of those. See, in this situation the programmers would be the ones canned over any security flaw, regardless whether it's due to programming or misuse by the customer.

Cleaning toilets is starting to sound like a great job these days. It sure beats cleaning up peoples digital toilets...err computers and networks.

The best way to be safe from the internet of things is not to have unneeded connectivity. Anything else is a risk.

Re:They can teach whatever they want. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46647139)

An MBA is a degree for managing idiots. You don't hire an MBA to manage intellectuals like developers.

Mr Cerf is correct that programmers themselves must change. Have you looked at all the p2p facebook alternatives? Fucking worthless insecure garbage. Not just Diaspora, they pretty much all suck.

You must not share plain text with any server unless you're happy sharing it publicly. Absolutely everything must be end-to-end encrypted : You encrypt it before it leaves your machine, and you design the protocol so that nobody, but the intended recipients will ever get the decryption key.

Yes, it bloody well limits your options with advertising, etc. and it turns a quick summer project, like writing facebook, into a 5 year ordeal. If however you cannot do this then users cannot trust your device.

Re:They can teach whatever they want. (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 5 months ago | (#46646805)

My thoughts exactly.
Without laws and punishments to enforce those laws, there will be no security.
Just make sure those laws don't have loopholes.

Stupid (5, Insightful)

hsmith (818216) | about 5 months ago | (#46645751)

You teach core and theory and you apply it to whatever the current fad is. It is preposterous for a computer science program to be geared directly to some "thing" that is currently popular or will be.

College is about learning theory and how to apply it, it isn't a vocational program.

Re:Stupid (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about 5 months ago | (#46645899)

College is about learning theory and how to apply it, it isn't a vocational program.

When you have a $100k bill to pay off that you can't escape through bankruptcy, you'd better have some way to pay it off. When you have a trillion dollar debt problem based upon this (see previous slashdot headlines) you have what they call a "real problem."

What you say is a nice sentiment. It's a sentiment that was only valid 40 years ago, when a summer job every year could pay for tuition at Northeastern.

It is also preposterous to not teach the concepts of security for devices connected to hostile environments (i.e., every network ever), and networking is not a "fad." The only people that thought that the Internet and networking in general for "the great unwashed" were fads were "futurists" like Cliff Stoll who were wildly wrong in 1995.

http://www.newsweek.com/cliffo... [newsweek.com]

Read that. A 30 year trend is not a fad.

--
BMO

Re:Stupid (1)

rts008 (812749) | about 5 months ago | (#46646917)

I don't think 'hsmith' was refering to networks as a fad, but this 'Internet of Things' as being a fad, similar to 'web 2.0' and 'cloud computing'.

It is also preposterous to not teach the concepts of security for devices connected to hostile environments (i.e., every network ever...

I agree wholeheartedly with all of that, but I take particular note of the portion in parenthesis, which describes the afore mentioned 3 fads:
1)Internet of Things
2) Cloud Computing
3) Web 2.0

All have been basic, core functions of networks from early on.(mid and late 1970's)

Based on the quote from your comment(above), I suggest that you and 'hsmith' are saying about the same thing, just different wording.

At least that is my take...:-)

You miss the point --- it's about security focus (3, Insightful)

Morgaine (4316) | about 5 months ago | (#46645979)

You teach core and theory and you apply it to whatever the current fad is.

He's not really saying that CompSci programmes should be tailored for Internet of Things. What he's saying indirectly but perfectly clearly to those who are aware of the appalling state of networking security in recent years is that university-level tuition needs to buck up and face the music, because the people they have been releasing into the field are totally inept at designing secure systems. The hundreds of thousands of security problems spread right across the whole Internet speak for themselves.

It's a very important message, and hopefully it will resonate with more than a few CompSci departments. IoT is just being used as an excuse for releasing a high-profile message from a respected person about the very unsatisfactory state of developer competence in the area of secure systems.

Regarding your second point about education versus vocational training, you are right about that, but secure software design and cryptogtaphy are not subjects for vocational training, but very strongly in the domain of CompSci. You have to understand the fundamentals, not just know which functions to call.

Re:You miss the point --- it's about security focu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46646977)

The thing is, cryptology isn't a basic part of computer science. As a topic of C.S. students, it's not near as fundamental as algorithms; functional, imperative, and object-oriented design; compilers; networking; and discrete math (and that's just off the top of my head). It's rightfully an elective, like graphics or device drivers. The only thing I'd argue for it is that it should be offered more widely. I think it's got cachet with most C.S. students, and most would want to take it as an elective, but it's not offered enough.
 
Besides, the finger to point here is at people who don't know what they're doing and proceed anyway. Maybe C.S. programs need to take up "Not being a lazy fuck-up lacking in self-awareness when it comes to the limits of your knowledge" as a part of the core curriculum.

Re:You miss the point --- it's about security focu (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46647115)

Personally i think that you miss the point. It's not about security in the real world, it's about the economics of security. No manufacturer will put an advanced security system into dirt cheap consumable devices. It is a joke to even consider iot for most stuff. It's an '80s fantasy that just has no economical value if applied as blindly as the idea suggests.
One of the mayor benefit of a structure like iot is agencies can spy on everything more easily. The question is why we should consider this to be something we are ok with.

In a perfect world.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46647289)

The designers do know how to create secure systems, they do know they should do so. The ones paying their wages don't want to waste time on security. Add more features instead. Understanding fundamentals mean jack shit when the first to market takes home the whole pot. While EULAs that tell nobody is responsible and if shit braks it's tought luck are enforceable wasting time on security is just that, a waste.

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46646243)

And people treating college like a vocational program or a way to make money are the ones who are causing this huge college debt problem, and they're also causing many colleges to drop their standards so they can accept these people and rake in some cash. Not everyone should be going to college. In fact, most people shouldn't.

well we need to drop the need college to get jobs (2)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 5 months ago | (#46646289)

well we need to drop the need college to get jobs part / have of all the non degree classes add up to some thing.

Re:Stupid (1)

pete6677 (681676) | about 5 months ago | (#46646301)

Where should I go to school that both maintains high standards and doesn't have such a massive tuition cost that I need to have a high paying job immediately upon graduation to pay off a massive debt?

Re:Stupid (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 5 months ago | (#46646657)

embedded connected devices aren't a fad...
but you know what is a fad? slapping an IoT sticker on things when trying to find startup funding.

that's why the so called reporter/journalist in this case slapped it under that label, because he is a fad seeking ahole incapable of writing actual news or opinion pieces so he mismatches someone else's comments into an opinion piece that ends up being incoherent.

IPv6 (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 5 months ago | (#46646763)

Maybe, but it's high time that when it comes to teaching Networking, IPv6 starts replacing IPv4 as the taught protocol, so that it gets applied more going forward, and does not tie newer graduates to older technology that's hit its limits ages ago

Re:Stupid (1)

Threni (635302) | about 5 months ago | (#46646895)

Is it even a course? It's barely a web page.

But why do we need the internet of things (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46645765)

What exactly are the upsides of having my fridge, toaster, microwave oven, sock drawer or fork connected to the internet?

Re:But why do we need the internet of things (5, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46645813)

Your sock drawer would know how many time each sock has been fucked, it would alert your washer to wash two cycles instead of one, it could tell your fridge to order more detergent since it's in charge of the grocery list and it could buy more sexy lingerie on Amazon for your girlfriend since you're obviously ignoring her physical needs.

Re:But why do we need the internet of things (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46645847)

All while feeding all that data back to NSA, google and any other creepy entity that wants to map the entire aspect of peoples life, so again, why would we want this?

Re:But why do we need the internet of things (4, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 5 months ago | (#46646225)

I got +1 insightful for that? Scary.

Re:But why do we need the internet of things (1)

_merlin (160982) | about 5 months ago | (#46646959)

Well of course: everyone knows an Internet of Things would only really be useful for wankers.

Re:But why do we need the internet of things (3, Funny)

LookIntoTheFuture (3480731) | about 5 months ago | (#46645831)

What exactly are the upsides of having my fridge, toaster, microwave oven, sock drawer or fork connected to the internet?

You won't be able to understand the upsides because you aren't part of the "today's busy idiot" demographic.

Re:But why do we need the internet of things (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 5 months ago | (#46645855)

What exactly are the upsides of having my fridge, toaster, microwave oven, sock drawer or fork connected to the internet?

Well a smart oven can be set to cook your meal when you hit a button on an app before you head home. A smart fridge can keep track of what food you have when it expires what you use then compile meal plans and grocery lists add to it a link to your smart bathroom scale, and smart shoes to measue the amount of physical activity you have throughout the day and it it opens up dynamic dieting meal plans. A houses light and sound system could detect what room you are in and turn on and off lights and speakers as you enter/leave. Given time I could come up with more applications but those were just the first ones to pop into my head.

Re:But why do we need the internet of things (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46646067)

I'll never trust a smart cooking appliance. You never know if there's going to be a sudden traffic surge or be in an accident. Good luck burning your house down. That's aside from the fact that you'll have to leave the food in the oven hours beforehand (robotic oven/fridge is still too expensive). Many foods don't do well sitting out uncooked and there's always the possibility of forgetting that you didn't put food in (in-oven camera would fix that).

Appliances aren't worth connecting until they're also fully automated. Our society doesn't support the framework for automatic upgrades for everything you own (which you won't own anymore due to the it's software licensing agreement) and replace everything every few years will be way too expensive for most people.

I know we'll eventually get there, but I'm not looking forward to it, especially having to figure out if the phone/OS/data plan/oven/oven firmware/wireless network will work together when buying something new. Even some current external hard drives claim to support USB but have proprietary connectors on their case so you're still forced to buy their USB cables. Companies are way too greedy and self centered for us to have a good future.

Re:But why do we need the internet of things (1)

rts008 (812749) | about 5 months ago | (#46647025)

Appliances aren't worth connecting until they're also fully automated.

I question the need to connect if it is truly automated, but I think I understand what you are getting at. (jumping to your third para)

What I see as a goal is a 'master computer' controlling your home, and applicable contents.
You communicate with the Home Computer, and then it controls the individual appliences and equipment. (fully automated)

So you are connected to the home comp and communicating your commands to it, and it takes things from there.

Is this what you had in mind for 'fully automated'?

Re:But why do we need the internet of things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46646119)

So my food has been sitting in the oven, raw? All day? Mmm. Botulism via the network. Brings a whole new meaning to dumping core.

Yes. I guess a smart fridge could do that. More likely, the "smart" fridge will be used to advertise to me via a speaker that can't be turned off. I also avoid the whole expired food problem by eating what I purchase before it goes bad.

I don't own nor want a bathroom scale.

We are geeks, so 0 physical activity. Not sure why I need a smart anything to tell me that. Which also explains why I don't want a bathroom scale, smart or otherwise.

They have invented these things called "light switches". When you enter a room, you flip the switch and the lights turn on. When you leave, you flip the switch the other way and the lights turn off. Having been in one too many office buildings where lighs automagically turn off because they sensed no motion (see previous item), I think I will continue with the manual approach.

Re:But why do we need the internet of things (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 5 months ago | (#46646297)

They work in small bathrooms but in bigger ones / stalls you may need to move around / move the door a bit to keep the lights on.

Re:But why do we need the internet of things (3, Informative)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 months ago | (#46646141)

What exactly are the upsides of having my fridge, toaster, microwave oven, sock drawer or fork connected to the internet?

Well a smart oven can be set to cook your meal when you hit a button on an app before you head home. A smart fridge can keep track of what food you have when it expires what you use then compile meal plans and grocery lists add to it a link to your smart bathroom scale, and smart shoes to measue the amount of physical activity you have throughout the day and it it opens up dynamic dieting meal plans. A houses light and sound system could detect what room you are in and turn on and off lights and speakers as you enter/leave. Given time I could come up with more applications but those were just the first ones to pop into my head.

You'd have to prepare the meal before hand and hope there's only one cooking step.
Fine if you're doing boxed dinners, but useless if you want to actually cook anything.

A smart fridge won't know when milk's gone sour before the date or when yogurt and cheese are still good a month after the date. Nor will they have a way to read the damned date on any of the brands I like. I sure as hell am not typing (or touching, or speaking) that shit in to the fridge. Nor would such a smart fridge need to be connected to the internet.

Every single suggestion I've seen about the "Internet of Things" has been solving problems that don't exist, and it's a long, long stretch to say they're actually solving anything. If you think smart watches bombed, wait til you see how the rest of this shit does in the market.

Re:But why do we need the internet of things (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 5 months ago | (#46646333)

You would have to cook your meal before leaving or at the least prepare it and leave it to cook ; check it when you're away to see that it doesn't get burned or not cooked enough, you can adjust time or temperature. Then let it sit and cool off for hours.. Just before you come back you can turn on low heat to make it warm again. Pretty limited..
Remote control can be used at home too but really, why not walk to the friggin'g oven!

On the plus side, I will spy on your oven's content, remotely deactivate your alarms and unlock your door, activate presence simulation so the neighbors think everything is fine and then rush to your home and proceed to steal your delicious turkey or whatever.

Re:But why do we need the internet of things (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 5 months ago | (#46646517)

You'd have to prepare the meal before hand and hope there's only one cooking step.
Fine if you're doing boxed dinners, but useless if you want to actually cook anything.

A smart fridge won't know when milk's gone sour before the date or when yogurt and cheese are still good a month after the date. Nor will they have a way to read the damned date on any of the brands I like. I sure as hell am not typing (or touching, or speaking) that shit in to the fridge. Nor would such a smart fridge need to be connected to the internet

As to it not being able to know what is in it without you manually entering the data have you.ever heard of bar codes? You can put a hell of a lot of stuff in qr codes. As for knowing that something went bad soon just mark it as bad or gone if something isn't bad at experation click the not bad button that adds a week

Re:But why do we need the internet of things (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 5 months ago | (#46646869)

You'd have to prepare the meal before hand and hope there's only one cooking step.
Fine if you're doing boxed dinners, but useless if you want to actually cook anything.

A smart fridge won't know when milk's gone sour before the date or when yogurt and cheese are still good a month after the date. Nor will they have a way to read the damned date on any of the brands I like. I sure as hell am not typing (or touching, or speaking) that shit in to the fridge. Nor would such a smart fridge need to be connected to the internet

As to it not being able to know what is in it without you manually entering the data have you.ever heard of bar codes? You can put a hell of a lot of stuff in qr codes. As for knowing that something went bad soon just mark it as bad or gone if something isn't bad at experation click the not bad button that adds a week

Barcodes don't contain expiration dates, and they won't ever for many products due to the way they are packaged and labelled.
So you want me to do more work to tell me smart fridge how to be smart? Why not just skip the hassle and I buy shit when I need it because I already have the pertinent information in my brain?

Just two words.... (1)

rts008 (812749) | about 5 months ago | (#46646995)

Hacker's Paradise.

What happens when you are hacked, pwned, 'gamed' 12 ways from Sunday, and have to disconnect to clean up and straighten out the mess?

Is it really worth it at this point in time? Not for me, no way!

Re:But why do we need the internet of things (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46647135)

And who needs you anyway? Your life is doing just fine without you. Just don't forget to program the microwave to take your girl out once in a while.

Re:But why do we need the internet of things (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46645907)

What exactly are the upsides of having my fridge, toaster, microwave oven, sock drawer or fork connected to the internet?

It's so BigBrother.com. can sell you things that break down faster. It enables BigBrother.gov to come up with more reasons to oppress you in various ways. Oh, upside for you? None, slave. Now get back to producing crap people don't need and buying crap you don't want, or we may decide to audit your taxes, or bust down your door with a S.W.A.T. raid or something.

Re:But why do we need the internet of things (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 5 months ago | (#46646787)

Some things, though not all, make sense to be connected to the internet. Like your home security system. Or your garage door opener. Let's say the spouse is locked out and doesn't have the key, & calls you while you're watching a movie. A few buttons on the cellphone, and the garage door is opened. Or you are told that you've driven off w/o closing the garage door. Done w/o driving back. You remember that you've forgotten to turn off the oven while setting the quiche? Done from wherever you are.

Some other utilities - having a bar code scanner on the fridge note the items put in & taken out, so that you know which items are empty from the fridge. Same for the sock drawer - when do you next need to launder your socks? As stated, not everything needs to be there, but it is handy to be able to control a lot of things remotely, which is what the 'Internet of things' enables.

Don't even THINK about the sock drawer... (2)

rts008 (812749) | about 5 months ago | (#46646981)

Ahhh, the sock drawer...

So, it has come to this.

If you give your sock drawer access to the internet, it will hack it's way into the means to put the Large Hadron Collider into turbo boost overdrive, all in order to rip the fabric of space-time to open a portal into Demon Murphy's demension/domain(of Murphy's Law infamy), have a Massive Black Hole FedEx'd into our solar system, and Earth would get sucked into Demon Murphy's Domain, making Hell look like Paradise.

All to hide the true facts about all of those missing socks that we always blame on the washer or dryer.

The upsides are a lie, to answer your questions...but remember to be especially wary of the sock drawer!

The Internet of Things (0)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | about 5 months ago | (#46645775)

I don't understand why people want their $3000 fridges to be bricked by Chinese hackers. Could someone please explain it to me?

Please correct me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46645829)

Is this really a CS thing? Isn't it an IT thing? Isn't this type of security their problem? Where CS security is at a much lower level?

I really agree that CS degrees need to teach security oriented programming. (a lower level) As you can tell, I barely have any idea what that entails. (I'm about to be a senior at a very minor league university aiming for my CS degree) They teach nothing security related so far. (We have, I think, one of the few nsa sponsored information assurance programs.. they get all the security stuff) I have not taken level 400 classes.. next up will be networking and databases. There is a chance security might be discussed.

Also, when our CS club first started meeting security was a topic we wanted to touch on since it wasn't included in our classes.

I don't think you'd have much trouble convincing our CS department if you had a curriculum to show them.

Re:Please correct me! (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 months ago | (#46645887)

Is this really a CS thing? Isn't it an IT thing? Isn't this type of security their problem? Where CS security is at a much lower level?

Wow, whatever you do, please at a minimum lookup "SQL injection" before ever writing a line of internet-connected production code.

Re:Please correct me! (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 5 months ago | (#46646789)

At the CS level, replace IPv4 w/ IPv6 when it comes to teaching TCP/IP and networking

Oh yeah sure. (4, Insightful)

istartedi (132515) | about 5 months ago | (#46645839)

My Internet-enabled fridge needs to be developed using proper security procedures which are ummm.... not applicable to any other field such as SCADA or medical database systems that are already in place. Who's smoking the crack here, the journalists or Cerf? I'm betting it's the journalists and that he's misquoted and/or being quoted out of context. Too lazy to RTFA of course...

awww, come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46645879)

yeah, you can make things better, and hopefully it will look nothing like programming now-a-days, but it is going to take a long time

/just build your internet of things now, we promise not to break it

//promise

Maybe let people update (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46645895)

Its bad enough that mobile phones and tablets are forced into early obsolescence (I have 2 perfectly viable Transformer Prime Infinity tablets, they're awesome...they just don't get updated anymore. Yes, in that particular case its easy for me to flash in a custom ROM, and I do that, but thats not easy for the average joe, and its not nearly as easy across all devices).

When its a phone its one thing...freagin waste, but at least they're mostly cheap-ish, contract or not. A fridge? A washer/dryer? A car? Smart TVs? Those are another story. And often they get few to no updates. No only is it annoying that features you paid for become useless so quickly, but THAT is a security risk. They'll never get patches or security fixes after the first few months.

Re:Maybe let people update (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#46646217)

Only appliances with a valid support contract and maintenance agreement are entitled to receive firmware upgrades. Appliances without either of those, or that have been transferred to a third party without the authorization of the vendor or a licensed reseller are inelligble.

Specifics (3, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 months ago | (#46645901)

If anyone wants to know what specific changes he suggests universities implement, don't bother watching the movie, he doesn't mention it. The interviewer never gives him the chance.

The interviewer does however ask him who the mother of the internet is.

Re:Specifics (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 5 months ago | (#46646473)

If anyone wants to know what specific changes he suggests universities implement, don't bother watching the movie, he doesn't mention it.

It wouldn't matter if he did.
Beating security consciousness into the programmer is the easy part.
Beating security consciousness into businesses is... mostly impossible.

The interviewer never gives him the chance.

Replace "interviewer" with "boss" and you've encapsulated the problem in a nutshell.

Re:Specifics (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 months ago | (#46646759)

Beating security consciousness into the programmer is the easy part.

Maybe, but if we even managed to get it to the programmers we'd be far ahead of where we are.

My startup is creating the internet of things. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46645903)

Mr. Cerf is so right as usual!

Wrong, Expectations Must Change (3, Insightful)

TrollstonButterbeans (2914995) | about 5 months ago | (#46645989)

The most explosive *recorded* invention in the history of mankind was the printing press.

And it set Europe on fire.

But this led to the Renaissance.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

What is going on now with the internet and mobile devices and communication in general --- like the printing press or like radio or television --- is going to upset the status quo in 57 different ways.

Embrace these ways, understand how they will be used for good (yes --- if you think citizens are upset, just imagine how upset tyrants and governments are --- people in power hate change) ----

Communication advances always causes flowers to bloom --- any heartache always looks dumb and old fashioned in a decade of hindsight, because it yields new freedoms and rights that were never expected. If you doubt this, why do civil right continue to grow and governments to ever more tend to the welfare of their people?

Re:Wrong, Expectations Must Change (1)

Dynedain (141758) | about 5 months ago | (#46646305)

I'm pretty sure the internet (and computers in general) has topped the printing press in that way.

In less than half a century, the Internet has gone from invention to be widely used in every nation on earth with more than a 3rd of the world's population* actively using it. The printing press, while wildly popular and transformative did not have nearly this level of adoption and impact.

You are right in how transformative the printing press was, and a great example of how we can expect the Internet to continue shaping humanity for the future.

*Source:
http://www.internetworldstats.... [internetworldstats.com]

Re:Wrong, Expectations Must Change (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 months ago | (#46646427)

That's cool, but, how does your post relate in any way to the story? I'm not seeing it.

Re:Wrong, Expectations Must Change (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 5 months ago | (#46646491)

Communication advances always causes flowers to bloom --- any heartache always looks dumb and old fashioned in a decade of hindsight, because it yields new freedoms and rights that were never expected. If you doubt this, why do civil right continue to grow and governments to ever more tend to the welfare of their people?

Huh?
The biggest advance that I've seen in communication is revelations that the NSA and its sister agencies around the globe have been spying on all the new freedoms that were never expected.
How's that for civil rights continuing to grow?

Re:Wrong, Expectations Must Change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46646613)

NSA is playing with a double edge sword...

Re:Wrong, Expectations Must Change (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 5 months ago | (#46646549)

The most explosive *recorded* invention in the history of mankind was the printing press.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

What is going on now with the internet and mobile devices and communication in general --- like the printing press or like radio or television --- is going to upset the status quo in 57 different ways.

Cost of global communication has already dropped to the point of saturation in much of the world. With low hanging fruits already plucked wouldn't hold my breath on disruptive change arriving anytime soon.

I expect to see a lot of crap with questionable or negative value prop so I will not be blindly embracing anything.

And I thinks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46646011)

fuck you

Security and Embedded Controllers (2)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about 5 months ago | (#46646055)

I reject, fundamentally, the idea that 'The Internet of Things' means that every device in one's home should outwardly face the Internet. There is plenty of opportunity for layering. An IP enabled refrigerator can be connected to the internet through some far more secure routing device.

Security zoning functionality and monitoring technology for security purposes needs to see far, far more development than it does at present. Perhaps there are entities and forces out there that don't want us to have security zones and have devices on our home networks actively sniffing and moderating our internal traffic, but we certainly are entitled to that and should make it happen.

That is what computer science programs should concentrate more on, not securing everything as if every single 'thing' is entitled to, or needs to, face the outside world on the public Internet.

Re:Security and Embedded Controllers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46646345)

You are quite correct. There is no need for a fridge or light socket to be talking directly with some internet service, EVER. The device needs to talk to a local server/gateway that can be kept up to date that then talks with external services.

There is no way of putting secure crypto solution on a $3 PIC. And updating it remotely is not possible. No one will spend $50 for overpowered solution that will still be a nightmare.

What is easier to update: one location that patching one SSL library or trying to run SSL (with shit RNGs) that can't be easily patched on 50 different appliances?

The answer is very clear. The "The Internet of Things" is more of "A network of things maybe talking via local gateway to Internet".

yes change, but ditch "the internet of things" (2)

globaljustin (574257) | about 5 months ago | (#46646177)

"the internet of things" is a reductive concept. It's an unnecessary abstraction layer that just puts more barriers between the programmer and the device. We should be **getting rid of** concepts like this in CS not adding them...

**of course** CS programs have the problems TFA listed...here on /. we know CS programs have areas from improvement

what I object to is the entire notion of "the internet of things" as being a concept worth repeating...it's a nothing phrase that just confuses people

when educating, we need to have concrete theory not hype language

Name doesn't matter, it's a connectivity meme (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46646299)

what I object to is the entire notion of "the internet of things" as being a concept worth repeating.

I disagree strongly with your dismissal. The concept is very important, as it introduces a sea change.

For far too long, computing has been about desktops and servers. Smartphones and tablets opened it up slightly, but "Internet of Things" opens it up a whole lot more, making it understood that all the objects around us are in the process of becoming computing endpoints, communicating not only with our "computers" but also among each other.

You may not like the specific term "Internet of Things" --- I agree that it's a bit naff --- but the actual phrase doesn't really matter. What's important is the new meme that it heralds, and that's worth the neon lights.

"connectivity meme" is marketing B.S. (3, Insightful)

globaljustin (574257) | about 5 months ago | (#46646353)

The concept is very important, as it introduces a sea change.

For far too long, computing has been about desktops and servers. Smartphones and tablets opened it up slightly

Yeah...just like Telegraph machines "became" telephones...and a whole ***new way of communicating*** was invented!

You sound like a salesman...like a TED Talk...or maybe a "tech evangelist"

First, we don't need to invent a new word to describe "sea change"...the words "sea change" or any number of synonymous phrases used daily work just fine.

2nd, computing has ****never**** been about "just desktops and servers"

3rd, your understanding of "computing" is fundamentally incorrect

we design devices to accomplish user tasks...we use all available technology (and maybe invent some new stuff) mitigated by cost

"the internet of things" is just a B.S. marketing way to say "making devices that use updated technology to its fullest"

stop it...just stop forever...there is absolutely no reason to ever say the words "the internet of things"...or "connectivity meme"....they are redundant concepts that conjure abstractions needlessly so people who don't understand technology can think they sound smart

Re:"connectivity meme" is marketing B.S. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46646581)

I object to your use of the word "globaljustin", it's pure marketing B.S..

Or in other words, your entire reply to the parent was rubbish and didn't address the parent's topic which was that the name doesn't matter but the concepts do --- that seems fair. Clearly you dislike the term, and that's your prerogative, but you've gone far beyond that into the realm of rant, which makes reasoned discussion impossible..

Re:"connectivity meme" is marketing B.S. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46647157)

"the internet of things" is just a B.S. marketing way to say "making devices that use updated technology to its fullest"

Nope. IoT means BAZILLONS of never updated devices sending and receiving data to the network. This is a SEA CHANGE. Just imagine the raw power of a bug in a device installed in 200 million households. This will (it has to) change the way the Internet works.

And it's already happening, no matter what you think.

He doesn't know what Computer Science is. (2)

catmistake (814204) | about 5 months ago | (#46646197)

Computer Science has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY INTERNET, of "things" or otherwise.

Computer Science needs to change its name so everyone that thinks they know what a computer is can stuff it up their ass. Because CS has nothing to do with computers, and nothing at all to do with software or programming. The "Computer" in "Computer Science" is not, I repeat, is not synonymous with the thing you call "computer" that's on your desk or lap. It means simply "calculator," i.e. one who calculates, or, precisely, that which computes, or to make it really simple for them, that which reckons. They should call it Reckoner Science. Then no one would be confused, no one would fantacize about studying it (because they just love their computer!!) when they go off to college in a year or so, and HR morons would stop requiring CS degreed Windows Administrators or help desk monkeys because that is ridiculous. Mechanics don't need Mechanical Engineering degrees, Nurses don't need an M.D., and corporate america does not need specialized mathematicians furiously installing java browser plugin security updates on all the machines on their network. Think of Computer Sciece as math... then you'll understand how stupid everyone sounds when they say anything about Computer Science. Be a programmer if you want. Programmers do not need a Computer Science degree, or any degree for that matter.

I'm just going put this here:

Computer Science [wikipedia.org] (abbreviated CS or CompSci) is the scientific and practical approach to computation and its applications. It is the systematic study of the feasibility, structure, expression, and mechanization of the methodicalprocesses (or algorithms) that underlie the acquisition, representation, processing, storage, communication of, andaccess to information, whether such information is encoded as bits in a computer memory or transcribed engines and protein structures in a human cell. A computer scientist specializes in the theory of computation and the design of computational systems

Re:He doesn't know what Computer Science is. (2)

Dynedain (141758) | about 5 months ago | (#46646337)

Understanding the impact of how the future world of always-on, always-available, omnipresent computing interacts at a high theoretical level is not programming and absolutely does belong in the realm of science of computing.

This isn't the realm of code monkeys, and I agree that's not what CS should teach. However, the theory of systems and interactions should be taught.

Where does researching AI, machine learning, or organic networks fall in your narrow definition? CS is maturing as a science and researching/designing the impact and how the science is applied by the world at large is a valuable endeavor that you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss and give away to some other field.

Re:He doesn't know what Computer Science is. (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 5 months ago | (#46646797)

Computer Science has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY INTERNET, of "things" or otherwise.

Between you and Vint Cerf, I'm going to guess that he actually does understand Computer Science, and that you didn't understand what he said.

Also, the internet of things? That fits right in the definition of CS you have there, under "practical approach to computation and its applications." You should have read it, instead of just putting it there.

Re:He doesn't know what Computer Science is. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46646933)

"Reckoner Science" is clunky, there's a much more obvious term in plain sight: "Computation Science" (I'd prefer "Science of Computation" myself).

Re:He doesn't know what Computer Science is. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46647361)

I like clunky. You nailed it thrice.
---

From a library window, a group of students are observed entering an auditorium for a symposium.
library_sqautter: Do you see them? Do you? Those people. Those people there. Do you see them? Where are they going? Those people over there. Do you know where they are going?
student_library_assistant: uuuuhhhh... yeeah, I do, I can see them. From the looks of it they're headed for that auditorium.
library_sqautter: But why? Why would they do that? What... what's down there? Who are they?
student_library_assistant: Welllll... I don't know for sure... I heard there was a symposium, what was it... uh... oh, Symposium for something Science of Computation... something like that I think. So they must probably be the... uh... what's it... uh... yeah, they're scientists of computation, I expect.
library_sqautter: Oh my God! What do you... what...
student_library_assistant: Wow, you look like you just saw a ghost. You're completely pale! Are you ok?
library_sqautter: What do you think... that... they... are doing... down there? Do you think... do you think that.... they–
student_library_assistant: yup... they're reckoning.

He isn't wrong; but is myopic. (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#46646207)

So far as it goes, what he says is true: this 'internet of things' will represent a major challenge to secure and problem if not secured; further, if the present state of security tells us anything, we sure as hell aren't prepared for it, much less what we do right now.

Fundamentally, though, treating it as a 'security' problem is making a dangerous and conceptually limiting mistake. "Security" ensures that a system operates as intended, provides only the access and capabilities intended to various parties, and so on. It Does Not specify who those parties are. Bad news, kids, based on everything we've seen so far, and how everything that was bad on the internet is even worse on 'mobile' and so on, do you really think that even perfect security would do much more than keep small-time criminals from inconveniencing 'respectable' advertisers and subscription-service pushers?

Unless you think that cellphones were some sort of abberation, totally different from everything else because, um, reasons; 'internet of things' is just a polite way of saying "EULAs, crypto bootloaders, 'consumer behavioral marketing', and who knows what else, baked into every device large enough to support some kind of NIC".

Yes, Cerf is correct in that having the 'internet of things' work out slightly better than "Hey, let's sell SCADA to home users!" would be a pretty good idea; but that's not even close to good enough. 'Security' just means that the wishes of the system creater are being followed. Do you think those wishes will be to your benefit?

Re:He isn't wrong; but is myopic. (3, Interesting)

Dynedain (141758) | about 5 months ago | (#46646371)

I think Vint gets that, and is speaking to the higher level and using "security" as an abstract generalization.

For example, the web was explicitly developed as a "pull" technology with declarative linking by reference with public visibility. Understanding the impact of that to how you build a security model governing access presents unique challenge. By comparison, Usenet is the opposite. It's essentially a syndicated push technology, more similar to a broadcast publishing method. As a result, the security model for how people gain access to resources, and what talks to what, is handled in a very different way.

Those are just two examples of content on today's general Internet which is an extension of Vint's work. When he talks about the Internet of Things, he doesn't merely mean the fad of sticking a web browser on a toaster. He's talking about the bigger vision of omnipresent computing and direct interaction of common devices to each other. Much like the Internet (specifically TCP/IP and DNS) was conceived as a way for computers to directly talk to each other (not going through a centralized hierarchy for approval and redistribution). We learned a lot of great lessons about how it would be used, the shortcoming, and the security ramifications. Now that we're in the fledgling stages of doing the same thing for a whole new are of automation and computing, there's great opportunity to think about and apply the lessons learned.

Re:He isn't wrong; but is myopic. (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 5 months ago | (#46647087)

I certainly hope he does, and he's definitely sharp enough to have a better-than-average chance of doing so. I think I've just gotten a bit jumpy about this sort of talk about 'security' since the whole electronic voting machines issue showed up (and, um, never actually went away, not that you'd know that by looking). Even some people I think of as atypically clueful and competent focused on the (genuinely alarming and sometimes downright comical) security flaws in the various early systems, and paid no apparent regard to the lingering issue that even a technically perfect machine, lacking all such flaws, was only step one to solving the problem of conducting an election with computers. Time will tell, and commercial imperatives and/or malignant spooks will probably have the last word anyway...

Need more of trades like learning in schools (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 5 months ago | (#46646279)

Need more of trades like learning in schools with teaching with real work skills not theroy with teachers who have been in the Ivory tower for years

We need more QA / testing of software / hardware (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 5 months ago | (#46646281)

At times there can be big software bugs or all of kinds of rush hacks just to get it working much less security issues.

Poor old Vint, nothing left to say (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46646327)

Poor guy, he's so adored but he literally has nothing left.

99% of what network admins do is control access and require authentication. 99% of what's "on the internet" isn't on the internet.

I just don't see what's different for my Fridge compared to my company's intranet.

A friend's account (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about 5 months ago | (#46646357)

A friend told me he wishes for the crapper's flush to be linked to the coffee pot. Smart algorithms will detect his habit of taking a crap on the morning and then preparing coffee, so flushing the toilet should trigger coffee brewing on the right hour ranges, and if the pot is not full of coffee already. Taking a dump is a proxy for presence detection, but also for the intent of drinking coffee.
I suggested that the powers-that-be will spy on him by detecting droppings falling into the water as well as analyzing the shit and storing detailed, minute-precise reports for decades.

Re:A friend's account (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46647421)

His shit will be remembered for eons.

So universities should teach marketing hype? (1)

Tony Isaac (1301187) | about 5 months ago | (#46646365)

The "Internet of Things" is, I think, driven mainly by manufacturers who want people to have an excuse to buy their new thing, which everybody already has, and works fine. Maybe universities should be teaching smartwatch programming too!

No. Universities should teach programming and technology basics. If corporations want to try to convince us all that we need an Internet-connected stapler, they aren't going to go looking for university graduates that have an IoT degree! They'll figure it out all on their own, with people who have ordinary computer science degrees, or even with people who don't have a comp sci degree.

We can get right on that (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | about 5 months ago | (#46646389)

Right after people learn to break up their code into actual functions instead of the standard multi-thousand line long garbage. Oh and of course give everything meaningful names. Can't forget to tell people to actually check their warnings ETC. (I'm sure everyone here that's a programmer/SE/developer can easily expand on all the crazy shit they've seen people do which would come way before this.)

The Internet of socket puppets (4, Interesting)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 5 months ago | (#46646397)

Apparently what the Internet needs most is yet another buzzword so nebulous, context free and ill defined nobody really understands what it is your talking about.

If "Internet of things" means home automation the technology has been around for decades yet remains a small niche market. "you can ..." scenarios are fun and cool and functional and all yet tend to impart very little useful value to the owner. I don't need or want Internet connected thermostats, light bulbs and toasters. As for security we can't even communicate securely. Email, Telephone/SMS are wholly insecure and trivially spoofed by anyone. Securing a mythical buzzword is not a problem I chose to spend my time perusing.

Internet of things--a novelty (1)

grantspassalan (2531078) | about 5 months ago | (#46646501)

No one has ever made a safe or lock that could not be broken and no one will ever make a software system that cannot be hacked. The battle between good and evil will never end. This has been the battle of humanity since the beginning. The best we can hope for is to limit the evil of hacking to a dull roar. A hacked Internet connected freezer can spoil hundreds of dollars worth of food or a hacked clothes dryer may set somebody's house on fire. Up until now, only a tiny number of hacks have caused real physical damage. Until the possibility of real physical damage is eliminated for all practical purposes, the so-called "Internet of Things" will be a novelty for the vast majority of people.

Re:Internet of things--a novelty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46646683)

Excellent insight. This would make the "home front" the actual front lines of any cyberwarfare international conflict. It's not enough to simply wipe out our infrastructure, the enemy will be able to literally strike inside all of our homes.

I'm not looking forward to frequent, critical security patches required for what used to be simple devices like thermostats, refrigerators, or dryers.

This is invoking visions of Futurama's massive Mom's Robots rebellion.

So what does this mean for CS? (1)

Animats (122034) | about 5 months ago | (#46646677)

So what does he want CS students to learn? Embedded system programming? Control theory? Labview? System safety engineering? Mechatronics? Robotics?

Leo LaPorte did an excellent interview (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46646735)

I watched it live and Leo was moved to tears after it ended.

wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46646829)

F- that. The IoT crap needs to go away. It's the same marketing hype as the "Information Superhighway" and more dangerous.

Bull (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46646833)

Internet of Things is just a marketing buzzword. Newsflash. We altready have an international network of things. It's called 'internet' and it connects 'computers'.

'Things' can be general purpose computers or any other electronic device that is able to run TCP/IP software.

really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46647159)

Wow, it sounds like thing Intenet of Things is going to change everything in CS then!

Will the complexity of sorting algorithms be different for "things"?
Wil compilers need to use different parsing algorithms for "things"?
Perhaps Turing machines and Pi-calculus will all be replaced by "Things" ?
Maybe some "Things" will be able to solve the halting problem and make vast swathes of computability theory out of date?
Will "things" prove the existence of NP-hard problems, or one-way functions ?

if so, I look forward to this new revolution in computer science !

otherwise -- ignore.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>