The Internet of Things is a complex topic and after a fair amount of research and thinking I’m still not sure I know enough to talk about it.  I am a fan of gadgets and interconnected things, I was really excited for the Chromecast and enjoyed using it immensely for those first few weeks.  I watch a fair amount of youtube videos, anime, and streaming tv shows and instead of buying a costly “smart tv” I could purchase a $30 dongle that works with any HDMI port.  For some shows that weren’t available for streaming I would have to hook up a laptop to the tv and try to balance it somewhere nearby, and the Chromecast offered an alternative.  Until I realized that interference from other networks and the hidden position of the dongle itself were giving me painfully slow streaming speeds it was a magnificent gadget.

The adaptable and portable connector is one of the parts of the “Internet of things” that I look forward to.  When you start to embed connectivity into things, and black box their settings and interface from the consumer I start to question the value or intent behind it.  Not only do you run into compatibility issues with different companies defining their own standards, but the designed automation can lead to negative consequences for the consumer.  In Sara Watsons thought experiment on the Internet of Paternalistic things, the device network seeds doubt in the woman’s mind, and restricts her agency in her own life based on what could be faulty information.  Computers, especially when networked, are prone to minor malfunctions or miscommunication.  When we give this technology control over parts of our lives we suffer real consequences instead of having to refresh a webpage or reboot.

Even if that was the only risk involved in the technology behind the “Internet of Things” it would cause me concern.  The secondary issue to me is the physical devices themselves.  In the current western model, multiple devices are pushing for dominance.  A consumer looking to “live the dream” marketed to them would have to buy a variety of products to fill their automated houses.  Companies could enforce brand loyalty by only allowing their products to work with select partners or their own products.  On the hardware side, battery and wireless network infrastructure are not capable of fully handling the increased load of multiple devices.  Frequency interference and constant recharging would slow down processes that would be instantaneous if they didn’t require a network connection.  An example of this can be seen in EA game’s launch of Sim City, where they required users to connect to their online servers to play a single player game that has no need for a network.  On launch day, a large portion of their customers were not able to play the game because their servers couldn’t handle the load.

Privacy is another issue with the “Internet of Things” and even in its formative years these technologies are pushing towards redefining personal property and marketing tactics through collecting personal information.  LG and Samsung have recently been noticed for some major privacy concerns with their smart tvs.  These smart tv’s often are designed to consistently send usage statistics to their home companies or 3rd parties for targeted advertisement.  In 2013, it was found that some would send the file and folder names of shared folders on the home network and on connected usb drives.  If it wasn’t strange enough that they would gather all the personal files connected to them, they sent them to their companies in unencrypted plaintext.  More recent devices would include a microphone for voice commands, but it was not always clear when it was listening.  And in order for the voice to be converted to text, the recordings are sent to a third party company, often with poor encryption or with little to no notification from the tv company.  These devices even cause problems for people aware of their security issues, as these tracking services are touted as “opt in”, but refusing to accept them disables most if not all of the smart content.  So these companies are selling products to consumers, but disabling features if the consumer does not agree to their ever-changing contracts.

Now I have many concerns with these devices, but I do see their value.  People enjoy things that simply work, or that remember and process information for them.  The use of RFID tags in Disney World is what I think a positive example of this technology working.  Constant tracking and data-mining are not a concern to me in that context because of the space and intent they are contained in.  For a vacation destination having peace of mind is a great goal, and in order to be tracked you need to be on the premises of the park.  Amusement parks are a great controlled environment, and with so many people coming and going, the tracking technology allows the staff to provide personalized services and experiences without placing enormous strain on employees.  And RFID as a means of locative tracking is great, since it has a limited range.  Unlike internet and gps tracking it is more of an “on or off” with each sensor you approach. It serves more as a means of announcing you are entering an area than a means of surveillance.

My ideal for the “Internet of things” would require many changes in our society.  Tech literacy, so people could have agency in what their devices do or to create their own.  Privacy reform, so privacy is not treated as a sign of something to hide but as a right to control your own life.  Infrastructure improvement, so that the electricity and network throughput to use these devices is available, and so their cost may be brought down to affordable ranges for the majority of the population.  My belief is that these changes will probably not occur before the technology reaches consumer markets, so it will probably be trail by fire for the “Internet of Things.”