a. Thank you everyone for your input! I asked this question out of
curiosity, not for a project / paper / research area (yet). All the
responses have been brilliant.
b. #notalllibrarians
c. I've been made privy the security issues are so big you can drive a Mac
truck through them, but I'm ignoring them at the moment to see what people
are doing with the tech.
c. Andreas, if you haven't seen this before, I think you may enjoy Internet
of Shit https://twitter.com/internetofshit

"Obviously the best thing to do is put a chip in it."

_lisa


On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Andreas Orphanides <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> I'm not a technofuturist of any sort, so maybe I'm the wrong person to be
> commenting on IoT (or maybe I'm exactly the right person)... but stuff in
> IoT land is going to get utterly horrible before it gets good. I'd argue
> that it might already be horrible, but it just doesn't have the penetration
> to be fully recognized.
>
> Object lessons:
>
>    - Your Jeep can be hacked so that someone can remotely disable the
>    brakes, thanks to crappy wifi. [1]
>    - Your smart refrigerator leaks your gmail credentials. [2]
>    - Your lightbulbs expose you to drive-by packet sniffing. [3]
>    - Your internet-enabled wine decanter requires you to use
>    vendor-provided wine bottle cartridges [4]
>
> There's a number of overlapping problems here
>
>    - the "Compuserve of Things" issue [5], where every eager vendor is
>    going to try to lock users out of competitors' products [6]
>    - the expansion of this problem, which is that corporations will be
>    tempted to use the power of embedded computing to maximize profit [7]
>    - a more general "Internet of Sh*t" problem [8], where the security
>    ramifications of network-enabling devices is not fully realized and
> exposes
>    users to all kinds of horrors. (As someone aptly put it: open network
> ports
>    are like mucous membranes -- important for certain functions, but you
> don't
>    want more of them exposed than necessary.)
>
> Now all of these problems can be solved, but I am not convinced that they
> will, unless and until things get particularly nasty: specifically, the
> commercial enterprises doing IoT stuff don't have a motive to make things
> better until it starts actually costing them money.
>
> What can libraries do about this? I don't know. Pushing for open standards
> helps. Implementing open standards helps. Practicing good security in IoT
> certainly helps. I do think that "Just because you can, it doesn't mean you
> should" is not a bad starting point, especially if we model stepping
> through the right risk analyses and security practices as we develop IoT in
> libraries.
>
> For now, I prefer to stick with Adama's Law: "If it can kill you, don't
> connect it to the network."
>
>
> [1] http://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/
> [2] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/08/24/smart_fridge_security_fubar/
> [3]
>
> http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/07/crypto-weakness-in-smart-led-lightbulbs-exposes-wi-fi-passwords/
> [4]
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/kuvee-smart-wine-bottle-screen-internet-indiegogo-a6958751.html
> [5] http://www.windley.com/archives/2014/04/the_compuserve_of_things.shtml
> [6] http://www.digitaltrends.com/home/philips-hue-bridge-firmware-update/
> [7] http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/rinesi20150925
> [8] https://twitter.com/internetofshit?lang=en
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Andrew Anderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > For those who were not previously aware of IoT, here’s a primer focused
> > specifically on the library space:
> >
> >
> >
> https://www.oclc.org/publications/nextspace/articles/issue24/librariesandtheinternetofthings.en.html
> >
> > IMHO this is still a very young concept, and not even fully imagined yet,
> > so there is no reason to feel like you’ve missed the boat, when the ship
> > hasn’t even reached the dock yet.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Anderson, President & CEO, Library and Information Resources
> > Network, Inc.
> > http://www.lirn.net/ | http://www.twitter.com/LIRNnotes |
> > http://www.facebook.com/LIRNnotes
> >
> > On Mar 30, 2016, at 22:16, Lesli M <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > I feel compelled to pipe up about the comment "Very sad that a
> librarian
> > didn't know what it was."
> > >
> > > Librarians come in all flavors and varieties. Until I worked in a
> > medical library, I had no idea what a systematic review was. I had no
> idea
> > there was a variety of librarian called "clinical librarian."
> > >
> > > Do you know the hot new interest for law libraries? Medical libraries?
> > Science libraries?
> > >
> > > The IoT is a specific area of interest. Just like every other special
> > interest out there.
> > >
> > > Is it really justified to expect all librarians of all flavors and
> > varieties to know this very tech-ish thing called IoT?
> > >
> > > Lesli
> >
>



-- 

 @byshieldmaiden | http://exitpursuedbyabear.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“There are moments, Jeeves, when one asks oneself, 'Do trousers matter?'"
"The mood will pass, sir.”  - P.G. Wodehouse