Internet of Things Assignment PDF

The objective of development of Internet of Things is increase the capability of the physical world and enable it to integrate into computer-based systems, with the ability to control or sense remotely across the infrastructure of existing network and thereby improving the accuracy and efficiency and also focus on opportunities to gain economic benefit, apart from achieving reduced intervention of human being. >> Get more document related to Internet of Things Assignment.

IoT
INTERNET OF THINGS

IOT
ABSTRACT
Internet of Things is a boon for the world, in multiple dimensions. As going with the
saying of ‘Technology is a double edged sword’, the same technology is associated with several
challenges that the world can face. The overall understanding of the Internet of Things is a key as
well as the concern for the entire world. The advantages are numerous and challenges are also
numerous and the concern of the governments and organizations has more focus on higher level
control rather than keep solving the issues arise at lower levels. The major concerns are privacy
and security for the Internet of Things, as it stands as higher priority for the governments to
ensure that the society keeps moving in a normal pace with making no new disturbances. The
government policies and standards are required and should be in synchronizing with the
advantages of the Internet of Things, technical feasibilities, without minimizing the potential
features and benefits of it. And it is a big challenge for the policy makers in the government.

IOT
Contents
INTERNET OF THINGS....................................................................................................5
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................5
LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................................7
History.........................................................................................................................................7
Applications.................................................................................................................................8
Infrastructure................................................................................................................8
Enterprise.....................................................................................................................8
Consumer.....................................................................................................................8
Privacy and Security Concerns....................................................................................................9
Traditional Structures of Governance........................................................................................10
Privacy.......................................................................................................................................11
Security......................................................................................................................................15
Security and Privacy Internet of Things Regime.......................................................................17
Challenges and Opportunities with Adoption of IoT, by the Governments..............................19
CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS................................................................................19
Security Solutions......................................................................................................................20
End-User Agreements and Privacy Policies for IoT Devices....................................................20
FUTURE RESEARCH......................................................................................................26
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES.....................................................................28
Advantages................................................................................................................................28
Disadvantages............................................................................................................................28
CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................29

IOT
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................30

IOT
INTERNET OF THINGS
INTRODUCTION
The Internet of Things (IoT) is a global network made with physical devices, home
appliances, vehicles and several other items, all embedded with sensors, electronics, actuators,
connectivity and software, all by enabling such objects to exchange the data by connecting
altogether (Brown, 2016). Every individual piece has its unique identification, set by the
respective embedded computing system and still have the ability to inter-operate within the
internet infrastructure existing. The potential of total number of objects that have the capability
to access online by Internet of Things is estimated to be more than 30 million objects, by the year
2020 that can reach the value of Internet of Things global market to $7.1 trillion, estimated by
the same year.
The objective of development of Internet of Things is increase the capability of the
physical world and enable it to integrate into computer-based systems, with the ability to control
or sense remotely across the infrastructure of existing network and thereby improving the
accuracy and efficiency and also focus on opportunities to gain economic benefit, apart from
achieving reduced intervention of human being (Nordrum, 2016). With appropriate augmentation
of Internet of Things with actuators, sensors the technology can achieve an instance of more
cyber-physical system general class that can encompass various technologies, like smart cities,
smart grids, smart homes, virtual power plants and intelligent transportation.

IOT
Figure 1: Basic Internet of Things Connectivity
‘Things’ is the most generalized word in Internet of Things, which is defined technically,
as ‘inextricable mixture of software, hardware, service and data’. And in general, the word
‘things’ may refer to any simple to advanced functioning object, like a simple mobile phone to
field operation devices, used in operations of search and rescue, by fire fighters, cameras that
stream live wild animals feeds, in coastal waters, heart monitoring implants, automobiles having
sensors built-in, biochip transponders used for farm animals, DNA analysis devices for
monitoring food, environment or pathogen (Chin-Lung et al, 2016). All these various kinds of
objects and devices collect data that is useful, through adapting various technologies existing and
the data is shared autonomously among the other devices.

IOT
The technology of Internet of Things is considered as contrary to RFID (Radio Frequency
Identification) technology, as it is considered as an information system infrastructure for
connected and smart objects implementation.
LITERATURE REVIEW
History
1982
The network concept with the objective of connecting smart devices was initiated, at
Carnegie Mellon University. The first internet connected appliance stands as modified coke
machine that gained capability to report details and data about the drinks loaded.
1991
A contemporary vision of Internet of Things was virtually conceived in UbiComp and
PerCom academic venues and ubiquitous computing seminal paper is introduced by Mark
Weiser.
1994
A concept in IEEE Spectrum was described by Reza Raji, as small data packets to a large
nodes set towards automation and integration of everything right at home to anything to entire
factories.
1999
The concept of Internet of Things is envisioned as communication between Device to
Device by Bill Joy, as part of the framework, ‘Six Webs’ and presented at Davos, in World
Economic Forum (Vermesan & Friess, 2013).
2004

IOT
The future interconnection environment thought model was proposed. The same thought
model envisioned the Internet of Things development trend.
Applications
The applications of Internet of Things is literally can be in each and every field in the
world, almost, as long as the things in such fields possess the ability to network by embedding
memory, power sources and memory in limited physical sizes (Brown, 2013).
Internet of Things has extensive applications. These applications can be categorized into
various categories however important categories are infrastructure, enterprise and consumer.
Infrastructure
The key application of infrastructure Internet of Things is to controlling monitoring of
rural and urban infrastructure, such as railway tracks, bridges, offshore wind farms.
Enterprise
Enterprise Internet of Things refers to interconnecting all the business related devices and
corporate settings (Santucci, N.D). The best example is media to study consumer habits and
marketing products accordingly.
Consumer
When the applications are considered for a common man and in consumer field, the
examples include interconnecting home automation, entertainment, car, connected health,
wearable technology, appliances like air purifiers, washer, ovens, dryers, freezers, refrigerators,
robotic vacuums and quantified self all enabled to be remote monitored using Wi-Fi.
The biggest segment of market for Internet of Things is by consumer, for transforming a
typical home environment to smart home in terms of accessibility of products used at home. So,
devices of Internet of Things are a larger part of domotics or home automation (Mattern &

IOT
Friess, N.D). Home user can achieve central control for all the domestically used devices and
products and majorly to provide assistance for elderly and disabled individuals at home.
Internet of Things has applications in other major industries, such as agriculture,
manufacturing, energy management, environmental monitoring, building & home automation,
metropolitan scale deployments, medical and healthcare, transportation (Solaimani et al, 2015).
Privacy and Security Concerns
Having explored numerous or near to unlimited applications of Internet of Things, the
concerns of privacy and security also become part of research, to ensure that the technology does
not end up the human and world.
According to Karen Renaud and Noura Aleisa, at the University of Glsgow, in their
recent study, they expressed the concern that the potential of Internet of Things for major
invasion of privacy is a major concern, as much of the research focused disproportionally, on the
concerns of security of Internet of Things (Singh et al, 2015). There are various proposed
solutions in terms of the deployed techniques and the extent to which privacy core principles are
satisfied. However, there are only a very few among them, turned to be satisfactory fully.
Investment director, Louis Basenese at Wall Street Daily has criticized the lack of attention to the
issues of security by the industry of the Internet of Things. According to it, despite alarming
hacks and high profile manufacturers of device remain undeterred, having their focus more on
profitability, rather than the security. However, the ultimate control should be owned by
consumers, for collection of data that includes the options of deleting it, in case they prefer to
choose (Lindener, 2015). Wide scale consumer adoption should not happen with no assurance of
privacy.

IOT
In a global surveillance post-Snowden world, more active interest is taken by the
consumers, in the protection of their privacy and demands the devices of the Internet of Things to
be screened against the vulnerabilities of potential security and violations of privacy, before
attempting to purchase the same. According to the Digital Consumer Survey, conducted by
Accenture, in 2016, when polled on the usage of consumer security and technology, has moved
the consumers to a top barriers from being a nagging problem, since the choice of the consumers
now is to choose to abandon the devices and services of the Internet of Things and concerns of
security. The survey was conducted in 28 countries with 28000 consumers. The survey also
revealed and reported that out of consumers, who have awareness of planning or owing to the
devices of the Internet of Things and having awareness of the attacks of the hacker, about 18
percent of them decided to terminate the Internet of Things services and also related services
usage, until safety guarantee is assured, in the next five years. The data and statistics reveal that
the there is an increasing perception of security and risks concerns to outweigh the Internet of
Things devices’ value propositions and opt to postpone service subscriptions or planned
purchases (Basenese & Louis, N.D).
Traditional Structures of Governance
Ericsson has conducted a study, regarding the Traditional Structures of Governance
adoption, among the companies of Danish and identified a clash in between the traditional
governance structures of companies and Internet of Things, as IoT presents still both lack of
historical precedence and uncertainties. About 60% of the respondents interviewed have stated
that they possess enough capabilities to organize and 75 percent of respondents expressed the
opinion that they do not believe that they have the required processes for capturing the
opportunity of Internet of Things (Chabanne et al, 2011). It led to a need for organizational

IOT
culture understanding so that the processes of organizational design can be facilitated and to test
new practices of innovation management. A digital leadership lacking in the digital
transformation era has stifled innovation also and the adoption of Internet of Things to a great
degree that various companies were waiting for the dynamics of market ot play out, in the face of
uncertainty (Westerlund et al, 2014)
Privacy
The basic definition of privacy is ‘the right to be left alone’, according to Thomas
Cooley(Thomas M. Cooley, A Treatise on the Law of Torts, Or the Wrongs Which Arise
Independent of Contracts (Chicago: Callaghan & Co., 1888).). Privacy can be into four states,
reserve, intimacy, solitude and anonymity, all suggesting as to be free from observations by
others and free from groups.
Figure 2: Privacy Concerns of IoT
Consumers or the end users face the privacy threats, both from the unauthorized external
parties and authorized organizations collecting data, which tamper and intercept with the

IOT
personal information stored and collected about them. A privacy threat is defined technically, as
possible sensitive data exposure event to entities, such as artificial intelligence, enterprise or
person that are not required or authorized to possess such personal data about the individuals. It
can be either too much data present in the hands of the authorized or right entity or in the hands
of wrong entity (Palmer, 2017).
In an Internet of Things applications report made in 2016, by the Privacy Commissioner
in the home and office observed that when the organizations and consumers begin to use devices
and sensors enabled by internet, then more and more points are and will be open to attack.
A report made by Ernst & Young, in 2015, claim that in today’s world of not enough
awarenss of security, on the part of users, with ‘always on’ technology, the cyber attacks would
then be a matter of ‘when’, rather than ‘if’. It is also stated by the government that it will be
easier to enter a network by the attackers, because the traditional systems of closed operating
technology have given IP addresses increasingly that can externally be accessed and hence the
way is easily made out by the back office systems cyber threats and into various significant
infrastructures, like automation systems, like power generation and transportation systems
(Vongsinghong & Smanchat, 2014). The network of Internet of Things is likened to a global
giant inter connected robot that is so insecure and disparate that against it, the cyber attacks are
increasingly causing to major problems of society, if are not properly regulated.
Apart from the obvious privacy breach, when personal information is viewed by an
unauthorized party, these parties may use such personal information for various notorious and
nefarious purposes. Criminal activity can be indicated when the persistent original user footprint,
the other devices identification that are tied together, fraudulently (Couldry & Turow, 2014).
Personal information can be published by unauthorized parties and also can extend to

IOT
committing to identify theft or any other criminal activities that can eventually cause subject of
great distress of information.
According to author and professor, Philip N. Howard, the Internet of Things is considered
to offer immense potential for making governments to be transparent, empowering citizens and
broadening access of information (Chaouchi, 2010). However, it should be cautioned that there
are enormous privacy threats associated with it, as it is the potential for political manipulation
and social control.
Various concerns related to privacy have resulted to many of them to consider the big
data infrastructures possibility, like data mining and Internet of Things are incompatible
inherently with privacy. it is also claimed that such advanced Internet of Things technologies are
not only a public space invasion, but also stands as being leading to perpetuate normative
behaviour and cited with an example of instance of billboards tracking the passersby’s
demographics, who read the advertisement after stopping the car, by using hidden cameras
(Reddington, N.D.)
The council of Internet of Things compared the growing digital surveillance prevalence,
because of Internet of Things to the panoption conceptualization, as described in 18th century, by
Jeremy Bentham (UCLA, (N.D.).
According to a professor of philosophy of technology, Peter-Paul Verbeek writes that our
moral decision making is already influenced by the technology that in turn affects the autonomy,
privacy and agency of human being. According to him, technology is viewed merely as a
potential tool for human being and a caution is demanded badly against the same. Instead, it
should be considered as an active agent, rather than a human tool (Verbeek & Peter-Paul 2011).

IOT
The impact of Internet of Things on consumer privacy is expressed to be a concern, by
Justin Brookman, of the Center for Democracy and Technology. According to him, there are
many organizations and even individuals, in commercial space are ready to collect everything by
using Big Data and keep the data around forever, and security is considered as a secondary
concern to deal by appointing somebody else, later. Here, a strong regime is important, in terms
of policy framework in order to limit the same (Cardwell, 2014).
According to Tim O’Reilly, it is believed that the way the devices of Internet of Things
are sold by the companies on consumers is misplaced and it disputes the notion that the Internet
of Things notion about gaining efficiency from placing every type of devices online and
interpreting that the Internet of Things is about augmentation of human really. However, the
applications will be different profoundly, when the data and sensors drive one’s decision making
(Hardy & Quentin, 2015).
Further, the concerns are expressed by editorials at WIRED, by stating that what we are
about to lose and sacrifice is ultimately, our privacy and the situation will be even worse
compared to that and privacy will be rewritten under our noses, and this concept can only be
watched by you with no control (Webb & Geoff, 2015).
The concern of privacy is expressed by the American Civil Liberties Union. It expresses
regarding the Internet of Things’ ability to erode control of people, over their lives. And it says
that there is not even a way to forecast how the immense powers of Internet of Things will be
that result in accumulation disproportionately, in the governments hands that crave for increased
control ever and in the corporations hands that seek financial advantage (Zhou, 2013).. Clear
chances are expressed that it will be harder for us even to have potential control on our own

IOT
lives, as it is we increasingly grow and become transparent to the government institutions and
power corporations that can be opaque to us.
The British Government has stated in response to rising concerns regarding smart
technology and privacy, in 2007 that formal principles of Privacy by Design will be followed by
it, when smart metering program is implemented. The objective of the program is to replace the
traditional power meters with new smart power meters in order to manage and track more
accurately, the energy usage. Though it was suspected to be follow and implement, the Dutch
program passed the similar smart metering program, in 2011 (BCS, 2013).
Security
There are increasingly raising concerns that the Internet of Things development is in
course, rapidly with no appropriate and necessary profound security changes consideration and
regulatory changes (BusinessWire, 2017).
The technical issues of Internet of Things are mostly similar to that of the conventional
Smartphone, workstations and servers. However, the anti-malware, security updates and firewall
systems are unsuitable generally, for less capable, much smaller devices of Internet of Things.

IOT
Figure 3: Security Challenges of Internet of Things
According to the survey conducted by Business Insider Intelligence, 39% of respondents
responded that the biggest concern of security for Internet of Things is security, in adoption of
Internet of Things technology, according the survey conducted in fourth quarter of 2014. In
particular, after spreading of Internet of Things widely, the cyber attacks will be of more
physical, instead of limiting to virtual threats (Clearfield & Christopher, 2013).
According to Joseph Steinberg, a cyber-security columnist for Forbes expressed his view
in an article, in January 2014, as the home appliances, like kitchen appliances, thermostats,
cameras, televisions that are connected through internet already started spying on people, in their
own homes. The devices in automobiles, like heat, hood and trunk releases, engine, brakes,
locks, dashboard and horn, controlled by computers, have been shown to be much security
vulnerable to the attackers, who have on-board network access. Vehicle computer systems in
some cases are also connected through internet and allow them to remotely exploited through

IOT
network (IJSMI, 2018). The ability to control pacemakers remotely is shown by the security
researchers, by 2008, with no authority. Further demonstration of remote control of implantable
cardioverter defibrillators and insulin pumps is performed by the hackers,
An attack of distributed denial of service, powered by the devices of Internet of Things,
in 2016, running the Mirai malware disabled major websites and DNS providers. The attack,
Mirai Botnet had infected the Internet of Things devices, within first 20 hours, to 65,000. The
infections kept on increasing to 300,000. Among them 41.5% inflections are made by Colubia,
Brazil and Vietnam. The attack had singled out specific devices of Internet of Things, consisting
of routers, IP Cameras, DVRs and printers. Most infection containing devices are owned by the
top vendors, like MikroTik, ZyXEL, ZTE, Dahua, Cisco and Huawei.
A Computer Scientist, Junade Ali, at Cloudfare, in 2017 stated that the existence of
DDoS vulnerabilities in the devices of Internet of Things is because of the poor Publish-
subscribe pattern implementation.
Security and Privacy Internet of Things Regime
Data is one of the key drivers of the Internet of Things. The key and success of the idea
or objective of interconnection of devices is to enable them to be more efficient is based on
accessibility, processing and storage of data. Data collected from various sources by various
companies that work on Internet of Things is stored for future and further processing, in the
respective cloud network. It becomes a key and wide door open for the dangers of security and
privacy and vulnerability of multiple systems with a single point (Reza & Hamid, 2017). There
are other issues and concerns too, such as the ownership of the data and consumer choice and the

IOT
ways the data is used. However, the major concern is the protection of the data, against security
and privacy issues and the regulators have focused on the same.
Regulations by regime are basically dependent on the respective country. There are a few
legislations made related to data collection and privacy and some of them are OECD Guidelines
on the Protection Privacy and Transporter Flows of Personal Data of 1980, US Privacy Act of
1974 and EU Directive 95/46/ EC of 1995 (Weber & 2010).
Three significant recommendations are made apart from the legislations, by Federal
Trade Commission as the following, in 2015.
1. Data Consent
Users must be given the choice as to what data, they prefer to share with the companies
of Internet of Things and in cases of data getting exposed, and the respective user must be
informed.
2. Data Security
Data collection, data storage and data processing have to be secured at each and every
point, by the Internet of Things companies, right from the point of designing the concept
and technology. These companies must adopt an approach called ‘defence in depth’ and
ensure for data encryption at every stage of data existence.
3. Data Minimization
Only the data needed by the Internet of Things companies has to be collected and has to
retain only for a limited time.
When the security and privacy regimes are considered, consumer rights so far can be well
protected according to FTC by the acts, Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, Fair Credit
Reporting Act and FTC Act. And further National Policy on IoT is needed for the matter of
security, privacy and spectrum. And towards providing impetus to the ecosystem of Internet of

IOT
Things, The Developing Innovation and Growing the Internet of Things Act is made to direct for
the assessment of the need for more spectrum to get connected to the devices of IoT, by Federal
Communications Commission(Mattern & Floerkemeier, 2010).
Automobiles are one of the important concerns, as the concern arises from the connected
cars usage and interconnected and applied as well to the healthcare devices (Hersent et al,
2012).. Hence, there are several standards are made for the industry of IoT. Cyber security
database and guidelines for making more secure automotive computer systems the best practices
are prepared by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Challenges and Opportunities with Adoption of IoT, by the Governments
The challenges and opportunities associated with the adoption of the Internet of Things
by various governments have been concerned to explore and a report is delivered recently by
World Bank. The challenges and opportunities are explored as the following.
1. Underdeveloped frameworks of regulatory and policy
2. In governments, still early days for Internet of Things
3. A major barrier, as the infrastructure
4. Clear capacity and institutional gap in private sector and government
5. Despite strong value proposition, unclear business models
6. Inconsistent data management and valuation
7. Common characteristics shared by most successful pilots, like local, public-private
partnership, leadership, etc.
8. Government as an enabler
One of the major challenges to the privacy of Internet of Things is the household privacy
that can be easily compromised by an anlaysis of the patterns of smart home network solely, with
no dissection of the encrypted application data content.
CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS
The Internet of Things is a hope of sophisticating the functions of the society and
transforming the day to day activities of a typical human or a common man to be extremely

IOT
dynamic with drastically decreased effort (Mattern & Floerkemeier, 2010). However, the
challenges and issues of privacy and security stand as the biggest barrier, even for the
governments, even to trial and initiate the technology. However, there are certain solutions
proposed to encounter the privacy and security issues of internet of things.
The privacy challenge can be encountered with the usage of scheme of synthetic packet
injection to overcome household privacy invasion, safely (Yoshigoe et al, 2015).
As the responses to the increasing security concerns, launching of the IoTSF (Internet of
Things Security Foundation) is done on 23 September, 2015. The IoTSF is made with the
mission of promoting the best practices and knowledge to secure the Internet of Things
(McCandless, D. 2017). The foundation board is built from the telecommunications companies
and technology providers, like Pen Test Partners, Imagination Technologies, Vodafone and BT.
Innovation solutions are under development by large information technology companies, to
ensure better security of the Internet of Things devices.
Security Solutions
According to the security experts, Internet of Things is viewed as a threat to the entire
traditionally used internet. Some of these experts argue that the incentive of market is to secure
the devices of the Internet of Things is insufficient and it demands regulation by government to
ensure that the Internet of Things is secure enough (Crump & Harwood, 2014).. The basic user
security is basically and essentially, in the overall Internet of Things understanding. Mitigating
the cyber attacks can be possible by keeping up the current patching updates, current anti-virus
software.

IOT
End-User Agreements and Privacy Policies for IoT Devices
The government policies and regulations can focus on various ToS (Terms of Service
agreements) and Privacy policies, after analyzing the following key features for providing better
securing and privacy of the Internet of Things (Witkovski et al, 2016).
For instance, PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act)
enacted in Canada, in 2000, has regulated data privacy and security along with underlying
principles defined from earlier measures.
The strong and various government policies in the respective countries and states have
enabled the collection of user’s personal information with the stated purposes as the following,
by various reputed companies.
1. Data Collection Purpose Stated
It is required by the PIPEDA principle that identification of the purpose for which the
collection of the personal information is to be done by the organizations, either before or
at the time of collection of information. Such process allows determining the information
to fulfil the respective purposes. Such requirements help to establish the baseline to
limited collection principle, subsequently and can be measured (Wood, 2015). Then
according to the policy, it is indicated that the purposes stated cannot be linked really, to
the data collected in other ways of discern. A long list of purposes accompanied by the
collecting data types listing is read by the typical policy.
Table: Data Collection Stated Purposes
Vendor or Device Data Collection Purpose
Android Collection of information is
done for providing better
services to all the end users
of the service.

IOT
The information collected is
used to maintain, improve,
provide and protect them to
develop new ones and to
protect our users and
Google.
August Smart Lock Personal Information is
collected for the purposes of
our services’ providing,
administering and
improving.
Belkin The collected information
may be used by us for
number of purposes. The
purposes will be consistent
for directly related purposes
or the reason for which the
information is provided to us
Firbit We use the personal
information for fitness
statistics personalization,
like distance travelled and
calories burned
Hexoskin Personal information is used
by them to provide the
services, send related
updates & information,
improve the algorithms and
services and for the analysis
of data and research
iDevices The personal information
may be used by Apple and
its Affiliates to provide and
improve the advertising,
content, services and our
products.
Mimo The primary purpose of
collecting personal
information from you is to
provide you with an
efficient, smooth,
customized and safe
experience.
Nest Personal information is used
to develop, provide and
improve the products and

IOT
services of Nest that include
to make the
recommendations,
assessment about safety,
energy and products usage.
Tesla The personal information of
the user may be used by us
to provide and improve our
services and products and
communicate with you.
2. Data De-identification Methods
Differentiation in between data identification and non-identification can be determined by
the privacy policies. The policy is required to apply to the data, which is of personally
identifying and concerned to the same (Webb, 2015). It makes the organizations to be
well aware of the strict policy that identifying data should not be commercially exploited
or sold to others.
But, such provisions are followed, often by other authorizing statements, unfettered
relatively, data usage that is de-identified. Such provisions can also be followed by other
privacy statements often that relatively authorize and unfettered usage of data, which is
de-identified. The government policy still have the challenge that they cannot restrict
such practices, theoretically, as it is applied to the information of personal identification
only (Torstar News Service, 2017).. However, what happens to the companies of the
Internet of Things is that the way of exploitation and de-identification of personal
information, a justifying purpose of initial collection.
Another challenge to this privacy and security concern of such government policy is that
the assessment of the data de-identification validity is difficult as there is no standard
developed for the same. Just because of the privacy policy assurance, the data should not

IOT
be taken as information related to non-personal. Among the companies, there are no such
best-practices apparent, even (Public Interest Advocacy Center, 2017). And according to
certain companies, de-identification can be achieved by aggregation of data and some
other companies claim that from any data set, personality is possible to strip.
Various means by which various organizations claim towards personal data de-
identification, as the following table.
Vendor or Device Stated Method
August Smart Lock The company may analyze the collected
non-personal information regarding its
services’ performance. Such information
may be disclosed and make use of non-
personally identifying and aggregate
information for the purpose of
demographic profiling, industry analysis,
advertising and marketing and also other
purposes of business.
Fitbit The does not sell any identifying data
about you. It shares the data about the
user, only to provide the services of the
company, when the data is aggregated and
de-identified or when it is directed to use,
by the user.
GE Connected Appliances The company collects certain non-
personal and aggregate information, when
the website is visited, through various
technologies.
Hexoskin The company may attempt to share social
information, profile information and
activity information to conduct further
research on fitness, wellness and health,
with partners and researchers.
iDevices The company collects data as on its own,
it does not permit any specific individual
data association directly. The company
may disclose, collect, transfer and use the
non-personal information for any
purpose.
Nest The company may share any non-

IOT
personal information with our partners
and with public.
Pebble The company may anonymize or / and de-
identify information collected through
other means apart from the services, so
that the user is not identified by the
information.
Table: Personal Data De-identification Methods
3. Nature of Consent and the Ways It is Obtained
In the Internet of Things context, consent is obtained generally, under privacy policy and
terms of service, through the device purchase and usage. The assumptions underlying is
that before the usage of the device, the consumer would be enough familiar with such
provisions. The terms of use must be well reviewed must be consistent in such
assumption’s application to the product usage (Perera et al, 2015). The general passing of
message is that ‘do not use the product if you have no consent to the specified terms’.
Here, the challenge for the government policy is that the policy cannot ensure that the
organizations ensure that this data is actually known by the consumer, for which the data
is gets collected. So the government policies should demand the companies for
reasonable effort,
4. Limiting the Data Collections’ Scope
The principle of limitation stands as a qualifier, for the purpose of identification for data
collection. The objective of data collection purpose identification is to ensure that the
minimum amount of possible information is collected by the organization and restrict to
that purpose. However, the purposes stated are not generally, linked to the data, collected
in the ways of discern. The challenge here is that these principles stand critical to the
scheme function, as a whole.

IOT
5. Specified Security or Safeguarding Measures
Various organizations use various methods for providing data security of what they hold.
In general, the lack of any detail or specificity provided to the consumer, regarding the
kind of measures considered is a deficiency that is glaring, as the importance of issue is
growing.
After the organizations collect the personal information, they get obligation to protect that
information against any unauthorized access, loss or theft, copying, modification, use or
disclosure.
There is still challenge of the regime as the definition is precise and simple, as
‘appropriate to the data sensitivity’, as there is no standard baseline.
6. Law Governance and Resolution of Dispute
The agreements related to the terms of service contain typically, a specifying applicable
law choice governing the consumer and vendor relationships and other relating matters,
such as settlement disputes.
Apart from the government policies and standards to collect and use the personal
information of the people and objects, various research and studies are underway that focus on
the IoT data privacy protection and anonymous protocols (Ersue et al, 2014). Most of the
technical solutions use the masking and encryption methods of data like homomorphic algorithm
towards sensitive data protection. However, these solutions still have challenges on the original
data availability and also increase the delay of time. Another challenge of both technical and
governmental restriction of data or current methods of privacy protection is that the scope of
application is narrowed and protection becomes incomprehensive. This is another dimension of
increasing more security and privacy restrictions, by either government policies or technical
methods.

IOT
Eventually, general and complete protection of secured and privacy of data demands
research to be conducted in depth that includes sharing, storage, collection, usage and
transmission of data.
FUTURE RESEARCH
In addition to the Internet of Things or objects, there is an extension of this technology as
‘internet of living things’ (Cardwell, 2014).. This concept is proposed to describe the biological
sensors networks and allow the users to study various molecules or even DNA, by using cloud
based analysis.
There is still need for the future research of how the IoT can be open network and non-
deterministic, in which intelligent or auto-organized entities and virtual objects would be able to
act independently and interoperable, based on the circumstances, context or environments
(Steinberg & Joseph, 2014).
The potential of the IoT is still expected to be multiplied and stands viable, by creation of
new business models. So, there is a need for future research on such viable business models to
exploit analytics for transforming and innovating workforce.
Further research is needed for better smart devices integration, in the built environment
and their potential usage in future applications (Feamster & Nick. 2017). Further and effective
method must be explored for privacy protection towards protection of the privacy of the users,
while guarantying real time and original data availability, simultaneously.
To ensure all the above future research to be viable and best suit for secured IoT
applications in the future, future legislation must encompass IoT and RFID issues of data and
privacy protection, following goals must be achieved.

IOT
1. Legislation for security of information technology
2. Legislation for Right to Know
3. Legislation for task force
4. Legislation for utilization
5. Legislation for prohibition
Future legislation categories must evaluate for personal data and privacy protection in the
following aspects.
1. Monitoring persons
2. Monitoring animals
3. Monitoring products
4. Collecting data for the purposes of profiling, as an aggregated data
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Internet of Things when associated with strong and strict policies to ensure enough
privacy and security has the following advantages and disadvantages (Verbeek & Peter-Paul,
2011).. There are numerous advantages and disadvantages and most potential and important ones
are discussed hereunder.
Advantages
1. Information
More information may lead to better decision that even can be faster (Greenberg & Andy,
2015).
For instance, the integrated home appliances and the respective power and energy
consumption can allow for better decisions of using less powered appliances for less
time.
2. Time
IoT can save a lot of time that is generally wasted or consumed on gathering of
information followed by processing the same. Better decisions can be made with more
data analyzed in less time.

IOT
3. Tracking
Advance level of information can be tracked so easily, compared to never before. For
example, the store keeper can track the expiry dates of the medicine in the store that help
taking the decisions, to ensure that the stock continues to be with enough quantity.
4. Money
In case the monitoring and tagging equipment cost is decreased compared to the market
for Internet of Things will cross sky, even in very short period.
Disadvantages
1. Complexity
With the integration of millions of objects and respective complex technologies of
numerous systems, the chances of failure of the partial or entire system can be very easy
and fast.
2. Safety
The new safety concerns keep arising, even the precautions and strong policies are
defined and set for privacy and security of the data (Loukas & George. 2015).
The issues of safety further change the world and intimidate the people, with the new
definition or degraded definition of the privacy and security of data.
3. Compatibility
So far and currently, there is no universal compatibility and facility standard set for
monitoring and tagging the equipment or devices. As the diversity and nature of the
devices and objects keep varying and increasing, the issues of compatibility continue to
persist and arise new.
4. Bandwidth
When the millions of objects are integrated and the set of data contained by each object
keep multiplying demanding much higher size of the bandwidth than existing.

IOT
CONCLUSION
Internet of things has numerous opportunities for better and dynamic society as well as
serious threats to the society that even end up the humanity. Having discussed various serious
concerns regarding the security and privacy of the data accumulated with the interconnection of
millions of things or devices of IoT, the need of strict and standard policies set and restricted by
the government is undeniable. The good news is that many governments of especially developed
countries have developed the standards and policies against data breaching and unauthorized
usage. And most of them are upgraded versions of the digital data privacy and security, rather
than completely encountering the negative effects of the IoT. Hence, the government policies are
still needed to be strict and strong, to completely encounter these affects, according to discussed
challenges of the existing government policies.
REFERENCES
Basenese & Louis (N.D). The Best Play on the Internet of Things Trend. Wall Street Daily
BCS, (2013).The Societal Impact of the Internet of Things. British Computer Society
Brown, E. (2016). Who Needs the Internet of Things?. Linux.com.
Brown, I. (2013). Britain's Smart Meter Programme: A Case Study in Privacy by
Design. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology.
BusinessWire, (2017). Survey: Nearly Half of U.S. Firms Using Internet of Things Hit by
Security Breaches. BusinessWire.

IOT
Cardwell, D. (2014). At Newark Airport, the Lights Are On, and They're Watching You. The New
York Times.
Cardwell, D. (2014). At Newark Airport, the Lights Are On, and They're Watching You. The New
York Times
Chabanne, Herve, Pascal, U., & Jean-Ferdinand, S. (2011). RFID and the Internet of Things.
London: ISTE.
Chaouchi, H. (2010). The Internet of Things. London: Wiley-ISTE.
Chin-Lung, H., Judy, Chuan-Chuan (2016). An empirical examination of consumer adoption of
Internet of Things services: Network externalities and concern for information privacy
perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior.
Clearfield & Christopher. (2013). Rethinking Security for the Internet of Things. Harvard
Business Review Blog
Couldry, N., Turow, J. (2014). "Advertising, Big Data, and the Clearance of the Public Realm:
Marketers' New Approaches to the Content Subsidy". International Journal of
Communication. 8: 1710–1726
Crump, C., Harwood, M. (2014). The Net Closes Around Us. TomDispatch
Ersue, M., Romascanu, D., Schoenwaelder, J., Sehgal, A. (2014). Management of Networks with
Constrained Devices: Use Cases. IETF Internet Draft.
Feamster & Nick. (2017). Mitigating the Increasing Risks of an Insecure Internet of Things.
Freedom to Tinker

IOT
Greenberg & Andy. (2015). Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on the Highway—With Me in It. Wired
Hardy, Quentin (2015). Tim O'Reilly Explains the Internet of Things. The New York Times Bits.
The New York Times.
Hersent, O., David, B. & Omar, E. (2012). The Internet of Things: Key Applications and
Protocols. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley.
IJSMI. (2018). "Overview of recent advances in Health care technology and its impact on health
care delivery". International Journal of Statistics and Medical Informatics. 7: 1–6.
Lindner, T. (2015). The Supply Chain: Changing at the Speed of Technology. Connected World.
Loukas & George. (2015). Cyber-Physical Attacks A growing invisible threat. Oxford, UK:
Butterworh-Heinemann, Elsevier.
Mattern, F., Floerkemeier, C. (2010). From the Internet of Computer to the Internet of
Things. Informatik-Spektrum.
Mattern, F., Floerkemeier, C.(N.D). From the Internet of Computers to the Internet of
Things. ETH Zurich.
McCandless, D. (2017). World’s Biggest Data Breaches & Hacks. Information is Beautiful
Nordrum, A. (2016). Popular Internet of Things Forecast of 50 Billion Devices by 2020 Is
Outdated. IEEE.

IOT
Palmer, D. (2017). The Internet of Things? It's really a giant robot and we don't know how to fix
it. ZD Net
Perera, C., Liu, C. H., Jayawardena, S. (2015). The Emerging Internet of Things Marketplace
From an Industrial Perspective: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in
Computing.
Public Interest Advocacy Center, (2017). Shopping for Consumer Protection: Current
Jurisdictional Issues.
Reddington, C. (N.D.) Connected Things and Civic Responsibilities. Storify
Reza, A., Hamid (2017). "MIST: Fog-based Data Analytics Scheme with Cost-Efficient Resource
Provisioning for IoT Crowdsensing Applications". Journal of Network and Computer
Applications. 82: 152–165.
Santucci, G. (N.D). The Internet of Things: Between the Revolution of the Internet and the Metamorphosis of Objects. European
Commission Community Research and Development Information Service.
Singh, J., Pasquier, T., Bacon, J., Ko, H., Eyers, D. (2015). "Twenty Cloud Security
Considerations for Supporting the Internet of Things". IEEE Internet of Things
Journal. 3 (3)
Solaimani, S., Keijzer-Broers, W., Bouwman, H. (2015). What we do – and don't – know about
the Smart Home: An analysis of the Smart Home literature. Indoor and Built
Environment. 24 (3): 370–383

IOT
Steinberg & Joseph. (2014). These Devices May Be Spying On You (Even In Your Own
Home). Forbes
Torstar News Service. (2017). Why Canadians are being left out of voice-activated tech trend.
Toronto Metro
UCLA, (N.D.). Deleuze – 1992 – Postscript on the Societies of Control. UCLA.
Verbeek & Peter-Paul, (2011). Moralizing Technology: Understanding and Designing the
Morality of Things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Verbeek, Peter-Paul (2011). Moralizing Technology: Understanding and Designing the Morality
of Things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Vermesan, Ovidiu; Friess, Peter (2013). Internet of Things: Converging Technologies for Smart
Environments and Integrated Ecosystems (PDF). Aalborg, Denmark: River Publishers.
Vongsingthong, S., Smanchat, S. (2014). "Internet of Things: A review of applications &
technologies". Suranaree Journal of Science and Technology.
Webb, G. (2015). Say Goodbye to Privacy. WIRED
Webb, Geoff (2015). Say Goodbye to Privacy. WIRED
Weber, R., H., & Romana, W. (2010). Internet of Things: Legal Perspectives. Berlin: Springer.
Westerlund, M., Leminen, S., Rajahonka, Mervi. (2014). Designing Business Models for the
Internet of Things. Technology Innovation Management Review

IOT
Witkovski, A., Santin, A., O., Marynowski, J. E., Abreu Jr. V. (2016). An IdM and Key-based
Authentication Method for providing Single Sign-On in IoT. IEEE Globecom
Wood, A. (2015). The internet of things is revolutionizing our lives, but standards are a
must. The Guardian.
Yoshigoe, K., Dai, W., Abramson, M., Jacobs, A. (2015). Overcoming Invasion of Privacy in
Smart Home Environment with Synthetic Packet Injection. TRON Symposium
Zhou, H. (2013). The Internet of Things in the Cloud: A Middleware Perspective. Boca Raton:
CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.