ODBMS Industry Watch » Internet http://www.odbms.org/blog Trends and Information on Big Data, New Data Management Technologies, Data Science and Innovation. Fri, 09 Feb 2018 21:04:31 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.19 Internet of Things: Safety, Security and Privacy. Interview with Vint G. Cerf http://www.odbms.org/blog/2017/06/internet-of-things-safety-security-and-privacy-interview-with-vint-g-cerf/ http://www.odbms.org/blog/2017/06/internet-of-things-safety-security-and-privacy-interview-with-vint-g-cerf/#comments Sun, 11 Jun 2017 17:06:03 +0000 http://www.odbms.org/blog/?p=4373

” I like the idea behind programmable, communicating devices and I believe there is great potential for useful applications. At the same time, I am extremely concerned about the safety, security and privacy of such devices.” –Vint G. Cerf

I had the pleasure to interview Vinton G. Cerf. Widely known as one of the “Fathers of the Internet,” Cerf is the co-designer of the TCP/IP protocols and the architecture of the Internet. Main topic of the interview is the Internet of Things (IoT) and its challenges, especially the safety, security and privacy of IoT devices.
Vint is currently Chief Internet Evangelist for Google.

Q1. Do you like the Internet of Things (IoT)?

Vint Cerf: This question is far too general to answer. I like the idea behind programmable, communicating devices and I believe there is great potential for useful applications. At the same time, I am extremely concerned about the safety, security and privacy of such devices. Penetration and re-purposing of these devices can lead to denial of service attacks (botnets), invasion of privacy, harmful dysfunction, serious security breaches and many other hazards. Consequently the makers and users of such devices have a great deal to be concerned about.

Q2. Who is going to benefit most from the IoT?

Vint Cerf: The makers of the devices will benefit if they become broadly popular and perhaps even mandated to become part of local ecosystem. Think “smart cities” for example. The users of the devices may benefit from their functionality, from the information they provide that can be analyzed and used for decision-making purposes, for example. But see Q1 for concerns.

Q3. One of the most important requirement for collections of IoT devices is that they guarantee physical safety and personal security. What are the challenges from a safety and privacy perspective that the pervasive introduction of sensors and devices pose? (e.g. at home, in cars, hospitals, wearables and ingestible, etc.)

Vint Cerf: Access control and strong authentication of parties authorized to access device information or control planes will be a primary requirement. The devices must be configurable to resist unauthorized access and use. Putting physical limits on the behavior of programmable devices may be needed or at least advisable (e.g., cannot force the device to operate outside of physically limited parameters).

Q5. Consumers want privacy. With IoT physical objects in our everyday lives will increasingly detect and share observations about us. How is it possible to reconcile these two aspects?

Vint Cerf: This is going to be a tough challenge. Videocams that help manage traffic flow may also be used to monitor individuals or vehicles without their permission or knowledge, for example (cf: UK these days). In residential applications, one might want (insist on) the ability to disable the devices manually, for example. One would also want assurances that such disabling cannot be defeated remotely through the software.

Q6. Let`s talk about more about security. It is reported that badly configured “smart devices” might provide a backdoor for hackers. What is your take on this?

Vint Cerf: It depends on how the devices are connected to the rest of the world. A particularly bad scenario would have a hacker taking over the operating system of 100,000 refrigerators. The refrigerator programming could be preserved but the hacker could add any of a variety of other functionality including DDOS capacity, virus/worm/Trojan horse propagation and so on.
One might want the ability to monitor and log the sources and sinks of traffic to/from such devices to expose hacked devices under remote control, for example. This is all a very real concern.

Q7. What measures can be taken to ensure a more “secure” IoT?

Vint Cerf: Hardware to inhibit some kinds of hacking (e.g. through buffer overflows) can help. Digital signatures on bootstrap programs checked by hardware to inhibit boot-time attacks. Validation of software updates as to integrity and origin. Whitelisting of IP addresses and identifiers of end points that are allowed direct interaction with the device.

Q8. Is there a danger that IoT evolves into a possible enabling platform for cyber-criminals and/or for cyber war offenders?

Vint Cerf: There is no question this is already a problem. The DYN Corporation DDOS attack was launched by a botnet of webcams that were readily compromised because they had no access controls or well-known usernames and passwords. This is the reason that companies must feel great responsibility and be provided with strong incentives to limit the potential for abuse of their products.

Q9. What are your personal recommendations for a research agenda and policy agenda based on advances in the Internet of Things?

Vint Cerf: Better hardware reinforcement of access control and use of the IOT computational assets. Better quality software development environments to expose vulnerabilities before they are released into the wild. Better software update regimes that reduce barriers to and facilitate regular bug fixing.

Q10. The IoT is still very much a work in progress. How do you see the IoT evolving in the near future?

Vint Cerf: Chaotic “standardization” with many incompatible products on the market. Many abuses by hackers. Many stories of bugs being exploited or serious damaging consequences of malfunctions. Many cases of “one device, one app” that will become unwieldy over time. Dramatic and positive cases of medical monitoring that prevents serious medical harms or signals imminent dangers. Many experiments with smart cities and widespread sensor systems.
Many applications of machine learning and artificial intelligence associated with IOT devices and the data they generate. Slow progress on common standards.

Vinton G. Cerf co-designed the TCP/IP protocols and the architecture of the Internet and is Chief Internet Evangelist for Google. He is a member of the National Science Board and National Academy of Engineering and Foreign Member of the British Royal Society and Swedish Royal Academy of Engineering, and Fellow of ACM, IEEE, AAAS, and BCS.
Cerf received the US Presidential Medal of Freedom, US National Medal of Technology, Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering, Prince of Asturias Award, Japan Prize, ACM Turing Award, Legion d’Honneur and 29 honorary degrees.


European Commission, Internet of Things Privacy & Security Workshop’s Report,10/04/2017

Securing the Internet of Things. US Homeland Security, November 16, 2016

Related Posts

Social and Ethical Behavior in the Internet of Things By Francine Berman, Vinton G. Cerf. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 60 No. 2, Pages 6-7, February 2017

Security in the Internet of Things, McKinsey & Company,May 2017

Interview to Vinton G. Cerf. ODBMS Industry Watch, July 27, 2009

Five Challenges to IoT Analytics Success. By Dr. Srinath Perera. ODBMS.org, September 23, 2016

Follow us on Twitter: @odbsmorg


http://www.odbms.org/blog/2017/06/internet-of-things-safety-security-and-privacy-interview-with-vint-g-cerf/feed/ 0
On Big Data and Society. Interview with Viktor Mayer-Schönberger http://www.odbms.org/blog/2016/01/on-big-data-and-society-interview-with-viktor-mayer-schonberger/ http://www.odbms.org/blog/2016/01/on-big-data-and-society-interview-with-viktor-mayer-schonberger/#comments Fri, 08 Jan 2016 09:06:10 +0000 http://www.odbms.org/blog/?p=4051

“There is potentially too much at stake to delegate the issue of control to individuals who are neither aware nor knowledgable enough about how their data is being used to raise alarm bells and sue data processors.”–Viktor Mayer-Schönberger.

On Big Data and Society, I have interviewed Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation at Oxford University (UK).

Happy New Year!


Q1. Is big data changing people’s everyday world in a tangible way?

Viktor Mayer-Schönberger: Yes, of course. Most of us search online regularly. Internet search engines would not work nearly as well without Big Data (and those of us old enough to remember the Yahoo menus of the 1990s know how difficult it was then to find anything online). We would not have recommendation engines helping us find the right product (and thus reducing inefficient transaction costs), nor would flying in a commercial airplane be nearly as safe as it is today.

Q2. You mentioned in your recent book with Kenneth Cukier, Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live Work and Think, that the fundamental shift is not in the machines that calculate data but in the data itself and how we use it. But what about people?

Viktor Mayer-Schönberger: I do not think data has agency (in contrast to Latour), so of course humans are driving the development. The point we were making is that the source of value isn’t the huge computing cluster or the smart statistical algorithm, but the data itself. So when for instance asking about the ethics of Big Data it is wrong to focus on the ethics of algorithms, and much more appropriate to focus on the ethics of data use.

Q3. What is more important people`s good intention or good data?

Viktor Mayer-Schönberger: This is a bit like asking whether one prefers apples or sunshine. Good data (being comprehensive and of high quality) reflects reality and thus can help us gain insights into how the world works. That does not make such discovery ethical, even though the discover is correct. Good intentions point towards an ethical use of data, which helps protect us again unethical data uses, but does not prevent false big data analysis. This is a long way of saying we need both, albeit for different reasons.

Q4. What are your suggestion for concrete steps that can be taken to minimize and mitigate big data’s risk?

Viktor Mayer-Schönberger: I have been advocating ex ante risk assessments of big data uses, rather than (as at best we have today) ex post court action. There is potentially too much at stake to delegate the issue of control to individuals who are neither aware nor knowledgable enough about how their data is being used to raise alarm bells and sue data processors. This is not something new. There are many areas of modern life that are so difficult and intransparent for individuals to control that we have delegated control to competent government agencies.
For instance, we don’t test the food in supermarkets ourselves for safety, nor do we crash-test cars before we buy them (or Tv sets, washing machines or microwave ovens), or run our own drug trials.
In all of these cases we put in place stringent regulation that has at its core a suitable process of risk assessment, and a competent agency to enforce it. This is what we need for Big Data as well.

Q5. Do you believe is it possible to ensure transparency, guarantee human freewill, and strike a better balance on privacy and the use of personal information?

Viktor Mayer-Schönberger: Yes, I do believe that. Clearly, today we are getting not enough transparency, and there aren’t sufficiently effective guarantees for free will and privacy in place. So we can do better. And we must.

Q6. You coined in your book the terms “propensity” and “fetishization” of data. What do you mean with these terms?

Viktor Mayer-Schönberger: I don’t think we coined the term “propensity”. It’s an old term denoting the likelihood of something happening. With the “fetishization of data” we meant the temptation (in part caused by our human bias towards causality – understanding the world around us as a sequence of causes and effects) to imbue the results of Big Data analysis with more meaning than they deserve, especially suggesting that they tell us why when they only tell us what.

Q7. Can big and open data be effectively used for the common good?

Viktor Mayer-Schönberger: Of course. Big Data is at its core about understanding the world better than we do today. I would not be in the academy if I did not believe strongly that knowledge is essential for human progress.

Q8. Assuming there is a real potential in using data–driven methods to both help charities develop better services and products, and understand civil society activity. What are the key lessons and recommendations for future work in this space?

Viktor Mayer-Schönberger: My sense is that we need to hope for two developments. First, that more researchers team up with decision makers in charities, and more broadly civil society organizations (and the government) to utilize Big Data to improve our understanding of the key challenges that our society is facing. We need to improve our understanding. Second, we also need decision makers and especially policy makers to better understand the power of Big Data – they need to realize that for their decision making data is their friend; and they need to know that especially here in Europe, the cradle of enlightenment and modern science, data-based rationality is the antidote to dangerous beliefs and ideologies.

Q9. What are your current areas of research?

Viktor Mayer-Schönberger: I have been working on how Big Data is changing learning and the educational system, as well as how Big Data changes the process of discovery, and how this has huge implications, for instance in the medical field.

Viktor Mayer-Schönberger is Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation at Oxford University. In addition to the best-selling “Big Data” (with Kenneth Cukier), Mayer-Schönberger has published eight books, including the awards-winning “Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age” and is the author of over a hundred articles and book chapters on the information economy. He is a frequent public speaker, and his work have been featured in (among others) New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, The Economist, Nature and Science.

Mayer-Schönberger, V. and Cukier, K. (2013) Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work and Think. John Murray.

Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2009) Delete – The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton University Press.

Related Posts

Have we closed the “digital divide”, or is it just getting wider? Andrea Powell, CIO, CABI. ODBMS.org January 1, 2016

How can Open Data help to solve long-standing problems in agriculture and nutrition? BY Andrea Powell,CIO, CABI. ODBMS.org, December 7, 2015

Big Data and Large Numbers of People: the Need for Group Privacy by Prof. Luciano Floridi, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford. ODBMS.org, March 2, 2015

Follow ODBMS.org on Twitter: @odbmsorg.


http://www.odbms.org/blog/2016/01/on-big-data-and-society-interview-with-viktor-mayer-schonberger/feed/ 0