Beyond The Internet Of Things Towards A Sensor Commons
from the imagine-the-possibilities dept
Already it's clear that one of the hot tech topics of 2012 will be "The Internet of Things" – the idea that even the most mundane objects will be hooked up to the Net and communicating over it. So far, pundits have concentrated on trivial applications like being able to check your fridge's contents from a browser, but potentially it could be much more than that if the "things" are groups of sensors whose data can be usefully aggregated.
Just what might be possible is hinted at in this fascinating post by Andrew Fisher, entitled "Towards a sensor commons":
For me the Sensor Commons is a future state whereby we have data available to us, in real time, from a multitude of sensors that are relatively similar in design and method of data acquisition and that data is freely available whether as a data set or by API to use in whatever fashion they like.
What this boils down to, then, is trends in freely-available real-time data from multiple sensors: it's about being able to watch the world change across some geographical area of interest -- even a small one -- and drawing conclusions from those changes. That's clearly a huge step up from checking what's in your fridge, and potentially has major political ramifications (unlike the contents of your fridge).
My definition is not just about “lots of data from lots of sensors” – there is a subtlety to it implied by the “relatively similar in design and method of data acquisition” statement.
In order to be useful, we need to ensure we can compare data relatively faithfully across multiple sensors. This doesn’t need to be perfect, nor do they all need to be calibrated together, we simply need to ensure that they are “more or less” recording the same thing with similar levels of precision and consistency. Ultimately in a lot of instances we care about trended data rather than individual points so this isn’t a big problem so long as an individual sensor is relatively consistent and there isn’t ridiculous variation between sensors if they were put in the same conditions.
The bulk of the post explores what Fisher sees as the key requirements for a sensor commons, which must:
Each of these is explored at some length, with always interesting and sometimes surprising insights and comments -- I urge you to read the whole thing.
Fisher concludes as follows:
The access we are getting to cheap, reliable, malleable technologies such as Arduino [open hardware boards] and Xbee [wireless modules] coupled with ubiquitous networks whether WiFi or Cellular is creating an opportunity for us to be able to understand our local environments better. Going are the days where we needed to petition councillors to do some water testing in our creeks and waterways or measure the quality of the air that we are breathing.
As that final "strong actions" hints, this is not your parents' Internet of Things.
The deployment of these community oriented technologies will create the Sensor Commons; providing us with data that becomes available and accessible to anyone with an interest. Policy creation and stewardship will pass back to the local communities – as it should be – who will have the data to back up their decisions and create strong actions as a result.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: internet of things, real time data, sensor commons, sensors
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I would prefer not being measured in various ways everywhere I go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
..right up to the point where it saves your life.
This issue is not whether you will be measured - technology will guarantee that - it is who does it and who has access to the data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not necessarily. I can think of many, many situations where I gladly take an enhanced risk of injury or death in exchange for enhanced privacy. It's a cost/benefit thing.
But the rest of your comment is, sadly, spot on. And anybody who wants to avoid constant scrutiny and risk of eavesdropping & active surveillance should not carry a cell phone, smart or otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Imagination is a wonderful thing, but you only see one side of this sword.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I can see advantages to having everything connected and accessible from outside; but I work in tech support, I don't trust technology that much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nevermind the fact that many of the sensor buses draw 5v at microwatts to run whole clusters of sensors and the sensors themselves draw minuscule power from this bus. I have weather sensors that run 30-40 sensors off of a single station that pumps the data to a server which stores the data and makes it available for display, and that station/sensor cluster uses less wattage than my DVR. Even with 13v power for the barometer (which often isn't needed) I am still using far less power than the refrigerator. 1-wire for the win!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seeing inside your fridge
Marketers can determine that Addict-o-treats are 59% more popular than Yuk-O brand.
The government department of What's Good For You can also re-educate people who eat non-approved foods, or in non-approved amounts.
In case of a famine, the government department of What's Good for the 1% can know who is hoarding food in quantities greater than necessary for a starvation diet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seeing inside your fridge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seeing inside your fridge
Oh - well I guess it is ok then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's not, so long as it's only telling me. If it's also telling the fridge manufacturer, my local grocery stores, any advertising agencies (including Google) or any other entity without my express permission, then it's a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
* Someone will need to pay for it (not the government because that would be "socialism")
* Punters won't pay for it unless they know how to use it and what for.
* Businesses have already learned to jump onto this kind of thing early and establish control, rather than let the public have unconstrained access.
A company like Apple may be able to collect and "interpret" the data, use it to control their congregation and pay for the privilege, but is that a good thing ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Infringing products in your fridge?
Bloody pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For certain applications I like it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For certain applications I like it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For certain applications I like it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: For certain applications I like it
How does the power company charge you for electricity if they don't already monitor your usage?
Seems like you already let them in the door. Only way to fix that is to get off the grid entirely -- which will require several forms of power generation (solar for daytime, hydrogen fuel cell or other methods for cloudy days/at night,) and then monitor and control the use yourself.
I don't care as much -- I'll happily use the power grid as a battery until the power company starts complaining that I am not drawing enough power from them and getting too much from other sources (which of course, will require me to get power from other sources -- which I am working on.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whoops
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like I'd better brush up on my NetBattling skills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To funny. I can now check if some one is sleeping in my bed, sitting in my chair, or eating my porridge. Three bears +1, Goldilocks 0 .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Garbage in, garbage out
Now, I am as much a geek as anyone, and love to play with massive amounts of data to do cross-correlations and time series and derive neat-o prediction schemes and link cause to effect..... But before I can do that, I really need to have accurate data. Otherwise, I might as well make up my own data. What this idea will generate is massive amounts of data that can't be correlated to the same axes.
If you want to compare data from several different sensors, then the sensors MUST be calibrated to a common standard. AND the relative accuracy of each sensor must be known.
Something that is almost always ignored by those outside of the instrumentation and control field is that each data point has two parts: a measurement and an accuracy: x +/- y. Without both pieces of the datum, it is worthless. It is only good enough to produce Congressional budgets.
So here is my analysis of this wishful thinking:
"In order to be useful, we need to ensure we can compare data relatively faithfully across multiple sensors."
True.
"This doesn’t need to be perfect, nor do they all need to be calibrated together, we simply need to ensure that they are “more or less” recording the same thing with similar levels of precision and consistency."
False. The author is using "perfect" in terms of "better than I need to play around with it", instead of its real (and unattainable) meaning of having no error. In fact, since there is no accuracy linked with each datum, it is assumed to be perfect.
When he says that the sensors need to be "more or less", then he is vaguely sensing that there needs to be an accuracy attached somewhere. See? Common sense is innate, just not being used here.
"Ultimately in a lot of instances we care about trended data rather than individual points so this isn’t a big problem so long as an individual sensor is relatively consistent and there isn’t ridiculous variation between sensors if they were put in the same conditions."
False. This is just pure wishful thinking. Without the accuracy data, you can only trend data from each sensor. You will not be able to do any meaningful trending between groups of sensors and their associated data. Without calibration results and sensor accuracy information, the data is not "apples to apples".
If you don't know what you are doing, then you come up with statements like these that will start people out on the primrose path. The whole exercise will be wasted effort, or worse, bad data bringing bad decisions, unless it follows standard (and boring) practice from past instrumentation lessons learned the hard way.
I would like to point out that the lessons learned the hard way usually involved massive destruction. When I worked in the instrumentation field around 1980, the petrochemical industry blew up a plant every year. Or was it two a year? And blow up doesn't mean localized damage in one part of the plant, it means a plant completely leveled. I remember one plastics company sending their design team to our Engineering Center after completely leveling their plant. They sent 25 people. We had talked them down from 75. They were extremely concerned that it not happen again.
Good decisions start with good data. Good data comes from good design. Good design takes into account how to correlate the data between different measurements. Talk to some of those who have made the mistakes already. It will save a lot of grief farther on down the road.
artp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Twine
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/supermechanical/twine-listen-to-your-world-talk-to-the-inter net
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The results will likly be dissasterious
This being the case why should I pay for something that the government (incompetent as it is) gets to use but I get no benefit from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sensors
As much as I believe the author is on the right track, it always makes better sense for the "community" to be as large as possible, since then the resources needed for high quality are not an undue burden on the individual. So, allowing the public to view the output, fine; administering such things at the local level? Grow up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Progress
[ link to this | view in chronology ]