So much has been written about the Internet of Things, the pluses and minuses, but Bruce Schneier does an impressive job of analyzing its challenges in a new Forbes piece. We won’t just log into the machine–the machine will be everything, though it will be so quiet, not even a hum, that we’ll barely notice it. The writer identifies the IoT as a “world-sized robot” and calls for the establishment of a “Department of Technology Policy.” The opening:

The Internet of Things is the name given to the computerization of everything in our lives. Already you can buy Internet-enabled thermostats, light bulbs, refrigerators, and cars. Soon everything will be on the Internet: the things we own, the things we interact with in public, autonomous things that interact with each other.

These “things” will have two separate parts. One part will be sensors that collect data about us and our environment. Already our smartphones know our location and, with their onboard accelerometers, track our movements. Things like our thermostats and light bulbs will know who is in the room. Internet-enabled street and highway sensors will know how many people are out and about—and eventually who they are. Sensors will collect environmental data from all over the world.

The other part will be actuators. They’ll affect our environment. Our smart thermostats aren’t collecting information about ambient temperature and who’s in the room for nothing; they set the temperature accordingly. Phones already know our location, and send that information back to Google Maps and Waze to determine where traffic congestion is; when they’re linked to driverless cars, they’ll automatically route us around that congestion. Amazon already wants autonomous drones to deliver packages. The Internet of Things will increasingly perform actions for us and in our name. 

Increasingly, human intervention will be unnecessary.•

Bruce Schneier, a security expert (online and offline), just did an Ask Me Anything at Reddit. The following is an exchange about post-9/11 airport security:

“Question:

I am of the opinion that our airport security is poorly designed and for the hassle passengers go through, we get minimal benefit. I feel like we react to specific circumstances to create an illusion of security and that perception is more important to the TSA than creating a constructive plan to deal with threats. I know you are a proponent of the fail well philosophy which accepts failure and tries to compartmentalize and minimize the damage. Based on this theory what should be the security steps that airports should be taking?

Bruce Schneier:

I think airport security should be rolled back to pre-9/11 levels, and all the money saved should be spent on things that work: intelligence, investigation, and emergency response.

Only two things have improved airplane security since 9/11: reinforcing the cockpit doors, and teaching passengers that they have to fight back. Everything else has been security theater.”

Like all places where pioneers land, someday the Internet will be relatively civilized. Not completely, but relatively. I’m not talking about mean comments and trolling but about the larger issues of control. That’s both a good and bad thing. You certainly don’t want cybercrimes and predatory behavior, but the unfettered, decentralized, anonymous rush of the new medium was exhilarating and led to all kinds of insurgent creativity. Bruce Schneier, the Internet security expert, just published an article for the Atlantic about the struggle for power over the Internet, which he sees as tilting in favor of corporations and governments over individuals. It’s hard to argue with his scorekeeping. The opening:

“We’re in the middle of an epic battle for power in cyberspace. On one side are the traditional, organized, institutional powers such as governments and large multinational corporations. On the other are the distributed and nimble: grassroots movements, dissident groups, hackers, and criminals. Initially, the Internet empowered the second side. It gave them a place to coordinate and communicate efficiently, and made them seem unbeatable. But now, the more traditional institutional powers are winning, and winning big. How these two side fare in the long term, and the fate of the rest of us who don’t fall into either group, is an open question—and one vitally important to the future of the Internet.

In the Internet’s early days, there was a lot of talk about its ‘natural laws’—how it would upend traditional power blocks, empower the masses, and spread freedom throughout the world. The international nature of the Internet bypassed circumvented national laws. Anonymity was easy. Censorship was impossible. Police were clueless about cybercrime. And bigger changes seemed inevitable. Digital cash would undermine national sovereignty. Citizen journalism would topple traditional media, corporate PR, and political parties. Easy digital copying would destroy the traditional movie and music industries. Web marketing would allow even the smallest companies to compete against corporate giants. It really would be a new world order.

This was a utopian vision, but some of it did come to pass. Internet marketing has transformed commerce. The entertainment industries have been transformed by things like MySpace and YouTube, and are now more open to outsiders. Mass media has changed dramatically, and some of the most influential people in the media have come from the blogging world. There are new ways to organize politically and run elections. Crowdfunding has made tens of thousands of projects possible to finance, and crowdsourcing made more types of projects possible. Facebook and Twitter really did help topple governments.

But that is just one side of the Internet’s disruptive character. The Internet has emboldened traditional power as well.”