Experts on cybersecurity envision horrendous scenarios about distribution of so-called “Internet of Things”: attackers, who got access to your apartment, phone or confidential information; hacker-terrorists who are able to murder thousands of people by turning cardio stimulants off….
According to Bruce Schneider, cyberexpert, cyberphysical technologies “give internet “legs and arm”, i.e. ability to directly influence physical world. In his article for Motherboard published in 2016, he thoroughly outlined possible outcomes: “One thing is when your “smart” home is used in order to track who is in the house. But reinstalling it so that it would let burglars in or keep you inside is completely different matter”.
“Hacker who can control your car is far more dangerous than that one aimed at interception of your conversation “.
The need for continuous updates is only negating the issue. We hardly have time to download new security patches for Microsoft or apps, needless to say about updating software of, let’s say, refrigerator connected to the network (This issue was demonstrated by the attack on DNS-providers of Dyn, which was accomplished by means of poorly secured devices).
To make “Internet of Things” a tool which will support but not tackle the progress, the fundamental principles of security must be reconsidered. Incorporating groundwork of analytics, cloud calculation and other technologies for commercial usage, IBM has become massive company in creating infrastructure for “Internet of Things” and is currently adopting blockchain.
In famous article “Device Democracy: Saving the future of Internet of things” worker of the IBM Puresvaran and Brody focused on the major problem- trust. How and whom can we trust the control over global network of millions of devices which manage literary every step? If we are already concerned about the fact that Google, Amazon, Facebook or Apple knows way too much about us, what would happen when Internet of things got centralized? When all transactions are going through several giant corporations, it is not only ineffective in terms of data processing or system management but also it grants controlling authorities power of control which could scare even George Orwell. In this case, the organization takes responsibility of executing thousands of transactions in tokens or cryptocurrency.
Just imagine what a tiny error might cause!
Another alternative solution to give control to the state authorities might have been contemplated until the famous Edward Snowden’s leaks in 2013 after which it got out of consideration.
Puresvaran and Brody believe that blockchain is the mere technology to serve as a foundation for Internet of Things. Blockchain can provide it with complete invulnerability. On occasions when devices regularly exchange assets, blockchain is needed to ensure trust among users. Once the system is created, it will lead to new perspectives for development.
Legitimization of transactions and reliability of devices is confirmed by using invulnerable register which is trusted by both sides. The lack of information about another user won’t affect the process. Such system enables strangers and, more importantly, their gadgets to share assets.
People will exchange exact data used for confirmation of device reliability instead of letting the flow of confidential information into open space.
In other words, when your car is exchanging cryptocurrency with counter, neither you, nor the other user or anyone else will be aware of personal information of those involved in the deal.
In this way, the system will assist in using technologies more effectively due to dissipation of possible malicious activities. As Puresvaran and Brody noted each device would have control over its own performance.
The result of this is democracy of digital world.