If you have ever surrendered your computer to a techie via a program like TeamViewer, you have had the wonderful/disturbing experience of seeing your system taken over, searched, interrogated, and fixed.
Just disturbing is a recent story about a nineteen-year-old who took over the cameras of Miss Teen America and other young women in a “sextortion” scheme. The power to activate and run devices remotely is an essential component of the Internet of Things. It has the potential to provide enormous value but must be approached with care.
Our Internet already has a variety of remote capabilities, from viewing the kids at home (and checking up on the babysitter) to something as mundane as changing my TV channel. CommuniTake claims it already has technology that can take full control of Android cameras, smartphones, set-top boxes, and tablets. The possibilities of Mobile Device Management are limited only by the devices we create and by what we want to do.
I was exploring this when I happened upon an article in The New York Times on gun safety. Using fingerprints or other biometrics to control weapons has been discussed for years. Advantages in making it impossible for someone to shoot you with your own gun or for a child to accidentally shoot himself/herself or someone else are obvious. But, according to the article, “Hurdles include creating fail-safe user-recognition technology, integrating delicate electronic components that can withstand shock from repeated firings…”
If I can turn off my lights, turn on my air conditioning, and start my car with my smartphone, why not apply the same technology to guns? With most of the electronics away from any risk of shock, wouldn’t this bring the day of biometrically locked weapons nearer. In addition to authentication management, such a system could have a variety of advantages:
- If my nephew were to visit with his sons, I could disable all the guns in my house from work.
- If I forgot to active/deactivate my gun at a time that didn’t fit my behavior pattern, I could get an automatic answer. (In fact, I could have all or some guns on a timer.)
- If, as happened last week, a fugitive murderer was wandering through my neighborhood, I could respond to the situation (gun on, if at home/gun off, if away).
- I could turn off the gun while cleaning it (or it could automatically turn off).
- Gun availability could be tied to the consumption of alcohol and/or medications through passwords, tests, or sensors.
Socially, all guns could be turned off automatically in certain areas (say, court houses or schools). A government agency could know where and when a gun was fired. And I don’t know if it happens in real life, but in movies it seems like standoffs, captures, and other tense situations go haywire when someone accidentally discharges their firearm. A commander could have complete control of weapons underlings held.
Actually, though it is interesting to explore these possibilities (especially in the U.S., where the “Right to Bear Arms” has real power), there are hints of the capabilities of remote control in the coming Internet of Things. Authentication, device monitoring, tops-down control, situational control, alarms and suggested actions, contextual control, and social coordination of device use are all rich possibilities.
That’s probably just a start. The technology will create a plethora of options, and my guess is that they will emerge more rapidly than we can handle them socially. Our problem will be managing the exercise of these new capabilities in a way that balances benefits and risks, freedom and control.