Sensor Networks For Surveillance And Security

gpmap writes "Small Times has an article on the coming age of all-pervasive sensor networks that will feed information of all sorts to monitoring networks. Technology advances have generated intense interest in sensor networks: 'the magic words are surveillance and security.' The Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) hosted the second Information Processing in Sensor Networks workshop this week amid anticipation of significant funding grants from the National Science Foundation. Most believe miniaturization, whether through conventional methods, MEMS or nanotech, will drive the spread of sensor networks. But plenty of issues need working through, on the hardware, software and social fronts."

Comments

I hope this scares you.

[nurb432]

It does me.
Especially the rationalization that its ok to trade privacy for so-called security.
Its not a trade-off as the story states, its simply unacceptable.

Re:I hope this scares you.

[johny_qst]

I'm sure /.ers are in agreement that the brave new world needs better watchdogs not more invasion of liberty for safety and security. But how do you explain this to a luddite and get them to see the political ramifications?

Re:I hope this scares you.

[delete]

Sorry, but you have really displayed complete ignorance of the topic in question. Of course, as soon as anything mildly related to privacy is posted here, immediate paranoia sets in. Sensor networks have a very broad range of applications, from monitoring temperatures in chemical engineering experiments to collecting ecosystem data. Enhanced security services are only one possible use for the technology, and a fairly mundane one at that.

A common argument used here against legal acts such as the DMCA is that they unfairly blame the technology rather than those who misuse it. I don't see how your comment is any different. Personally I believe that sensor networks will provide many research opportunities and genuinely useful applications in the next few years. If organisations misuse one aspect of the technology for surveilance, then obviously those responsible should be held accountable. However, branding an entire field of research as being "unacceptable" is not particularly acceptable either.

Re:I hope this scares you.

[praksys]

Especially the rationalization that its ok to trade privacy for so-called security.

If you think it is OK for airlines personel (or security personel) to search passengers and luggage for weapons and explosives, then you have already accepted that it is sometimes worthwhile to trade privacy for security.

Here are a couple of ideas you might want to think about for a while.

(1) Sometimes we have no reason to want or expect privacy, like when we hold a conversation with someone in a crowded elevator. Other times we do want and expect privacy. Before going off about intrusions on privacy, it would probably be a good idea to think about those times and places where privacy really matters. If we can trade the kind of privacy that does not matter for greater security then why not do so?

(2) Privacy is not liberty. Sometimes it is a useful means to preserving liberty. The government can't stop you from doing something if they do not know you are doing it. But it is not the same thing as liberty. So while I would accept the claim that any trade of liberty for security is a sham, I would not accept the claim that any trade of privacy for security is a mistake.

(3) Sometimes it is more a matter of trading privacy for liberty rather than trading privacy for security. There are, for example two ways to eliminate the threat of hijacked aircraft, and thus achieve security. You can limit privacy by searching passengers, or you can limit liberty by making comercial aviation illegal. Under the current system we gave up some privacy so that we could achieve a measure of security while also keeping our liberty (to travel etc). In cases like that I will take more liberty over more privacy every time.

Re:I hope this scares you.

[buck_wild]

Yeah, it really scares me. The possibility of monitoring weather patterns from WITHIN the storm?? Can you imagine the impact this will have to civillization as we know it?? SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL WEATHER MAN!!

Perhaps you should take off your tin-foil hat and look at what the technology is actualy used for.

You may wish to reflect upon your position, as some would consider you unnaturally fearful. Some might even use rough language such as 'pansy' or 'miserable pussy', but I, for one, would deplore it.

Re:I hope this scares you.

[TygerFish]

Yes, privacy advocates and the simply paranoid do blame the technology, but only because they have nothing else to shoot at.

It's true that every technology provides both foreseen and unforeseen uses, but in today's climate where people are willing to exchange privacy (anyone's) for security on the basis of only one foreign terrorist attack, the technology is an especially attractive target.

With politicians in the administration working hard to tear down our structures of fundamental rights (read up on the second patriot act), a technology which could be adapted to creating undetectable surveillance devices and unbreachable security systems is frightening in a sense that most people don't like to talk about. The point is a simple question, but also one of historic moment: does anyone anywhere really imagine that nano-technological bugs in the hands of a national security state would a good thing?

Once disseminated, Would it be a good technology for the Chinese or the North Koreans to have to place in the homes of suspected dissidents or defectors? Or for that matter, in every home? On each citizen's person?

Concentrating more on human nature than on circuit diagrams for a moment, can anyone honestly say that the applications that this technology promises, Would be something you would like to see in the hands of anyone's secret police?

You can't blame the technology, but then, what do you blame? Governments are often beyond the reach of their citizens and some technologies just take them further.

Re:I hope this scares you.

[switched4OSX]

They are talking about sensor devices. Cameras and microphones are surveillance devices. Now, if the FBI had everybodies heat print (yes, they are unique) on file, then you could say the FBI could use this to invade your privacy. Since they do not (yet) have this, there is no breach of privacy.

Re:I hope this scares you.

[Guppy06]

"If you think it is OK for airlines personel (or security personel) to search passengers and luggage for weapons and explosives, then you have already accepted that it is sometimes worthwhile to trade privacy for security."

You assume too much. If you don't go through airport security, then you have a travel time measured in days instead of hours to wherever you want to go. It's less trading liberty for security and more trading liberty for speed.

Re:I hope this scares you.

[praksys]

It's less trading liberty for security and more trading liberty for speed.

It's not trading liberty at all because the searches by themselves do not introduce any new legal prohibitions on the actions that you are allowed to perform. It is a matter of trading privacy.

For some people who travel it is partly a matter of trading privacy for speed, but obviously not for those who must either travel by air or not at all. For people on the ground it is strictly a matter of trading the privacy of others for their own security.

Re:I hope this scares you.

[Obfuscant]

There are, for example two ways to eliminate the threat of hijacked aircraft, and thus achieve security. You can limit privacy by searching passengers,

Sigh. Excellent argument, except for the fact that searching passengers doesn't eliminate anything but the privacy of a few passengers. It does not eliminate the threat of hijacking. For example, you can strip search every passenger, but if I manage to bribe the caterers they can get weapons on board using the food carts.

Or, for example, I can fabricate a pretty good representation of a knife from a pop can and some tape -- the former I get on the plane, the latter would get through any search unquestioned.

... or you can limit liberty by making comercial aviation illegal.

Ahh, so only criminals will be able to fly the planes? Yes, that would certainly eliminate legal flight commercially, but nothing to eliminate hijacking or other illegal use of aircraft.

Re:I hope this scares you.

[praksys]

but if I manage to bribe the caterers they can get weapons on board using the food carts

Which is so much easier than just walking on board with weapons - right? Don't you think there would be more hijackings if we did not have these security measures - or have there been none in the US since 9/11 because we ran out of bad guys?

Re:I hope this scares you.

[Obfuscant]

Which is so much easier than just walking on board with weapons - right?

The statement I am replying to had nothing to do with how hard some action was, it was a claim that searching passengers was one way to eliminate the threat of hijacking. Searching passengers does not eliminate anything, except the 4th amendment. In fact, if you care to recall, there were plenty of people who actually got onto airplanes carrying pointy things, even after being searched, and they weren't even trying to sneak things on, they were just ignorant or forgetfull -- neither of which makes them a threat as a hijacker. If so many people can get by a search so easily, then a determined hijacker certainly could. Now, tell me again, what did these searches eliminate?

Don't you think there would be more hijackings if we did not have these security measures ...

Once again, the statement was that searches ELIMINATED the threat. That's patently absurd, and is the kind of statement made by ignorant people who are happier as sheep than as reasoning adult humans.

And no, I don't think there would have been more hijackings if Grandma hadn't been searched. Once the passengers figured out that they could beat the shit out of any potential hijacker, and were much better off beating the shit out of them than sitting passively waiting to be released, the game was over for the hijacker. Until, of course, the feds stepped in and disarmed every honest passenger of every possible defensive weapon.

...or have there been none in the US since 9/11 because we ran out of bad guys?

There were none in the US before 9/11 for a very long time -- even without the level of security we are suffering under now. Think about it. Four airplanes in ten years or so. That's not a bad record. It's not perfect, but it is pretty damn good, considering the number of flights that took place over that time.

And no, the fact that there haven't been any since the draconian policies went into effect doesn't prove the draconian policies prevented anything.

If you don't understand why that's true, try this thought experiment. I'll assume you don't rob banks, but if you do, think of someone who doesn't. Now pretend that you lock that person up in a maximum security prison. Gee, locking him up prevented him from robbing a bank, didn't it? No, he wasn't going to do it anyway. Locking him up didn't prevent anything, it just took his freedom away unnecessarily. Do you understand now?

Re:I hope this scares you.

[praksys]

And no, I don't think there would have been more hijackings if Grandma hadn't been searched.

Nevermind about searching Grandma. If you don't like searches you have to argue against the best case for having them, not the weakest. You have to argue for a situation where a group of men can walk straight on to a comercial airliner wearing body armor, with automatic weapons, explosives, and any other weapons they might find useful - because there are no searches at all.

If you are not willing to defend a situation like that then all that is left to do is to quibble over what sort of searches to have, and who to search.

There were none in the US before 9/11 for a very long time -- even without the level of security we are suffering under now.

Routine searches of all passengers were introduced in 1973, in response to a rash of hijackings. Unsurprisngly they were very effective in reducing the number of hijackings.

I'll assume you don't rob banks, but if you do, think of someone who doesn't. Now pretend that you lock that person up in a maximum security prison. Gee, locking him up prevented him from robbing a bank, didn't it? No, he wasn't going to do it anyway. Locking him up didn't prevent anything, it just took his freedom away unnecessarily.

Privacy is not liberty. See if you can come up with a persuasive example that actually relates to privacy.

Re:I hope this scares you.

[DGolden]

It does worry me. But what if you have to trade privacy for freedom?

In my opinion, given the existence of surveillance networks the networks must be public access, to ensure a free society.

ANY surveillance network which gives the watchers more information about the watched than the watched about the watchers leads to an imbalance of power. Thus, the watched must become the watchers, and have equal right of access to any surveillance network. Check out David Brin's book, "The Transparent Society: Will Technology force us to choose between Privacy and Freedom?" for more on this. The first chapter is online here

an example

[Anonymous Coward]

Just read "Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson, it features a nice version of nanotech-sensornetworks. It's a good book, too.

Re:an example

[teromajusa]

For a better example of sensor networks (and their privacy implications) read A Deepness in the Sky by Vernor Vinge.

Re:an example

[shadowbearer]

Corrected link

Re:an example

[KezMaefele]

Agreed on the Vinge point. I just finished A Deepness in the Sky and as I read the article description, I couldn't help but think about that book. The nano-sensors were a key plot point in that one. Also lots of good stuff in thier about software. Document that code of yours...you never know it may be used by the Queng Ho tens of thousands of years from now. I've read a couple of his books now and enjoyed both quite a bit.

Re:an example

[GnarlyNome]

Have you checked out John Ringo? (Hells Faire)
{never let rednecks play with antimatter}

A downside to the Information Age.

[mcrbids]

In two words: Information leaks.

It's been demonstrated that you can predict, to a high degree of likelyhood, when a military strike is about to happen by counting how many pizzas are delivered to the Pentagon.

It's somewhat like the before-mentioned leaky abstraction concept, but applied to information.

It's going to get alot worse long before it gets better. Those who believe that true privacy is possible in the future are delusional.

For a well though-out article on the subject, try reading this Wired article that

Re:A downside to the Information Age.

[Anonymous Coward]

True privacy is possible in the future. If everybody else is dead. Minds are needed to see.

Re:A downside to the Information Age.

[hazem]

I had heard once that the CIA now does not permit its employees order pizzas on such late night sessions.

My guess is they have enough money to build their own pizza hut or dominos right in the building if they really wanted one.

Re:A downside to the Information Age.

[kingkade]

True privacy is possible in the future. If everybody else is dead. Minds are needed to see.

Yes, thanks for that. Moron, your bus is leaving.

Re:A downside to the Information Age.

[GnarlyNome]

Pizza watching is the favorite sport of the media but the Gov is sneeeky they order the pizza then don't use it.

Re:A downside to the Information Age.

[mrmeval]

Ah, yes, divination by pizza.

1) They aren't stupid.
2) Free pizza on the governments dime in peace time is cool, in time of conflict it gets cold too quick.

When the only thing viewing you are automated tools how can you call the witnesses to the crime?

Since it's in most written constitutions at the state level and it's in the federal one that you have a right to call your accuser, should we make these sensors have real time sentience or is 'just a recording' seen by a sentience enough?

I'm pretty sure that this has been glossed over in the name of expiediency. I'm also sure there is a nice legal site brushing this out of the way.

Think how great this would be

[confused philosopher]

We could tell if prisoners are out of their homes, if people using cars are speeding, or if infected people have fevers and are contagious.

This will literally change our lives. As long as we don't all die of smog first.

Re:Think how great this would be

[gweihir]

We could tell if prisoners are out of their homes, if people using cars are speeding, or if infected people have fevers and are contagious.

\begin{sarcasm}
And we could detect independent thinkers, non-conformists and other people that used to be protected by freedom and turn them into more prisoners.

And what great tools these networks would make to identify unbelivers, terrorists and people that do not cheer at political speeches! Finaly no filthy abnormals can stay hidden! Glory to the world for finally only the pure shall enjoy freedom!
\end{sarcasm}

Come on, there is no need for better surveilance. There is need for advancing civilization so that there are fewer prisoners, people are responsibel and do not speed and infected people stay in isolation of their own free will. If people cannot be trusted to act responsible, the society they live in has already failed and started to decompose. Surveilance cannot do anything about it, except maybe slow the process down a little.

On a related note, a bigger part of the US population are now prisoners that that of any other country, including China. A very bad sign.

Won't SOMEONE please think of

[Anonymous Coward]

...all the PORN?!?! Upskirts! Hidden Camera! w00t! w00t!!!

Again, we focus on gathering the information

[WegianWarrior]

Other unanswered questions involve how companies will filter the data generated by large networks of sensors...

Leaving aside the other interesting bits of the article ("Videocams 1 sq.mm large? I'll crush them under my sandaled feet!"), this unanswered question is actually very, very important. For far too long both military* and non-military intelligence has focused far to much on gathering information and far to little on actually going thru it and learning from it. During WWII and the early part of the cold war each and every bit of gathered intelligence was a treasure, troughtly analysed and carfully matched with what other bits of intelligence that was gathered before, letting the analysers build up a pretty complete picture (so good in fact, that towards the end of that war the allies often knew better than the germans where the german troops were). But as we got better at collecting information, through ELINT, satelites and such, we 'drowned' in the sheer amount of information... succumbing to the idea that seeing something was as good as knowing what we saw (hint; it isn't). So I sure hope someone out there figures out a way to both filter and interprent the information they may gather with this - otherwise it is useless.

*) Come to think of it, the idea to 'sow' enemy territory with a sensornetwork like this before and during an attack might be quite usefull - if they don't figure out a way to jam it off course.

Re:Again, we focus on gathering the information

[Master of Transhuman]

You're missing the point of government intelligence. As someone (I believe a government official in some totalitarian country - might have been the US...) said, "The important thing is to know something someone else doesn't."

If you collect tons of useless intelligence, you can then use it to manufacture your OWN intelligence - as the Iraq WMD situation demonstrated very graphically. Anthony Cordesman points out in a recent news piece that the problem was that Bush and Powell couldn't check everything themselves, they had to rely on their intelligence agencies - who were busy manufacturing "evidence" in the usual way - connecting the dots - dots that were really on a Roschach blotter, not an actually existing graph...if you get my meaning...

The problem is - if you have people connecting the dots for you, you have to be sure they are connecting REAL dots, not random dots. But the intelligence and law enforcement agencies make their living by coming up with dots to be connected - whether they are real or not.

As Robert Anton Wilson has pointed out numerous times, you can connect anything to anything if you look hard enough. That's what human brains do - interpret patterns - the key word being "interpret". There's plenty of connections between George Bush and the bin Laden family - the same family that many people find are still "linked" to Osama. Does this prove George Bush funds Osama? Well, no, but if someone WANTS it to, it WILL.

So the more information you have, the better the people whose job it is to "interpret" that information like it.

Which is why the rule is: when the FBI comes to your door, you say this and ONLY this: "On advice of attorney, I have nothing to say to the FBI." Period. Full stop. If you say ANYTHING else, they WILL use it against you or against anyone else they can...even if you just say, "Well, my brother-in-law said it rained yesterday"...somehow they will find a way to use that to prove that you contacted your brother-in-law and it was raining in Afghanistan yesterday so he must be an Al-Qaeda operative...

If you think this is paranois, you have never read anything about the FBI or the CIA - or talked to anyone who has been or is in prison in this country.

Re:Again, we focus on gathering the information

[WegianWarrior]

Missing the point? On the contrary, let me quote a single sentence from my original post; So I sure hope someone out there figures out a way to both filter and interprent the information they may gather with this - otherwise it is useless.. Raw data on it's own is nothing but raw data - and pretty much useless.

As far as manufacturing intelligence goes... thats a dangerous business. Take, as you do, the situation with Iraq and WMD. Yes, we know that they have had them in the past. Yes, we know that they have the brainpower to make them. No, unlike what some of the hawks in the Pentagon says, that don't prove that they have them now (or rather had them - you think they wouldn't have used them against the invading forces if they had them?). If you "connect the dots", you run the risk of connecting dots that have nothing to do with eachother, and as I pointed out in my original post, the intelligencecomunity of today are to busy collecting information and not busy enought analysing and interprenting it - which means that the chance of mis-interprenting it is huge, simply due to the lack of experience.

Oh, btw; if the FBI turned up on my door I would first laught at them, then call the police, the media and the 'wegian secret services. Same with the CIA... they have no legal business trying to harass a norwegian officer.

Re:Again, we focus on gathering the information

[yintercept]

Politicians, I fear, face information with a different mind set than the scientific community. I see information, and want to know what I can learn from it. How can I take this information and do something that will improve things?

Politicians look a information in terms of relative advantage. Does the information provide a way to reward friends and punish enemies? For example, if a scientist had a record of everyone's beer drinking habits, they would wonder what patterns indicate abuse, moderation, etc.. They would then wonder if there were ways to prevent abuse. A politician would look at the same data set, filter out the names of enemies and denounce them in public as alcoholics.

Politically funded research doesn't really care what the data itself is saying, the politicians funding the research simply want to have data sets available that they can browse through for anything that will support their preformulated conclusions or that will otherwise give them an advantage.

Power?

[petecarlson]

How are these sensors powered? From reading the article I would assume that they draw there power from a central battery of sorts.
And why would you want a sensor network in your bedroom? I am thinking they are something like a bunch of small video cameras... No?

Re:Power?

[sailesh]

How are these sensors powered? From reading the article I would assume that they draw there power from a central battery of sorts. And why would you want a sensor network in your bedroom? I am thinking they are something like a bunch of small video cameras... No?

In fact, you've hit on the central issue in sensor networks. These sensors normally have a battery on board. Often times the battery is bigger than the rest of the mote. The most expensive operation in terms of battery usage is communication. So it becomes vitally important to design protocols that minimize communication.

The amount of power used to send a single byte to a 100 yards is roughly the same as that used for about 1000 instructions.

Read David Brin's "The Transparent Society"

[Anonymous Coward]

Use of pervasive sensor networks by governmental and corporate organizations is inevitable (it's appearing in increments everyday in the US). The crucial difference between Big Brother and Transparency is who has access to the raw imagery / sensor data and the processed information. See David Brin's site for more information.

Hmm

[Cyno01]

Is it just me or does this sound way to much like the "Sensors" on Star Trek. They're mentioned, they're there, but no one really knows what they sense.

Re:Hmm

[Skjellifetti]

That's because without them, Star Trek would be senseless.

Re:Hmm

[RicktheBrick]

How about sensors that sense how much electric current in being used and compares that with how much should be used. All electric equipment would be smart enough to know how much it needs and communicate that to a computer. The same could be done with devices that use natural gas or even water. How about back up to fire and burglary alarms to eliminate alot of false alarms. There are many ways sensors could be used to help protect everyone safety.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

they already have these amazing devices that monitor how much current is being used by a device, and if it starts to draw too much current, it shuts the thing off

Re:Neo screaming, holding Trinity's burned corpse.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post would be ontopic if you had written that you used miniature surveillance sensors to gather this information.

The real advantage of sensor networks

[yintercept]

The real advantage of sensor networks will come if they provide information that helps companies make better products, or if the increased amount of data gathered actually provides useful information on how things work so that we can advance our knowledge.

The security issue is a ruse. Security is what is selling today...so it is what you put in ad copy and press releases. It is like the B2B craze...remember when B2B appeared in the investor relation pages for all the dot bombs? Today, you need to have the word security in your ad copy.

Of course, the fact that we are twisting more and more fundamental research into security concerns is itself a cause for concern. It means the applications will not be benign.

I suspect that, when all is said and done, the devices themselves will tend to add more reasons to feel insecure than they will do to add reasons to feel secure. The programs will be used as much for spying as for defense. The result is that the primary use of such networks will be to detect and counter the other sensor networks trying to spy on your sensor networks.

It will be a white-spy black-spy sort a game.

I know how to stop it!!

[halftrack]

1. Get Microsoft the contract (they'll run it on Windows.)
2. Salvation (not in the religious sense though.)

See, no ??? part.

Re:I know how to stop it!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Aha, no profit either! You can't just leave out the ??? and expect profit!!!

Think how great this would be...

[Glock27]

The government could know just about everything about you and what you do.

We could root out all the criminals, misfits, homeless, and other undesirables.

We could create a new service under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security.

We'll call it the S.S., and it can use double lightning bolts for its insignia. Wouldn't that be lovely?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin

No, i understand too well.

[nurb432]

*ANY* breach of privacy is unacceptable. Even if its minor, and supposedly with 'good intentions' it doesn't discount it as part of a slow encroachment with the ultimate effect of total lack of privacy/rights/freedom.

In my case, I blame both the technology AND its improper use, I'm not blind to reality.. Once the technology is in place, then it WILL be misused.. this is human nature..

Paranoia does not mean one is wrong or that they are not out to get you .. It just means you are aware of it, and only by diligent efforts will the rights and freedoms of the individual be preserved.

Re:No, i understand too well.

[delete]

No such breach has occured, nor does the technology currently exist to cause such invasion of privacy. How can you condemn a complex technology that is still in its infancy, has no large-scale implementation and is currently the domain of researchers in academic institutions?

Following your logic, what is the point in performing any kind of research or pursuing any technological innovation in case it might be misused?

Re:No, i understand too well.

[Master of Transhuman]

From the article:
Cozzens said the said NSF is well aware of the privacy issues such networks pose. "Look, look, it's a trade-off - do you want to be secure or not?" he said. "This technology will make us more secure, but there is a price for all this."

What part of "price" didn't you understand?

I don't condemn the concept of the research, BTW, I merely condemn the automatic intention by the people funding it that it will be used for pervasive surveillance by the public entities on the private ones rather than vice versa - where it is really needed.

Re:No, i understand too well.

[Moridineas]

"*ANY* deaths from nuclear use is unacceptable. Even if its a major energy source, and supposedly with 'good intentions' it doesn't discount it as part of a major weapon with the ultimate effect of killing thousands.

In my case, I blame both the technology AND its improper use, I'm not blind to reality.. Once the technology is in place, then it WILL be misused.. this is human nature.."

HMMM!!

It's about time....

[CAIMLAS]

... for me to walk around with my own personal EMP backpack - maybe something similar to what the Ghostbusters use?

But then, they'd be able to find me by looking at the ever-moving deadspot on their network.

JESUS may TROLL; but he's NEVER Off-Topic

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll trade my privacy for everybody's privacy.

[raygundan]

I'm as paranoid as the next slashdotter, but not for the same reasons. I'm only worried about my privacy when there is an imbalance, as there seems to be now. I'll submit to complete surveillance when the whole world does likewise-- and that means you too, Mr. President. Privacy is only an issue when the "other side" still has theirs. If we could all keep tabs on the government, why should we care if they keep tabs on us? Until TIA is really "total," and I can watch them as easily as they watch me, I'll continue to argue for privacy rights.

Next: WLAN sensors

[patrickoehlinger]

Would be interesting to have sensors with included WLAN technology. This would make the technology very easy to install, surely this wouldn't eat much bandwidth.

The globalists won't like it

[cryofan2]

Gives the little guy too much power

Sensor networks in real life

[16977]

Perhaps it would be nice to move away from wild, unfounded speculation and Sci-fi references to discuss how these things are used in the real world. Last summer I worked at a research station where we set up a network of these things to remotely monitor ground-nesting birds in their burrows. Privacy of the birds aside, these are great tools for scientific observation in sensitive areas -- observer effect is minimized, cost is minimized, and you can monitor many different locations constantly, without having to check them again every day. If you're wondering what the limitations of these systems are, powering them is a big one. The motes run on battery power, so the size of the battery puts a restriction on both the size of the mote and the amount of time it can run before it needs to be replaced (and the site needs to be disturbed). And size is important too, as they are not yet quite small or cheap enough to throw one in every locker room (despite what you may have heard).

Re:Sensor networks in real life

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though motes cold and wet, did you expect them to operate quite happily?

Let me get this straight...

[kingkade]

You are worried how technology is misused by people. Right so far? And you blame the people who misuse it AND the technology, as you've stated elsewhere in this thread?

Well, what is your stance on guns?

Re:Obligatory Grammer Nazi Homage

[kingkade]

Maybe he slipped you filthy piece of...err...filth. And I'm not doing it for the children, I'm doing it for your dirty mommy, you pedantic fucker. BTW, learn where to properly use commas you monkey.

Care not to be overdependent on these

[Op911]

These sensor networks sound very promising in that more information and real-time tracking could potentially result in more efficient distribution of resources, better tracking of that letter you sent through the mail system, better control of traffic lights to reduce traffic jams etc.

However I hope that in the future as our first world societies incorporate these technologies we don't become overly dependent upon them. We're going to become increasingly susceptible to terrorist type attacks in the future and imagine the havoc that could be wrought on a society completely dependent on electronics and nanotech by a few well placed EMP bombs.

Back to the stone ages, Baghdad-style riots, bludgeoning your neighbour to get that last sack of rice and so on.

Obligatory Grammer Nazi Homage

[Anonymous Coward]

Pray tell where the improper comma usages were in my previous post?
-sithkhan

Re:sithkhan@hotmail.com

[Anonymous Coward]

The stupidity of these Spam Trolls is that by default the threshold on stories is +1, so no spam bot will see his trolls and collect any email addresses since he posts as AC (and gets modded down further soon after)

Guess what? YOU FAIL IT!

DOH!

[shadowbearer]

Bump post up one level..... :-)

Wireless Sensor Network Standards

[dtmos]

I found the article's comment about the need for the NSF to motivate standards in wireless sensor networks to be strange, since the IEEE 802.15.4 standard is due to be published any day now (the final draft is alread for sale at the IEEE online store). The IEEE 802.15.4 standard is designed for low cost, very low power consumption wireless sensor networks; it has a raw over-the-air data rate of 250 kb/s, operates in the unlicensed 2.4 GHz ISM band, and can support peer-to-peer multihop (so-called "mesh") networks with device duty cycles below 3 ppm.

The IEEE 802.15.4 standard is being used by the ZigBee Alliance, an organization of more than 50 large and small companies, to establish networking and application profile interoperability standards, much like Wi-fi has done with IEEE 802.11. The ZigBee Alliance will have a session open to the public at its next meeting, in Berlin June 3.

The IEEE 1451.5 wireless sensor standard, which will standardize sensor discovery and data formatting, is at an earlier stage of development; proposals are now being presented.

With all this activity, it's not clear to me just what the NSF is expecting to standardize.

sithkhan@hotgrits.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Prior AC - Thanks for pointing that out. I never thought of that. so in order to really troll someone, I need to post a really insightful or funny remark, and include the email address in the post somehow.

Soon to be in YRO

[oaf357]

In a few years YRO will probably be featuring an article on this.

What's good for the goose...

[Hoi Polloi]

So, do I get to monitor the monitors?

Why I don't fly anymore

[October_30th]

If you think it is OK for airlines personel (or security personel) to search passengers and luggage for weapons and explosives, then you have already accepted that it is sometimes worthwhile to trade privacy for security

I travel quite a bit all over the Europe. Ever since the latest airport security measures were put into place last year, I've given up flying. I have traded enough of my privacy and comfort for security. The airlines are not going to get any more of my money if I can just help it.

With the increased time it takes to actually get through the security and board your plane, trains at least in the core continental EU the high speed trains are very competetive both in the price and speed and completely outclass the planes when it comes to comfort.

Secondly, I'm fed up having to feel like a criminal or that I have entered a war-zone every time I fly. Seeing guards walking around the terminal carrying shoulder-slung automatic weapons makes me feel apprehensive. The metal detectors are set so sensitive now that even the small metal studs in my shoes set them off. This, of course, is followed by an embarrasing body search. Ridiculous regulations such as banning nail clippers, small scissors or practically any sharp object from the hand luggage doesn't make traveling by air any more comfortable. I bet one could do much more damage with a ball-point pen (which is not on the forbidden items list) than with nail clippers if one were properly trained and determined. Any this doesn't make me feel safer. I've lost my privacy, I've lost my comfort -- why fly anymore?

Re:Why I don't fly anymore communist tsarkon rep.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a dirty career academic communist puke drug infested worm.

Men with rifles and smg's are well trained and responsible. Far morso than some beat cop with a night stick. You should feel safe retard. you fucking retard. Cops with pistols can be fought with, cops with SMGs - fuck , no one is even going to bother. Chase down the perp into an open area, and there he will be shot many many times to death. You feel bad with a would be hijacker being shot to death?

DONT GO IN MY AIRPORTS ANYMORE YOU FUCKING arab terrorist facilitating motherfucker. Move the fuck to the adobe hut fuckers in the middle east and have you clitoris chopped off, I know you have one because you sound like a fucking girl. Live simple, and free of the chains of like, laws, hospitals, roads, schools. Retard.

The only reason the body search is embarassing is that your dick is the size of a clit.

You fly for business, something you know nothing about, because you dont work you fucking moron. We all want to go home to our families, and we are willing to make the airport into a military base. In fact, I think all airports should be military bases under martial law. I want a safe flight, not a free hippie smoke a doobie in the bathroom join the mile high club while fucking your GF in the chemical toilet.

You are the dumbest shit - ever. You whiney little fuck. I'll take your fucking seat. If all the shitheads like you stop flying, the airplanes probably wont have the digusting beer fart smell in the cushions so much anymore you ponytail lush.

Re:Why I don't fly anymore communist tsarkon rep.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a great day when faggots like you catch a stray bullet in a shooting. Or even better when you and/or a cunty america-loving enlisted cum swiller friend/relative of yours catches a bullet in some foreign land. Here's to hoping I guess.

caliphate of death

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone wrongs me they better hope they kill me. I will become a serial killer of the "type" of people that wronged me. I don't want to dilute my hatred, I want to temper it and use it as a lance, focused, precise, accurate with vengeance.

I swear if a towelhead nails someone I give a shit about - I'm going to try and nuke/bomb/gas/bio-infect mecca during the Hajj. You want a terrorist with a brain coming after you? You little motherfuckers keep it up and that's what you're going to get. I will not tolerate my life being pissed on by stupid motherfucking troglodytes.

I dont believe in organized religion either, so no God is going to punish me for exterminating a roach problem.

More innocaent by standers will die in the long run if people take a pussy stance towards these motherfuckers.