Advertisement

Ubiquitous Networks, Ubiquitous Sensors: Issues of Security, Reliability and Privacy in the Internet of Things

  • Michael LosavioEmail author
  • Adel Elmaghraby
  • Antonio Losavio
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11277)

Abstract

The growth of ubiquitous networks moves ever more personal data into collectible and computational opportunities. This changes assumptions based on past latency and limits on data analysis and brings challenges to the reliability of data acquisition principles and practices and their proper use in societies. System engineers must consider outcomes and related regulation in the design and use of these systems. It also cautions us as to overreaching. We examine the general legal sphere within which ubiquitous networks and associated data exist, mapping some technological outcomes to legal consequences. We consider the impact and legal decisions regarding ubiquitous networks in the United States as an indicator of future direction and legal entanglements of these technological systems. In particular, we consider security and privacy principles that may regulate computational use through ubiquitous networks, and the competing interests/benefits/detriments in their use. This informs as to possible future regulation that may be needed or required and offer guidance with the growing data sphere and ubiquitous networking, and advises that the engineering of such systems should be flexible enough to accommodate new regulatory regimes as to deployment, access and use.

Keywords

Internet of Things Ubiquitous networking Privacy Security 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the National Institute of Justice (US) and the International Association for Crime Analysts for the opportunity to develop these ideas.

References

  1. 1.
    Chin, J, Wong, G.: China’s new tool: a social credit score. Wall Str. J. (US) 1 (2016)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al Ameen, M., Liu, J., Kwak, K.: Security and privacy issues in wireless sensor networks for healthcare applications. J. Med. Syst. 36(1), 93–101 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kargl, F., Lawrence, E., Fischer, M., Lim, Y.Y.: Security, privacy and legal issues in pervasive ehealth monitoring systems. In: 2008 7th International Conference on Mobile Business. ICMB 2008, pp. 296–304. IEEE, July 2008Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen, X., Makki, K., Yen, K., Pissinou, N.: Sensor network security: a survey. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 11(2), 52–73 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stallings, W., Brown, L.: Computer Security: Principles and Practice, 3rd edn. Pearson Publishing, Upper Saddle River (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Restatement (Second) of Torts, (Am. Law Inst. 1965) (US)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    General Data Privacy Regulation (EU) 2016/679 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of the natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (Gen. Data Protection Regulation), Official Journal of the European Union, vol. L119, pp. 1–88, 4 May 2016Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robbins v. Footer, 553 F.2d 123 (DC Cir. 1977)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    United States v. Fitzhugh, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122953 (USDC ED MI)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    International Association of Chiefs of Police: 2011 Survey of Law Enforcement’s Use of Social Media Tools (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Losavio, J., Losavio, M.: Prosecution and social media. In: Chapter 11. Higgins and Marcum (eds.) Social Networking as a Criminal Enterprise (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    CBS News: Social media and the search for the Boston bombing suspects, 20 April 2013Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bensinger, K., Chang, A.: Boston bombings: social media spirals out of control. Los Angeles Times, 20 April 2013Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dyer, J.: Social media and the Boston bombings. BBC Radio, 27 April 2013Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    NBC Connecticut: Police use Facebook to ID waterford robbery suspects, 2 January 2013Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stuart, R.: Social media: establishing criteria for law enforcement use. FBI Law Enforcement: Bulletin, February 2013Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    United States Department of Justice Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative Federal Advisory Committee. https://www.it.ojp.gov/global. Accessed 8 Apr 2018
  18. 18.
    Agnar, A., Enric, P.: Case-based reasoning: foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. Artif. Intell. Commun. 7(1), 39–52 (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    IBM: Info graphic: the four V’s of big data. http://www.ibmbigdatahub.com/infographic/four-vs-big-data. Accessed 8 Apr 2018
  20. 20.
    United States v. Jones 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 2473 (US) (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    United States, Petitioner v. Microsoft Corporation, Case number 17-2, on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Supreme Court of the United StatesGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    IBM: IBM builds a smarter planet. https://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/. Accessed 8 Apr 2018
  24. 24.
    Burillo, D.: Four suicides linked to webcam “sextortion” and blackmail. The Descrier, 30 November 2016Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Losavio, M., Chow, K.P., Koltay, A., James, J.: The internet of things and the smart city: legal challenges with digital forensics, privacy and information security. Secur. Priv. (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1002/spy2.23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Elmaghraby, A., Losavio, M.: Cyber security challenges in smart cities: safety, security and privacy. J. Adv. Res. 5(4), 491–497 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA
  2. 2.University of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations