EN Official Journal of the European Union C 255/116

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Internet of Things — An action plan for Europe’

COM(2009) 278 final

(2010/C 255/21)

Rapporteur: Mr RUDZIKAS

On 18 June 2009, the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Internet of Things - An action plan for Europe

COM(2009) 278 final.

The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 12 November 2009. The rapporteur was Mr Rudzikas.

At its 458th plenary session, held on 16 and 17 December 2009 (meeting of 17 December), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 60 votes with 2 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1 Given the specific features involved in the growth of information and communication technologies (ICTs) and their particular importance, on various fronts, for a country's development and that of the lives of its people, the Committee welcomes the European Commission communication Internet of Things - An action plan for Europe (1), which seeks to create a new and broad paradigm: the transition from an Internet that connects people, to one that connects people with things or things with each other, in other words an Internet of Things (IoT).

1.2 The Committee agrees with the Commission that the IoT will deliver new and better jobs for workers, business opportunities and growth for industry, and a boost to Europe's competitiveness – and also improve citizens’ quality of life.

The IoT will greatly contribute to addressing societal challenges in areas such as health monitoring, ecology and environmental protection, transport and other areas of human activity. Networked communications using IoT applications will have profound effects on our society and gradually result in a genuine paradigm shift in this field.

1.3 Although it backs the Commission document and broadly endorses the statements and recommendations it contains, the Committee feels the text is not specific enough, not least in relation to timeframes and implementation deadlines.

1.4 Given the worldwide nature of the Internet, schemes, measures and legislation devised by the European Commission are, of themselves, not enough to get to grips with this global phenomenon. The focus must increasingly shift to the role of international organisations and the importance of negotiations and agreements ratified by a majority of countries. We urgently need a ‘Kyoto Protocol’ for cybernetics or cybernetic equivalents of the hoped-for Copenhagen climate agreement.

1.5 The Committee would recommend that the Commission be more specific in what it says both about the basic principles underpinning IoT management – so as to strike a proper balance between a centralised and decentralised Internet regime – and about the ongoing monitoring of issues relating to privacy and the protection of personal data. It is not enough simply to ‘launch a debate’: further practical steps are also needed.

1.6 The Committee is aware that, in setting up this cybernetic ‘Tower of Babel’, it is particularly important to standardise systems and procedures. However, any moves towards standardisation must take due account of the diversity and specific characteristics of the languages, cultures and traditions of the individual countries involved.

1.7 The Committee is pleased that the Commission intends to continue financing FP7 research projects in the area of IoT. However, that is not enough. Funding must also be given to research institutes working to build up the IoT. Indeed, priority support for these bodies would prepare the ground for a qualitative breakthrough in this area (nanotechnologies, optoelectronics, quantum computers, grid and cloud computing, computer-based oral communication technologies, etc.) These activities require better coordination.

1.8 Rapid ICT development requires continually updated knowledge. The principle of lifelong learning is thus particularly appropriate in this field. University lecturers and students, school teachers and pupils – indeed all adults – must constantly work to expand their knowledge base. Distance-learning technologies will be particularly useful here. Action is at all costs needed to bridge the geographical digital divide. Organised civil society has a key role to play in the practical success of these endeavours.

1.9 The Committee recognises the importance of innovation and would draw the Commission's attention to the need to afford intellectual property better protection and promote the patenting of technical facilities, devices, procedures and methods. Priority support should be given to projects designed to protect the cultural heritage, cultural and linguistic diversity and other elements of the intellectual wealth of the nations of the world.

1.10 The Committee would also point out to the Commission the need for a more detailed examination of the impact of electromagnetic waves on humans. Although the pulses emitted by IoT systems are weak, the number of radiation sources is set to increase exponentially. Most of these sources produce constant emissions so that the rapidly growing phenomenon of ‘electronic pollution’ may lead to major problems in the future. Modern science has yet to determine conclusively whether there is a threshold above which harmless levels of radiation become dangerous, and what the cumulative impact of such exposure is. If we let the genie out of the bottle, will we be stuck with the consequences?

2. Specific features of ICT development

The IoT is based on the idea of a worldwide, wireless, integrated network of smart facilities and devices (‘things’) and a whole range of different sensors and actuators, in which, using standard protocols, the ‘things’ communicate with each other and with people. This network will connect billions of people. This section sets out some of the particular hallmarks of ICTs.

2.1 One key characteristic of ICTs is their rapid, indeed meteoric growth, of which the Internet was one stage in the development. In virtually a single generation, ICTs have moved out of isolated scientific laboratories and into the public domain. Parallel and distributed computing (grid technologies) have also grown just as rapidly. In Lithuania, for instance, projects such as BalticGrid I und II and the national schemes LitGrid and GridTechno are being implemented with EU support.

2.2 Another feature of ICTs is their ongoing development, which is largely the result of interaction between different scientific disciplines and the use and combining of different methods and findings. This in turn makes new departures possible.

2.3 ICTs repay their ‘debt of gratitude’ to the other scientific disciplines by placing research methods, equipment and other tools at their disposal and also by improving the day-to-day lives of the public at large. Whereas mathematics used to be seen as the queen (or some would say ‘servant’) of sciences, that role now falls to information technology. We might also quote a phrase coined by French philosopher François Rabelais in 1532 on the brink of that other revolution – printing: ‘Science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul’ (‘Pantagruel’ Chapter 8).

2.4 Another characteristic of ICTs is that they are predominantly application-based, as is reflected in the rapid development of ICT-supported devices and facilities. One need think only of the mobile communications boom, the pace of change in computer properties, the development of algorithmic languages or the expansion of the Internet.

2.5 By its very nature, the IoT will inevitably result in the technosphere around us becoming ever ‘smarter’. ‘Intelligent objects’ are set to emerge that will, at a certain point, be able to comprehend their own properties and potentialities (and those in the locality around them), make autonomous decisions and take proactive steps to meet the targets they have been set or to fulfil the remit assigned to them. It is perfectly conceivable that smart objects will be able to carry out all manner of activities and tasks and, at a certain point, react to their environment, i.e. adapt to the world around them, alter their configuration, repair any faults themselves – and even decide who can access them or switch owners.

2.6 Given the massive worldwide ICT market and the particularly rapid growth noted above – requiring constant fine-tuning and updating of scientific knowledge – this is an especially attractive niche area for European countries that have a high level of education and a highly developed work culture.

2.7 However, there are also two sides to the ICT coin. On the one hand, ICT applications help improve people's quality of life, yet they may also have adverse impacts. These include, among others, the threat to privacy, the risk of cyberterrorism and the use of the Internet to disseminate pornography and spread homophobia, racism, etc. Moreover, young people in particular risk becoming addicted to the Internet, with reality to a large extent replaced by life in a ‘virtual’ world.

2.8 Given the specific features of ICTs and their Internet ‘offshoot’, and their importance for a country's economy and the quality of life of its people, the Committee has for some time now devoted a great deal of attention to this area. We would refer here to opinion CESE 1514/2008 (TEN/342) on the ‘Internet of Things’ (rapporteur Mr Retureau) in particular, as well as to a number of opinions on relevant issues that have been adopted over the past few years (2) and to the documents cited therein.

3. General comments

3.1 Given the particular importance, on various fronts, of ICTs for a country's development and that of the lives of its people, the Committee welcomes the European Commission communication Internet of Things - An action plan for Europe, which seeks to create a new paradigm: the transition from an Internet that connects people, to one that connects people with things or things with each other.

3.2 The Committee agrees with the Commission that the IoT will deliver new and better jobs for workers, business opportunities and growth for industry, and a boost to Europe's global competitiveness – and also that it will improve citizens’ quality of life.

3.3 The Committee welcomes the investments the European Commission has already made in ICT development through the Framework Programme for Research and Development (FP5-6-7) and the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP). Key progress has already been achieved on a number of fronts. Devices are becoming noticeably smaller and will soon be invisible to the human eye. Appliances increasingly have wireless connections and are mobile. Systems are becoming ever more heterogeneous and complex. The latest technologies are becoming used ever more widely, including radio frequency identification (RFID), Near Field Communication (NFC), Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) and ultra-broadband connections.

The trailblazing progress made in this area is also reflected in the award of the 2009 Nobel prize in physics to three scientists for the invention of fibre optic technology and for their contribution to the first successful capture and transfer of images using digital optical sensors. This breakthrough paved the way for the emergence of the modern Internet and its continued development to become, in future, an IoT.

3.4 Given the profound social changes involved in IoT expansion, it is vital to manage the process properly so as to genuinely deliver enhanced economic growth and individual well-being without impinging on privacy or jeopardising information security.

The Committee welcomes all the Commission's measures to overcome obstacles to the introduction of IoT.

3.5.1 Two fundamental EU citizens’ rights are of paramount importance here: (i) the protection of privacy and (ii) the protection of personal data. These two areas thus require continual monitoring – and action to combat any breaches identified.

3.5.2 In the interests of protecting privacy and personal data, it is particularly important that, from the very outset, IoT components should be designed with built-in protection and security functions and take due account of all user requirements so as to generate an atmosphere of trust, acceptance and safety. For industry, information security is tied in with the availability, reliability and confidentiality of business data and the weighing-up of new risks.

3.5.3 Since any IoT malfunction could have a significant economic and social impact in certain regions or even across the world, it is vital to provide optimum protection for IoT information infrastructures.

3.5.4 Standardisation is key if IoT is to develop into a mass phenomenon. It not only makes the IoT easier to use but also helps businesses hold their own more effectively in international competition. A particularly effective approach would be to pursue standardisation in conjunction with the speedy introduction of IPv6 as this would make it possible to provide a virtually limitless number of objects – not to mention the entire population of the planet – with a direct Internet address.

3.6 The Committee particularly welcomes the Commission's moves to support scientific research and technological development in this interdisciplinary area, which brings together the findings of a large number of different research fields and technologies and combines them to create a whole new calibre of product: the Internet of the future, that is to say the IoT. The Committee also endorses the Commission plan to foster public-private partnerships (PPP) to address the basic issue involved here.

The IoT not only opens up new avenues for industry and the production sector, but also requires completely new business models, not least in e-trade and e-commerce.

3.7 IoT systems will be developed, managed and used by a large number of stakeholders drawing on different business models and based on differing interests. It is vital therefore to put in place the parameters needed to foster growth and innovation, to add new components to existing systems and to flexibly adapt new systems to those already in place.

3.8 The cross-border impact of the IoT means that this will be a truly global product – hence, in its development and practical application, the particular importance of international dialogue, exchange of best practice and the coordination of current joint measures.

3.9 The Committee welcomes the ways and means provided for by the Commission to secure the timely availability of appropriate spectrum resources and to monitor and assess the need for additional harmonised spectrum for specific IoT purposes. Given the increased number of devices and objects that emit electromagnetic waves, steps must be taken to ensure that all devices and systems continue in future to meet the requisite health and safety requirements in order to protect the general public.

3.10 The Committee endorses the Commission's efforts to put in place a multi-stakeholder mechanism at European (or possibly even global?) level to monitor the evolution of IoT, and to assess which additional measures should be undertaken by the authorities to ensure this ambitious project is put into practice as quickly as possible. To that end, regular dialogue and sharing of best practice with other regions of the world is essential.

3.11 The Committee backs the Commission's plan for a proactive approach to ensuring that Europe plays leading role in shaping IoT so that the Internet of Things becomes an Internet of Things for People. The Committee is keen to help achieve these ambitious, yet realistic goals. Organised civil society has a key role to play in that regard, and its representatives must be consulted on all aspects affecting society and the private lives of individuals, including the safeguarding of public and private freedoms.

4. Specific comments

The Committee welcomes the Commission document and broadly endorses the points and proposals it sets out. However, it would make the following comments, proposals and recommendations.

4.1 The action plan and the fourteen lines of action are vague as to timeframes and deadlines for implementation. We have to wait until almost the end of the document (section 5: Conclusions) to read that ‘IoT is not yet a tangible reality, but rather a prospective vision of a number of technologies that, combined together, could in the coming 5 to 15 years drastically modify the way our societies function.’ We can infer from that that the action plan has a timeframe of around fifteen years. That would naturally imply that most of the proposed lines of action would be implemented, coordinated or at least monitored throughout that timeframe. In some cases, however, a deadline for implementation could be indicated or specified more clearly (for instance in lines of action 1, 4, 8, 9 and 14).

4.2 Given the global nature of the IoT, all countries across the world will sooner or later be involved in it. Thus, schemes, measures and legislation devised by the European Commission are, of themselves, not enough to get to grips with this global phenomenon. The focus must increasingly shift to the role of international organisations and the importance of negotiations and agreements ratified by a majority of countries. We urgently need a ‘Kyoto Protocol’ for cybernetics or cybernetic equivalents of the hoped-for Copenhagen climate agreement.

4.3 The Committee feels the proposals must be more specific both as to the basic principles underpinning IoT management (so as to strike a proper balance between a centralised and decentralised Internet regime) and to the ongoing monitoring of issues relating to privacy and the protection of personal data (so as to minimise risks in these areas – and also the threat of terrorist attacks).

4.4 The Committee would stress that the ‘right to silence of the chips’ (i.e. that individuals should be able to disconnect from the networked environment) does not provide sufficient safeguards for privacy protection or object safety. Thus, for instance, switching off a mobile phone does not prevent certain interested parties from obtaining information on the owner. It is not enough simply to ‘launch a debate’: further practical steps are also needed.

4.5 The Committee recognises that, in setting up this cybernetic ‘Tower of Babel’, it is particularly important to standardise systems and procedures so that, for instance, a refrigerator in China is able to ‘communicate’ successfully with a shelf of Danone yoghurt pots in a supermarket in France. However, any moves towards standardisation must take due account of the diversity and specific characteristics of the languages, cultures and traditions of the individual countries involved.

4.6 The Committee expressly welcomes the Commission's intention continue to finance FP7 research projects and technological development in the area of IoT. However, this area requires priority funding as success here is a crucial factor in Europe's global competitiveness and the well-being of the European public. In addition to the research fields set out in line of action 7, mention must also be made of nanotechnologies, grid and cloud computing, optoelectronics, quantum computers and other sectors of physics and information sciences, where priority support would pave the way for a qualitative breakthrough. These activities require better coordination.

4.7 Rapid ICT development and dissemination requires properly trained experts. University lecturers must continuously update their teaching content so that students have access to the latest information and are able to help shape and use the IoT. Schools pupils too need to be given appropriate preparation and further training for adults is also required. Lifelong learning and distance learning technologies are thus particularly appropriate in this field. Action is at all costs needed to bridge the geographical digital divide. Organised civil society and the various bodies of which it is made up have a key role to play in the practical success of these endeavours.

4.8 The Committee recognises the importance of innovation and pilot projects and would draw the Commission's attention to the need to afford intellectual property better protection and promote the patenting of technical facilities, devices, procedures and methods. Rather than just ‘considering’ the options, the Commission would do well to pursue a more resolute approach. Priority support must be given to projects designed to protect the cultural heritage, cultural and linguistic diversity (it is claimed that a language not supported by computers is doomed) and other elements of the intellectual wealth of the nations of the world.

4.9 The Committee would also point out to the Commission the need for a more detailed examination of the impact of electromagnetic waves on humans. Although the pulses emitted by IoT systems are weak, the number of radiation sources is set to increase exponentially. Most of these sources produce constant emissions so that the rapidly growing phenomenon of ‘electronic pollution’ may lead to major problems in the future. Modern science has yet to determine conclusively whether there is a threshold above which harmless levels of radiation become dangerous, and what the cumulative impact of such exposure is. Sometimes, in fact, a single electromagnetic pulse at quantum level is enough to trigger unchecked cancerous growth in a cell. If we let the genie out of the bottle, will we be stuck with the consequences?

4.10 To function properly, an IoT requires elaborate, structured information and complex algorithms. Clearly, it is made up of modules of centralised and solitary ‘smart’ objects. The processes involved here may be similar to those used by the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) where data are collected, analysed, stored and used via a grid technology infrastructure based on the EGEE project (3) and other initiatives. In the IoT, however, the data processing involved is much more complicated. Hence, the EGEE project can only be seen as the first stage in the development, planning and launching of IoT components.

Brussels, 17 December 2009. The President of the European Economic and Social Committee Mario SEPI

(1) COM(2009) 278 final.

(2) OJ C 256, 27.10.2007, p. 66-72; OJ C 224, 30.8.2008, p. 50-56; OJ C 175, 28.7.2009, p. 92-96; OJ C 128 of 18.5.2010, p. 69 and EESC opinion on Critical Information Infrastructure Protection –See page 98 of this Official Journal.

(3) Enabling Grids for E-sciencE, www.eu-egee.org.