A Biomimetic Interaction Model for the IoT by Eitan Markus

A Biomimetic Interaction Model for the Internet of Things

Eitan Markus

1 Introduction 2 Points of Departure 3 The Concept 4 The Prototype

Introduction

Framework The Internet

Archetype

Internet of Things

Present State

Centralized IoT

Existing Model

Biomimetic IoT

Future Model Prototype Scenario

The Internet’s Defining Features The Internet was designed with several guiding principles that has shaped the way the Internet has evolved to date. In discussing the Internet of Things, it is important to remember the founding principles of the ‘Internet’, and how these principles may be desirable to preserve in the Internet of Things.

1. Minimalism and Autonomy The Internet should operate without the need for an internal change. 2. Best Effort Service Model The Internet promises to transmit data as well as possible, but the network does not guarantee reliability. 3. Soft State Design Routers in this network do not need to maintain end-to-end communication and can be oblivious to the sender or receiver. The routers are only required to observe the packets. 4. Decentralization There is no entity that administers the Internet as a whole.

Reference: IoT Introductions. Perf. Zoran Kostic. EdX. Columbia University. Web. <https://www.edx.org/course/enabling-technologies-data-science-columbiax-ds103x>. Introduction to Online IoT Course

The Internet of Things (IoT) What is it? The Internet of Things refers to the network of ‘things’ that are connected to the Internet, and by extension, to each other. Several predictions place the adoption of ‘things’ that are a part of the Internet of Things at 25-50 billion ‘things’ by 2025. What made it possible? A number of factors have made the Internet of Things a possibility. 1. The first has to do with advancements in integrated circuit

Defining Features The Internet of Things has three defining features that classify any ‘thing’ as being a part of it. 1. Sensing, Computing, Communicating, Acting Any ‘thing’ in the Internet of Things is capable of sensing or collecting all kinds of data. The ‘thing’ is also capable of computing, communicating, and acting upon the data that it processes or collects.

technologies: miniaturization, low cost, high power computing, and low power consumption. 2. The second factor is the advancement of wireless technologies. Wireless technologies have evolved to reach almost anywhere with a low consumption of power. 3. The last factor is the existence of omnipresent networks with major bandwidth availabilities.

2. Network The ‘thing’ is an individual that is part of a community of connected ‘things’, thereby making it a part of a network of other ‘things’. This network goes by many names: “Web of Things”, “Internet of Everything”, and the “Cloud” or “Fog” Network. 3. Data All ‘things’ in the Internet of Things are capable of receiving, sending, and collecting data in some way. The value of this data is that it can be acted upon by the ‘thing’.

Barriers to Value Capture Problem Identification A recent publication by the McKinsey Global Institute titled “The Internet of Things: Mapping the Value Beyond the Hype” outlines, among others, one large barrier to capturing the potential value of the Internet of Things: the lack of interoperability. The report recommends that some method or model needs to be developed such that the Internet of Things increases its interoperability.

There are three major barriers to interoperability: a. a lack of common software interfaces b. a lack of standard data formats c. a lack of common connectivity protocols In order to overcome this barrier the report calls for the creation of common technology standards, translational aggregation platforms, and common application programming interfaces.

Reframing the Problem Given the identification of a lack of interoperability among Internet of Things components, the problem can be reframed as follows:

If Every individual in the Internet of Things is its own ‘species’ in the evolving digital ecosystem and every ‘species’ speaks a different language, limiting their ability to communicate with each other Then How might a new model for inter-object interactions enable these different ‘species’ to develop relationships with each other to capture the maximum value of the Internet of Things?

Points of Departure

Given that people, places, and things can talk to each other through the Internet of Things, what is the subject of their conversation?

How might nature inspire a model for how â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;individualsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in the Internet of Things interact with each other?

In this new ecosystem that is the Internet of Things, what are the necessities of life for organisms that live within it?

Given what is known about the adaptive cycle and how ecosystems evolve, how might the Internet of Things evolve along the adaptive cycle?

The Concept

The Social Internet of Things (SIoT) The Social Internet of Things refers to a social approach to the Internet of Things whereby objects in the network autonomously develop their own social networks with other objects. Some restrictions or rules can be imposed by humans to protect their privacy. As well, only access to the results of an autonomous inter-object interaction on that particular object’s social network is permitted to the human.

capabilities, as discussed earlier. A social object refers to a smart object that has been given social-like capabilities. It is a socially-conscious object capable of producing and consuming services as well as taking an active role in any given context. 2. Navigability and Autonomy In the Social Internet of Things, the entire network is navigable regardless of the number of nodes present on the network. In other words, the number of individuals on the network does not affect the ability of the nodes to provide information and services.

One of the main drivers of this social approach to the Internet of Things is the idea that as the Internet of Things is adopted more and more, it is unlikely that humans will be able to navigate the 3. Locatable, Addressable, Readable increasing complexity of the network on The objects in the Social Internet of their own. Things can interact with each other autonomously, discover new services There are a few features of this Social and information (trust-oriented), and Internet of Things that are important to advertise their capabilities. To achieve discuss. this, objects need to be locatable by others, addressable, and readable. 1. Smart Objects Vs. Social Objects The main differentiating factor between 4. Layers of Trust the Internet of Things and the Social In the Social Internet of Things, various Internet of Things is the distinction factors determine how trusting an between a smart object and a social object is of another object on the object. A smart object refers to some network. The exact definition of these ‘thing’ that is connected to the Internet layers and trust factors will be given in and is deemed smart by its numerous the upcoming pages.

The SIoT Evolutionary Metaphor The Social Internet of Things uses concepts discussed in the study of human evolution to differentiate between the various categories of objects that are part of the Internet of Things. 1. Res Sapiens Modelled after homo sapiens, this term was coined to refer to smart objects. There exists an increased interoperability with external systems and a capability to communicate in human social networks. 2. Res Agens Modelled after homo agens, this term was coined to refer to acting objects, whereby causal relationships are translated into action. Res agens have an awareness of their environment and there may be some form of interactivity with the surrounding environment. A pseudo-behaviour with neighbours exists as well. 3. Res Socialis Modelled after homo socialis, this term was coined to refer to social objects. Res sapiens are capable of forming their own social networks. They are proficient in building value-added, complex services through collaborative interactions in their social network.

References: Atzori, Luigi, Antonio Iera, and Giacomo Morabito. “From “Smart Objects” to “Social Objects”: The Next Evolutionary Step of the Internet of Things.” IEEE Communications Magazine 52.1 (2014): 97-105. Web. Atzori, L., A. Iera, and G. Morabito. “SIoT: Giving a Social Structure to the Internet of Things.” IEEE Communications Letters 15.11 (2011): 1193-5. Web. Nitti, Michele. “Managing the Internet of Things based on its Social Structure”. Dept. of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Cagliari. 2012-13. Web

SIoT Relationships There are several advantages to the Social Internet of Things presented in various academic sources. Structure By giving the Internet of Things a social structure, the discovery of objects and services can be performed more effectively and the scalability of the system is more or less guaranteed. Levels of Trustworthiness By relying on a hierarchy of trusted members in an object’s social network, interactions among ‘friend’ objects can be leveraged. In this system, relationships are exploited to determine what and with whom information, data, and services are communicated instead of relying solely on exploiting ownership. The

levels of trustworthiness begin with the parental-object relationship. Other types of relationships may be established like: a. Co-work, which refers to objects in the same working area. b. Co-location, for objects in the same locations c. Co-ownership, where objects owned by the same person are automatically given permission to communicate with each other. d. Social-object, where objects owned by people who frequently interact with each other in person or online develop a unique relationship based on their owner’s social network.

The Role of Biomimicry Janine Benyus, writing for Circulate, discusses the important role that biology can play in shaping the Internet of Things as it becomes increasingly adopted by many types of stakeholders. She list many advantages that could be exploited by learning from what she calls the ‘Information Network of Life’. 1. Productivity and Resilience By applying concepts learned from nature in the design of IoT components, Benyus argues that various stakeholders can increase asset and resource productivity as well as increasing the overall system’s resilience. 2. Nature Decentralized In nature, complex ecosystems exist with complex, dynamic species interactions. No single entity controls the ecosystem as a whole, yet resiliency is achieved. Nature is a decentralized network of interconnected species interactions. 4. Biological System Models Benyus refers to several highly optimized systems such as food webs, mutualistic networks, neuronal networks, gene regulation, and metabolic regulation to illustrate how nature has adapted and evolved the types of complex systems desired to be mimicked in the IoT.

5. Swarm Intelligence/A.C.O Benyus refers to Swarm Intelligence and Ant Colony Optimization as examples of systems and networking models already being implemented in all kinds of sectors. Both of these concepts are based on biological networks. 6. Intelligent Assets Benyus also brings up the idea of intelligent assets which refer to enabled assets capable of making themselves available for use in real time without human intervention, as well as providing an idea of what is being consumed in real time. 7. Self Awareness Self aware objects can be designed to mimic decomposition, whereby the object knows when it is no longer being used productively and begins to ‘bio-degrade’. Conclusion It is evident and clear that biology (nature) has a lot to offer in the design of complex networks of connected objects such as the Internet of Things. Biological concepts might offer a framework for developing new models for a highly optimized and productive Internet of Things.

Community Ecology Community ecology, in this context, refers to the biological interactions or relationships that different species might develop with other species in a particular ecosystem.

c. Mimicry refers to the defense mechanism employed by some species where they produce warning colouration to mimic a harmful species to deter predators.

The two main concepts relevant to the development of a Biomimetic Internet of Things are the predator-prey cycle and symbiosis. How they relate to the biomimetic interaction model will be discussed in another section. The following is a brief description of the terms:

2. Symbiosis Symbiosis refers to the close, long-term relationships formed by different species that can be commensal, mutualistic, or parasitic. The following briefly describes these terms:

1. Predator-Prey Cycle In nature, species may interact in the form of a predator-prey cycle where one species kills and consumes the other for food. Several defense mechanisms have been adapted through evolution to avoid predation (carnivores) or herbivory (herbivore): a. Mechanical defense mechanisms are employed by a species in the form of a physical deterrence such as armour or thorns b. Chemical defense mechanisms normally refer to a secondary compound that is produced or stored by the organism that is toxic to their predators.

a. Commensalism refers to a long-term interaction where one species benefits from another while the other species neither benefits nor is harmed. b. Mutualism refers to the interaction of species where the species involved all benefit from their interactions with each other. No species is harmed as a result of this type of interaction. c. Parasitism refers to the interaction where one species derives benefit from another species which causes harm to the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;hostâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; species.

The Biomimetic Internet of Things (BIoT) Inspired by the various types of interactions between species in natural ecosystems, the Biomimetic Internet of Things seeks to establish a new model for the interaction of components in the Internet of Things. After establishing the model, the advantages of implementing such a model will be discussed. The following aligns the Internet of Things with the concepts discussed regarding community ecology: 1. Predator-Prey Cycle In the context of the digital ecosystem that is the Internet of Things, IoT components may be the victims of predatory IoT components that seek to ‘consume’ it for the value it holds in the form of data or proprietary services. Learning from biological predation/ herbivory avoidance mechanisms, IoT components may have the following integrated capabilities

a. Mechanical Defense Similar to the natural defense mechanism discussed previously, IoT components may be able to avoid ‘predation’ by way of their hardware configuration, such that ‘predatory’ IoT components are physically deterred. b. Chemical Defense Similar to the natural defense mechanism, IoT components could ‘produce’ or ‘store’ embedded ‘chemical’ toxins, or viruses, that would deter ‘predators’ at the software level. c. Mimicry By mimicking other IoT component hardware or software assets, it is possible that ‘predators’ may be tricked into thinking that this IoT component is actually a ‘harmful species’.

Symbiosis in the BIoT 2. Symbiosis Close, long-term relationships could be formed between different IoT components in a similar fashion to how biological interactions have evolved in natural systems. Commensalism In this type of relationship, IoT components that could benefit from data or services associated with another IoT component in the network could be granted permission to receive that benefit without benefitting or harming the other IoT component.

Mutualistic Relationship

Mutualism Perhaps the most valuable type of relationship that could develop is a mutualistic one where both IoT components benefit from each other in some way (eg. mutualistically advantageous data or services). Parasitism Although not a desirable relationship to be developed, for consistency with the biological metaphor, parasitic interactions would be where one IoT component benefits from another while harming it in some way.

Data Packet

Empty

Commensal Relationship

Parasitic Relationship

The Block Chain Block chain refers to a revolutionary technology which has disrupted the financial industry in the form of the cryptocurrency BitCoin and is being implemented in many new ways in other industries. There are a few important characteristics of this technology that make it relevant to this Internet of Things discussion.

3. Consensus Verification Because all of the components on the network maintain a full copy of the ledger, it is possible for any new transaction to be verified by checking the ledger to see if the party transferring something hasn’t already transferred it to someone else. In this manner, the network is able to verify that a transaction can take place because the network’s consensus is that the person transferring something actually has something to transfer.

1. The Ledger Metaphor In the simplest of terms, block chain is a digital ledger database that maintains a continuously-growing list of transactional records. In the case of Bitcoin, block chains are used to record the exchange of Bitcoins between two parties registered on the network. Every time a transaction takes place, it is added as a new block on the network’s chain and is broadcast to all other network components for future reference. Resources: 2. Decentralized Database Block chains are a form of peer-to-peer distributed database, meaning that the information stored in the database is distributed across loosely coupled sites that share no physical components or common processing unit (CPU). In the block chain, every component on the network maintains a full copy of the ledger. This enables the system to be trustless.

“Bitcoin: What Is It?” Khan Academy. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2016. Featherston, Ed. “Blockchain: Why It’s so Much More than the Bitcoin.” Web 2.0 Journal. N.p., n.d. Web. Apr. 2016. Featherston, Ed. “Blockchain: You Want Me to Trust a ‘Trustless Trust’ System? | @ThingsExpo #IoT.” Web 2.0 Journal. N.p., n.d. Web. Apr. 2016.

The DNA Analogy An interesting analogy can be drawn between DNA and the block chain which makes it very relevant to implement in the BIoT. Block chains could be seen as pieces of DNA that make up the decentralized network that is utilizing block chain technology to keep track of all kinds of transactions between components on the network.

If any type of unwanted transaction were to be attempted on the network, the ‘victim’ of that ‘predation’ could create a new block in the chain that alerts other components that the transaction was attempted. In effect, every component now has a record that this foreign component is not meant to be trusted for future transactions.

Just as DNA can be mutated to express certain characteristics, so too the block chain could be ‘mutated’ by introducing a new block to the chain that alters the network’s characteristics.

Going back to the DNA analogy, this would be similar to a pest developing a resistance to pesticides by altering its genes, thus enabling it to continue feeding off of the plants that are growing.

Microsoft OpenT2T Microsoft recently announced an alpha version of an open-source project called Open Translator to Things, which promises to make it easier for developers to write code that interacts with IoT components, such as a smart lightbulb. The problem that Microsoft is seeking to address is simple: too many application programming interfaces (API) are being written to interact with many similar objects being manufactured for introduction to the Internet of Things. They asked an intriguing question: How many different APIs do you need to turn on a light or read a temperature?

“The job of the translator is to hide the implementation details about particular data models and protocols, exposing functionalities directly as programmable APIs”, an article found on the Microsoft blog writes, “What is needed is myBulb.turnOn() and the translator will map the API common schema call to the appropriate libraries to perform the operation.

The article continues to describe that “[a]pplication developers (client or cloud apps) can write the same code to control similar devices from different manufacturers, in an open and interoperable way. Developers achieve this by referencing the single category schema associated to similar Things Their project proposes that a consistent and use the same function call defined user experience could be developed by that schema to control them.” across similar devices, even if they are made by different manufacturers. This is all relevant to the BIoT in that this type of inter-object interaction In order to achieve this, Microsoft is possible without the need for proposes that developers access manufacturers to maintain standards a common schema which describe when producing new IoT components, devices that fit into a particular which allows them to hold onto their category type like light bulb or propietership. In the BIoT, these thermostat. interactions could be the mode in which social relationships are established In addition, Microsoft is seeking between components, alongside the developers to design a piece of code architecture of the SIoT. that acts as a translator that takes the input/output of an actual Thing and “Open Translators to Things: An translates it into a common schema for Open Approach for Accessing Similar application developers to access. Things.” Windows Blog. N.p., 05 Apr. 2016. Web. Apr. 2016.

Why the BIoT? There are a number of reasons why the Biomimetic Internet of Things is a welcome alternative for the future of the Internet of Things, especially when considering the original interoperability problem. 1. Resources By virtue of the fact that the BIoT is decentralized, a highly diverse and complex system of resource allocation and service sharing can be developed in an efficient and optimized way. 2. Decentralized Proprietership The BIoT doesn’t require a centralized entity to be enforced in order for different ‘species’ to interact in the digital ecosystem. This ensures that any proprietary hardware or software can still be kept proprietary by any given manufacturer. Additionally, the network remains decentralized by

giving no entity authority over the IoT standards. 3. Evolutionary Behaviour Relationships and interactions can be learned and passed onto ‘offspring’ through their digital DNA so that any future components of the same ‘family’ can have an instinctual awareness of pre-established relationships and recognition of danger. 4. Defense Mechanisms The BIoT is able to defend itself against predation by foreign components utilizing similar techniques employed by natural systems. This increases resilience and security across the network, and makes the BIoT a complelling opportunity for the future.

The Prototype

The Healthcare BIoT The best method of demonstrating the value proposition of the BIoT is to place it within a given context - in this case healthcare - to illustrate how this concept could be applied. In the illustration below, many different IoT components, or ‘species’, are part of a decentralized network within the hospital’s ‘patch’ of the digital ecosystem. These components represent people, places, things, and so on.

IoT Component

On any given day, these components share data and services with each other to deliver personalized, contextual, and efficient treatments to the patients being cared for in this hospital. On a slightly larger scale, these IoT components interact with IoT components at other hospitals or elsewhere in the world to send and receive data or services of relevance to various types of individuals or organizations.

The Predation Scenario The transactions - moments of interaction where data or services are transferred between components - create a block that is added to the block chain of the network these components belong to. In this case, components within the greater hospital system have been registered as a part of the network and can participate in peer-to-peer transactions with other components.

Each component has a full copy of the latest block chain, and interactions between components are validated by a consenus of the other components in the network. A foreign component manages to register itself so that it can interact with the greater hospital systemâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s network. It is attempting to collect private electronic health records that it does not have permission to receive.

Tra ns ac tion

Blo ck

The BIoT Solution The network of components that interact with each other in the greater hospital system’s ‘patch’ of the digital ecosystem are equipped with biomimetic defense mechanisms that are intended to prevent predation by foreign components.

As a result, the component uses its chemical defense mechanism to harm its attacker by sending a software virus to the foreign component, and immediately creates a block on the chain that records a failed transaction due to predation.

The component that is being preyed on identifies that it is being attacked because it recieves too many of the same requests for information that it does not expect. In traditional network terms, this how hackers gain access to servers by bombarding it with requests of the same type. Just before the server crashes, the hackers sneak in and gain access to the server’s data.

Because of the manner in which the block chain is broadcast to all other components on the network, the network’s chain, or DNA, is automatically mutated such that the other components automatically know not to transact or interact with the foreign compoent. This prevents a future attack, and makes the network both secure and very resilient.

Att empted

Threa t Rec ognition

Virus Tra nsfer + Blo ck Old Chain

New Chain

Conclusion Through the analysis of various technologies and models associated with the Internet of Things, as well as the application of biomimicry, a biologically inspired interaction model for the Internet of Things was developed. This model demonstrates a future state that the Internet of Things could evolve to become as the adoption of IoT components is ever increasing. The major problem currently facing the capturing of value from the IoT was identified as a lack of interoperability. To solve this issue and enable the true value of the IoT to be captured, the BIoT was developed. The BIoT enables an infinite number of IoT components (people, places, and things) to perform peer-to-peer transactions of data and services in the context of a decentralized network and distributed database.

This model has a built-in defense mechanism which protects it from â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;predatorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; trying to access data or services that are meant to remain secure. While the exact details of this model may continue to be developed as newer technologies arise which present new constraints, I believe that the success of this model comes in its biomimetic nature. By looking at the types of interactions that occur in natural systems and applying them to technological systems, a more resilient, efficient, and secure system can be developed. I look forward to continuing to work on this model and advocate for an increased use of biomimicry in the design of complex systems.

Other Resources 1. OpenStax College, Concepts of Biology. OpenStax College. 25 April 2013

4. The Internet of Things: Mapping The Value Beyond the Hype. McKinsey Global Institute. June 2015. Web.

2. “How The “Internet Of Things” Is Turning Cities Into Living Organisms.” Fast Company. 2012. Web. <http:// www.fastcompany.com/biomimicry/ how-the-internet-of-things-is-turning-cities-into-organisms>.

5. “Intelligent Assets: Unlocking the Circular Economy Potential, by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and World Economic Forum as Part of Project MainStream.” Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Web.

3. Benyus, Janine. “Learning from the Information Network of Life - Circulate.” Circulate. 2016. Web. <http://circulatenews.org/2016/02/learning-from-the-information-network-of-life/>.