[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INTERNET OF THINGS LEGISLATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIGITAL COMMERCE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 22, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-133
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
33-380 WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GENE GREEN, Texas
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JERRY McNERNEY, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BILLY LONG, Missouri DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL FLORES, Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana Massachusetts
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma TONY CARDENAS, California
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina RAUL RUIZ, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York SCOTT H. PETERS, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
Chairman
JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
Ranking Member
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
Vice Chairman YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
FRED UPTON, Michigan TONY CARDENAS, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky PETER WELCH, Vermont
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virgina JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois Massachusetts
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida GENE GREEN, Texas
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma officio)
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, opening statement........................... 4
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 7
Hon. Peter Welch, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Vermont, opening statement..................................... 8
Witnesses
Tim Day, Senior Vice President, Chamber Technology Engagement
Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce............................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Answers to submitted questions............................... 103
Michelle Richardson, Deputy Director, Freedom, Security, and
Technology Project, Center for Democracy and Technology........ 22
Prepared statement........................................... 24
Answers to submitted questions............................... 108
Dipti Vachani, Vice President, Internet of Things Group, General
Manager, Platform Management and Customer Engineering, Intel
Corporation.................................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Answers to submitted questions............................... 112
Submitted material
Statement of the Consumer Technology Association................. 95
Statement of CTIA................................................ 97
Statement of the Electronic Privacy Information Center........... 98
INTERNET OF THINGS LEGISLATION
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer
Protection,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in
room 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Robert Latta
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Latta, Burgess, Lance,
Guthrie, McKinley, Bilirakis, Mullin, Walters, Costello, Walden
(ex officio), Schakowsky, Clarke, Cardenas, Dingell, Matsui,
Welch, Kennedy, and Pallone (ex officio).
Staff present: Mike Bloomquist, Deputy Staff Director;
Melissa Froelich, Chief Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer
Protection; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and Coalitions;
Ali Fulling, Legislative Clerk, Oversight & Investigations,
Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Elena Hernandez,
Press Secretary; Paul Jackson, Professional Staff, Digital
Commerce and Consumer Protection; Bijan Koohmaraie, Counsel,
Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection; Austin Stonebraker,
Press Assistant; Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor, External
Affairs; Greg Zerzan, Counsel, Digital Commerce and Consumer
Protection; Michelle Ash, Minority Chief Counsel, Digital
Commerce and Consumer Protection; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff
Director; Lisa Goldman, Minority Counsel; Caroline Paris-Behr,
Minority Policy Analyst; Michelle Rusk, Minority FTC Detailee;
and C.J. Young, Minority Press Secretary.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Latta. Well, good morning. I'd like to call the
Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection to
order and the chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
And again, good morning to our witnesses and welcome to
this legislative hearing on the Internet of Things. Today, we
will discuss the bipartisan State of Modern Application,
Research, and Trends of IoT Act, or the SMART Act IoT
discussion draft.
The SMART IoT Act discussion draft is the result of work
the Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee has
done over the past 2 years. Last July, this subcommittee held
an Internet of Things Showcase. At that event, members invited
companies from our districts and across America to demonstrate
products and services in the IoT field. It was a wonderful
opportunity to see this revolutionary work up close and
interact with the inventors doing this important work. To
accompany that Showcase, we held a hearing where participants
from the Showcase discussed their companies, challenges they
face with growing in this space, and what we, as policymakers,
can do to help promote the continued development of the IoT
solutions.
This January, we held a hearing on the state of
manufacturing in the IoT space and over the following months we
met with other builders, suppliers, customers, and experts to
better understand IoT's enormous potential.
This technology is having a real-life impact for many of
our constituents. I've personally met with manufacturers in my
district that are using this cutting-edge technology to
maintain their machinery and keep production on track. I also
met with farmers in Defiance, Ohio, who are using IoT for
better grain management, increased planting and harvesting
efficiency, and improved monitoring of the temperature in their
storage facilities.
The draft legislation we discuss today is the result of
important bipartisan work after hearing from the experts where
we noticed one lingering question: What does the universe of
rules, regulations, guidelines, and best practices look like
for the IoT space?
While we know there are many other topics of interest in
this space, this legislation kicks off a process to give all
stakeholders a base set of information to frame the other
challenges without speculating or hypothesizing about what
already exists.
The IoT is already revolutionizing the way that we organize
factories and supply chains, transport commodities like oil and
gas, make manufacturing more efficient, maximize energy
efficiency, and even restock our refrigerators.
This subcommittee has engaged in historic bipartisan work
with the SELF DRIVE Act this Congress and I am pleased to see
that cooperation continue with the SMART IoT. When safely
applied to autonomous vehicles, the Internet of Things holds
the potential to significantly reduce traffic fatalities and
make our roads safer while reducing costs through more
efficient fuel consumption.
In these areas and more, the IoT holds the potential to
greatly improve the lives of Americans.
I want to thank my colleague, Representative Welch, for his
willingness to continue our work together on this very
important issue. As many here know, in previous Congresses
Representative Welch and I started the Internet of Things
Working Group. We heard from industry and other stakeholders
about the importance of light-touch regulation to foster
innovation and jobs here in the United States. This bipartisan
draft is a result of the lessons learned in those meetings,
this subcommittee's Disrupter Series hearings, and lays the
groundwork for constructive conversations in the future. The
SMART IoT Act will give all stakeholders, both private in
industry and at the Federal level, a better sense of what
guidelines and best practices exist or are in development.
As we all know, IoT issues cut across so many industries
and so many Federal agencies. Ensuring that we know about
overlaps or potential duplication is important for many reasons
from ensuring efficient use of government resources to
understanding how stakeholders are addressing some of the
important but challenging issues of privacy and data security.
From the Department of Commerce's efforts to foster the
advancement of the IoT ecosystem to the Department of
Transportation's focus on advancing automated vehicle, so much
work is being done in this space. We want to encourage our
interagency collaboration and foster an environment where
transparency is key. Likewise, I would like to ensure that the
environment for innovation in the United States across all of
these industries remains a priority by optimizing our own
efforts to promote good, consistent government. I believe the
SMART IoT Act is an important step in doing just that.
And again, one of the things I always like to say is that
one of the great things about serving on the Energy and
Commerce Committee is that we kind of look over the horizon
five to 10 years.
When we hear from our witnesses we want to hear from you to
know exactly where you're going to be because we don't want to
have our regulators or our laws that we were thinking about
enacting looking in the rear view mirror or at the end of a
car. We need to be looking far out into the future.
So, again, I want to thank our witnesses for being with us
today and I look forward to your testimony today and, with
that, I recognize the gentlelady from Illinois, the ranking
member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta
Good Morning and welcome to this legislative hearing on the
Internet of Things. Today we will discuss the bipartisan State
of Modern Application, Research, and Trends of IoT Act or the
SMART IoT Act discussion draft.
The SMART IoT Act discussion draft is the result of work
the Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee has
done over the past two years. Last July, this Subcommittee held
an Internet of Things Showcase. At that event, Members invited
companies from our Districts and across America to demonstrate
products and services in the IoT field. It was a wonderful
opportunity to see this revolutionary work up close and
interact with the inventors doing this important work. To
accompany that Showcase, we held a hearing where participants
from the Showcase discussed their companies, challenges they
face with growing in this space and what we, as policymakers,
can do to help promote the continued development of IoT
solutions.
This January we held a hearing on the state of
manufacturing in the IoT space and over the following months we
met with other builders, suppliers, customers and experts to
better understand IoT's enormous potential.
This technology is having a real-life impact for many of
our constituents. I've personally met with manufacturers in my
district that are using this cutting- edge technology to
maintain their machinery and keep production on track. I also
met with farmers in Defiance, Ohio who are using IoT for better
grain management, increased planting and harvesting efficiency,
and improved monitoring of the temperature in their storage
facilities.
The draft legislation we will discuss today is the result
of important bipartisan work after hearing from the experts
where we noticed one lingering question-what does the universe
of rules, regulations, guidelines, and best practices look like
for the IoT space?
While we know there are many other topics of interest in
this space, this legislation kicks off a process to give all
stakeholders a base set of information to frame the other
challenges without speculating or hypothesizing about
whatalready exists.
The IoT is already revolutionizing the way that we organize
factories andsupply chains, transport commodities like oil and
gas, make manufacturing more efficient, maximize energy
efficiency, and even restock our refrigerators.
This subcommittee has engaged in historic bipartisan work
with the SELF DRIVE Act this Congress and I am pleased to see
that cooperation continue with the SMART IoT Act discussion
draft. When safely applied to autonomous vehicles the Internet
of Things holds the potential to significantly reduce traffic
fatalities, and make our roads safer while also reducing costs
through more efficient fuel consumption.
In these areas and more, the IoT holds the potential to
greatly improve the lives of Americans.
I thank my colleague, Representative Welch, for his
willingness to continue our work together on this very
important issue. As many here know, in previous congresses
Representative Welch and I started the Internet of Things
Working Group. We heard from industry and other stakeholders
about the importance of light-touch regulation to foster
innovation and jobs here in the U.S. This bipartisan draft is a
result of the lessons learned in those meetings, this
subcommittees' Disrupter Series hearings, and lays the
groundwork for constructive conversations in the future. The
SMART IoT Act will give all stakeholders, both in private
industry and at the Federal level, a better sense of what
guidelines and best practices exist or are in development.
As we all know, IoT issues cut across so many industries
and so many Federal agencies. Ensuring that we know about
overlaps or potential duplication is important for many reasons
from ensuring efficient use of government resources to
understanding how stakeholders are addressing some of the
important but challenging issues of privacy and data security.
From the Department of Commerce's efforts to foster the
advancement of the IoT ecosystem to the Department of
Transportation's focus on advancing automated vehicle, so much
work is going on in this space. We want to encourage
interagency collaboration and foster an environment where
transparency is key. Likewise, I would like to ensure that the
environment for innovation in the U.S. across all of these
industries remains a priority by optimizing our own efforts to
promote good, consistent government. I believe the SMART IoT
Act is an important step in doing just that.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This subcommittee frequently discusses the Internet of
Things. We have hearings on IoT in manufacturing and wearable
devices, not to mention our IoT showcase last summer.
Today, we transition from general discussion to discussion
of actual legislation. The SMART IoT Act is a first step. It
would require the Commerce Department to survey the use of
connected devices and examine the Federal role in this space.
As the bill acknowledged, internet-connected devices
provide an opportunity for economic growth. But we want to
ensure that those devices are developed securely. My hope is
that the report generated by the SMART IoT Act provides the
foundation for further legislative efforts.
Our hearings on the Internet of Things have raised
important issues. What privacy and cybersecurity protections
are going to be baked into these devices? Normal household
items can now collect very personal data that must be stored
and used appropriately. Connected devices present new safety
concerns. The Consumer Product Safety Commission just held a
public hearing on IoT and safety last week with stakeholders on
that very subject.
We need the infrastructure to support the rise of connected
devices including affordable broadband. The Internet of Things
could also disrupt the current labor market. We must ensure
workers are prepared for a changing economy.
Finally, we must make the strategic investments in research
to promote future innovation. Last week's hearing on quantum
computing made clear that the United States is not providing
the consistent support necessary to keep groundbreaking
research moving forward. Standing on the sidelines is simply
not an option. These are big issues for Congress to tackle and
we must rise to the challenge. We know what happens if we rely
on industry self-regulation. Consumer privacy goes unprotected
and safety is put at risk. The SMART IoT Act should provide a
resource for us to better understand the variety of devices on
the market.
I plan to use this information as I continue my push for
comprehensive consumer privacy and data security legislation.
We have had bipartisan furor over misuses of consumer data.
It's time now for bipartisan solutions to the problem. The bill
before us is a natural extension of the work that members of
the subcommittee have been doing for the last couple of
sessions.
In 2016, Congressmen Latta and Welch convened stakeholders
for several forums under their IoT Working Group to discuss the
Internet of Things and the issues that new technology raise.
In many ways, the study and the SMART IoT Act is a
formalization of that very survey. In the coming weeks, I look
forward to working on a bipartisan basis to move this
legislation forward, and then I am ready to take the next step
of updating consumer protections and funding key investments.
The Internet of Things has tremendous potential. We must
work together to make sure that America benefits from that
opportunity.
I thank you, Chairman Latta. I yield back, unless anybody
wants the remaining time.
I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, the
chairman of the full committee for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and other members
on the committee and to our witnesses on the panel. Thank you
for being here.
Today, we will hear testimony about the draft bill, the
SMART IoT Act, to support the development of the Internet of
Things here in the United States. This bipartisan effort
underscores one of the key goals of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, and that is helping American entrepreneurs and
established businesses expand to create jobs for American
workers and help improve the lives of American consumers.
So I would like to thank Chairman Latta and Representative
Welch for working on this issue and finding a bipartisan path
forward. This is what we do at the Energy and Commerce
Committee, particularly on this subcommittee when faced with
new technology policy questions. We have done that on the Self
Drive Act. I would commend my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle for the good work there. Now we just need to get the
Senate to move forward, as we are won't to do in many cases.
The Internet of Things, or IoT, does hold great promise to
connect workers, suppliers, products, consumers throughout
efficient networks that can save time, money, and bring about
new innovation and resources.
Building this network won't be easy. We know that. It
requires engineers, entrepreneurs, and visionaries. It also
requires public policies that foresee a world designed for the
next-century policies that foresee a world designed for the
next century policies that are forward looking and that reflect
a world to come of self-driving cars, self-organizing
materials, and innovations we have yet to even think of. These
must replace many of our still-existing rules and policies that
reflect the old technologies of the last century. While America
has changed, many of our regulations, unfortunately, have not.
That is one of the purposes of this legislation that's
before us today. It is meant to set the stage by making sure
stakeholders are aware of the playing field and are not
creating conflicting or duplicative obligations or
requirements. So the SMART IoT Act will create the first
compendium of essentially who is doing what in the IoT space.
This includes the efforts undertaken by private industry as
well as a review of what agencies are doing.
Removing regulatory barriers to innovation is one of the
most important duties of this committee. Doing so allows our
economy to grow, our workers to flourish, and innovation to
occur here in the United States. The best way to start is to
know what is out there already or being developed today.
It's important to note that since January of 2017 more than
3 million new jobs have been created in America. The U.S.
unemployment rate, now at 3.9 percent, is the lowest seen in
this country since the year 2000, and what's more, this comes
as more Americans rejoin the workforce, millions once again
finding work after years of hardship.
So creating jobs and opportunity is a goal shared by all of
us on this committee, in fact, reflected in the bipartisan work
on the SMART IoT Act. Chairman Latta and Representative Welch
have been working on these issues for several years now. Glad
to see that this progress has been made and we have a great
opportunity, going forward, to do even more.
So, Mr. Chairman and members of both sides of the aisle,
thanks for your good work on this. We have a couple hearings
going on simultaneously, as I am sure our witnesses and members
know.
So some of us will be popping back and forth. But we value
your testimony that we have here and the good bipartisan work.
And with that, I yield back the remaining balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Good morning, and thank you to our witnesses for appearing
before theSubcommittee. Today we will hear testimony about a
draft bill, the SMART IoT Act, to support the development of
the Internet of Things here in the United States. This
bipartisan effort underscores one of the key goals of the
Energy and Commerce Committee: helping American entrepreneurs
and established businesses expand to create jobs for American
workers and help improve the lives of consumers.
I would like to thank Chairman Latta and Representative
Welch for working on this issue and finding a bipartisan path
forward. This is what we do at the Energy and Commerce
Committee and particularly on this subcommittee when faced with
new technology policy questions.
The Internet of Things, or IoT, holds the promise to
connect workers, suppliers and products through more efficient
networks that can save time, money and resources.
Building this network will not be easy. It requires
engineers, entrepreneurs and visionaries. It also requires
public policies that foresee a world designed for the next-
century policies that are forward looking, and that reflect a
world to come of self-driving cars, self-organizing materials,
and innovations we have yet to even think of. These must
replace many of our still-existing rules and policies that
reflect the old technologies of the last century. While America
has changed, many of our regulations have not.
That is one of the purposes of the legislation we will
discuss today. It is meant to set the stage by making sure
stakeholders are aware of the playing field and are not
creating conflicting or duplicative obligations or
requirements. The SMART IoT Act will create the first
compendium of essentially who is doing what in the IoT space.
This includes the efforts undertaken by private industry as
well as a review of what agencies are doing.
Removing regulatory barriers to innovation is one of the
most importantduties of this Committee. Doing so allows our
economy to grow, our workers to flourish and our citizens to
benefit. The best way to start is to know what is out there
already or being developed today.
Since January 2017 over three million new jobs have been
created in America. The U.S. unemployment rate is 3.9 percent,
the lowest seen in this country since the year 2000. What's
more, this comes as more Americans rejoin the workforce,
millions once again finding work after years of hardship.
Creating jobs and opportunity is a goal shared by all of us
on this Committee, a fact reflected in the bi-partisan work on
the SMART IoT Act. Chairman Latta and Representative Welch have
been working on these issues for several years now, and I'm
glad to see the progress they have made.
We have made great progress over the last two years in
restoring jobs for American workers, restarting American
manufacturing, and creating opportunities for Americans of all
ages and backgrounds. But there is more work yet to be done.
Legislation such as the draft bill we consider today is one way
that we will continue to fulfill our duty to the American
people to remove barriers to success while promoting policies
that help our workforce.
American ingenuity and leadership is once again
transforming the world.That is something we can all be proud
of. Thank you Chairman Latta for the leadership you have shown,
and thanks as well to all the Members of this Subcommittee.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields
back, and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from New
Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing on the draft SMART Internet of Things Act
is the next step in this subcommittee's review of new and
evolving technological development and I commend Chairman Latta
and Representative Welch for working together over the last
several years to explore and learn how the Internet of Things,
or IoT, can enrich our lives, help us be more efficient, and
grow the U.S. economy.
Today, more and more people have multiple internet-
connected devices in their homes, things like thermostats,
vacuums, and digital personal assistants, and more and more
people are wearing internet-connected devices such as fitness
trackers. But IoT is not limited to consumer products.
Connected devices of all kinds are used in practically every
industry sector like manufacturing, agriculture, and medicine.
We have learned about drones that fly into dangerous areas
to assess hazards, sensors helping farmers understand the
topography acidity of their land, and doctors receiving real-
time data from monitors so that patients in remote areas do not
have to travel for daily appointments.
And today we are considering a bipartisan draft bill that
would direct the Department of Commerce to conduct a
comprehensive study and report on the Internet of Things.
Commerce will survey the industry sectors that make internet-
connected devices as well as all industry sectors that use
those devices. The study will also look at how the Federal
Government oversees the use and development of connected
devices, which agencies deal with the Internet of Things, what
expertise those agencies have, and what entities those agencies
interact with, and the study will identify government resources
available to consumers and small businesses to help them
evaluate connected devices.
The report will provide a one-stop source of how businesses
are integrating connectivity and how the Federal Government is
helping the country adapt to this age of connectivity. Federal
and local government agencies could also use the report to
better coordinate their work and I hope the study will
encourage them to do so. And any report will be a snapshot in
time, but given the integration of IoT into all parts of our
lives in the global economy, the report will provide a jumping-
off point for more work.
I would certainly like to see cybersecurity issues given
more emphasis when we look at IoT. Throughout our review,
cybersecurity was the issue that came up most often.
Cybersecurity is imperative to keeping ourselves and our
country safe from malicious actors.
And I know some stakeholders have asked that cybersecurity
be specifically called out in the study. I would support such a
change. But whether it's made part of the study required by
this bill or not, Congress must take action to ensure that
strong cybersecurity and data security are fundamental to IoT.
So I am glad that this subcommittee is working on this
bipartisan legislation and I'd like to yield the balance of my
time to the sponsor, Congressman Welch.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETER WELCH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much, and I want to thank
Chairman Latta and Ranking Member Schakowsky for this hearing.
It was great to work with Mr. Latta too in the IoT Working
Group--21 members that had hearings in advance.
We are trying to get educated before we pass legislation,
which isn't necessarily how we usually operate. But this is a
huge opportunity with the Internet of Things. McKinsey and
Company did a study and says that it can be between $4 and $11
trillion annually by 2025. So that's really quite
extraordinary.
My colleagues have already spoken about what many of these
opportunities are and also, Ranking Member Schakowsky, I think
pointing out some of the implications that we have to contend
with with labor is really, really important for all of us to
keep in mind.
But I'll just give one example. In Vermont, the brutal
pressure on our dairy farmers right now--the price is down, the
costs are up--and technology is helping some of those farmers
hang on. And Mangan Brothers, a dairy farm in East Fairfield,
Vermont, has a computerized internet-based milking system
that's really been helpful to them. They installed a milking
parlor about two decades ago and now what happens when the cow
comes in they have a pedometer on their leg, and as soon as the
cow crosses the threshold of the milking parlor the sensor
picks up which cow it is and relays the information to the
computer and all the statistics about the cow's movements and
body temperature and other pertinent information is sent to the
computer, and it's even relevant for when the breedings are
done just based on activity spikes. It also gives them a report
at the end of every milking day with respect to the salt
content and that's an indicator that allows the farmers to take
steps to avoid diseases.
So it's a big deal in terms of productivity for them and it
is made possible by the Internet of Things. And just the last
point in my last few seconds, the only way we are going to have
the Internet of Things in rural America is to have broadband in
rural America, and that's another enormous challenge we have
and it's woefully underserved.
So we can talk all we want about the Internet of Things,
but unless we have broadband it's not going to happen.
So I yield back and thank my colleagues for the time.
Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back, and I just want to
say just briefly I really appreciate all the work that you and
I have done on IoT and also not only chairing the working group
but also working together chairing the rural broadband, so I
appreciate all you've been doing and thank you very much.
That now concludes members' opening statements and the
chair now reminds members that pursuant to committee rules, all
members opening statements will be made part of the record.
And, again, I want to thank all of our witnesses for being
with us today. We greatly appreciate you taking the time to
testify before the subcommittee.
Today's witnesses will have the opportunity to give 5-
minute statements followed by a round of questions from our
members.
Our witness panel for today's hearing will include Mr. Tim
Day, the Senior Vice President of the Chamber Technology
Engagement Center at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Ms. Michelle
Richardson, Deputy Director of the Freedom Security and
Technology Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology,
and Dipti Vachani, Vice President of the Internet of Things
Group and General Manager of the Strategy and Solutions
Engineering Division at Intel.
And, again, I want to thank you all for being here today
and Mr. Day, you are recognized for 5 minutes. If you'd just
pull that mic up close and turn the mic on, the microphone is
yours.
STATEMENTS OF TIM DAY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CHAMBER
TECHNOLOGY ENGAGEMENT CENTER, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE;
MICHELLE RICHARDSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FREEDOM, SECURITY, AND
TECHNOLOGY PROJECT, CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY; DIPTI
VACHANI, VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNET OF THINGS GROUP, GENERAL
MANAGER, PLATFORM MANAGEMENT AND CUSTOMER ENGINEERING, INTEL
CORPORATION
STATEMENT OF TIM DAY
Mr. Day. Thank you very much.
Good morning, Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Schakowsky,
and distinguished members of the House Subcommittee of Digital
Commerce and Consumer Protection.
Thank you for the opportunity today to testify about the
Internet of Things. I am Tim Day, Senior Vice President of the
Chamber's Technology Engagement Center, or C 09TEC. The Chamber
established C 09TEC 3 years ago to tell the story of how
technology can empower all Americans. At C 09TEC, we have
focused our work on autonomous vehicles, unmanned aircraft,
telecommunications, and the new economy.
All of these issues and technologies are connected and
supported by the Internet of Things. Everyone participating in
this hearing today is in one way or another one of the nearly
11 billion internet-connected devices projected by Gartner to
be in use today worldwide.
Whether we are streaming this hearing on a smart phone,
whether or not we have asked Amazon, Alexa, or Google Home
directions to the Rayburn House Office Building, or a wearable
counted the number of steps it took to get here, we all have
been connected and our lives are being improved by the Internet
of Things.
Not only does IoT technology directly benefit consumers, it
is also making businesses smarter and more efficient. For
example, the agricultural sector for better crop yields, health
care for improved patient outcomes, and manufacturing for
improved operations and maintenance. One study has shown that
industrial manufacturing IoT spending is predicted to increase
to $890 billion worldwide by 2020. And, of course, government
also stands to benefit from IoT by creating efficiencies in
public services, by finding new value for citizens, enhancing
capabilities, and streamlining processes. IoT may provide a
much-needed answer for agencies seeking to meet increasing
citizen needs with decreasing budgets.
And, Chairman Latta, back home in the Buckeye State,
Columbus, which was awarded the DoT's 2016 Smart Cities
Challenge Grant, is using IoT in research and development to
create smart vehicle technologies. Another study has shown that
wireless providers will invest $275 billion towards building 5G
networks, which will be part of the connectivity backbone of
smart cities and IoT. This investment will add $500 billion in
GDP and 3 million jobs to the American economy. This number
pales in comparison to the $11 trillion worldwide economic
impact that is predicted by 2025 for IoT.
Needless to say, IoT is an economic game changer. The
Chamber's president and CEO, Tom Donohue, has stated that
technology must be embraced as the growth driver and game
changer that it is. That is why it is so critical that the
United States maintain leadership in IoT by adopting the right
regulatory framework.
I would like to suggest a couple of ideas for your
consideration to strike the correct regulatory balance.
Congress and agencies should do more to reduce the regulatory
burdens, compliance costs, and overlap. Government should
evaluate existing regulatory activities and bring together
stakeholders in government industry to shape IoT policy.
Legislation like the DIGIT Act and the draft legislation
today, the SMART IoT Act, are much-needed steps in the right
direction to achieve this goal. Additionally, actions like
those done by the FCC led by Commissioner Carr to streamline
communications siting rules are also to be praised. As IoT is
still in its infancy, policymakers should avoid the temptation
to impose prescriptive regulations on IoT and single out IoT
for regulation for issues such as privacy.
Congress should continue a policy of technology neutrality
and, finally, a skilled workforce will also be critical to the
development of this new technology and investment in human
capital will determine which countries lead, going forward in
this space.
We are currently witnessing a new industrial revolution led
by advanced technology including IoT, which is a force for good
that should be fostered by smart regulatory frameworks that
encourage investment, promote innovation, as well as connect
and empower all Americans.
Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Day follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Ms. Richardson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MICHELLE RICHARDSON
Ms. Richardson. Chairman Latta, Ranking Member Schakowsky,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the
Center for Democracy and Technology.
CDT is a nonprofit technology policy organization dedicated
to protecting civil liberties and human rights in a digital
world including privacy, free speech, and access to
information.
We believe the Internet of Things has the power to enrich
people's lives in ways both big and small. But we also
recognize that the Internet of Things poses unique privacy and
security challenges. Many of these devices collect information
that is intensely personal yet ungoverned by U.S. policy and
privacy law. It has also become common to hear of serious
security breaches which have allowed hackers to use IoT devices
to either steal information or participate as part of a botnet.
CDT's preference for technology policy is for private
industry to voluntarily create and adopt standards. The
government plays an important role in setting standards and
incentivizing good behavior, especially in sectors where
security failures had extreme consequences or in the consumer
market when users don't have a fair shot at understanding or
managing products.
Congress has the authority and the responsibility to
determine whether the current government and private balance is
the right one. We hope this bill will help collect information
to assess that in two ways. First, we hope the SMART IoT Act
will collect information to determine whether voluntary
standards and privacy standards are not only being created
whether they are being adopted by a critical mass of industry
players. Voluntary standards are the default in the IoT space
and billions of devices are up and operating on the internet,
and more are coming. The foundational question we should be
asking is whether this approach is working as a general matter.
Second, the study should tease out any overlap or gaps in
government oversight of these IoT devices. Cross-agency
coordination is crucial to sharing information and will help
make sure that the government is not issuing conflicting
guidance or requirements.
Now, we recommend the bill clearly state that nothing in it
should be interpreted to discourage agencies from continuing
work in critical areas like connected cars or health devices.
Agencies like the FDA and NHTSA are driving standards for
devices or systems that have literal life or death consequences
and that work cannot wait.
While industry deserves an overarching government plan for
IoT, IoT is already too large and too diverse to cabin in a
single agency, and developing sector-specific expertise will
ensure that government involvement is supported by the
technical and policy knowledge needed to make the right
decisions.
After you receive this report, we expect that you will find
that one of the largest gaps in standards and oversight is in
the consumer market. As Ms. Vachani mentions in the IoT report
for Intel, most IoT devices and applications relate to
industrial products, smart cities, and the health industry.
Many of these devices are subject to practical and regulatory
limits already. For example, some of these devices are embedded
in critical infrastructure, which is already regulated writ
large, and some of these devices are really quite simple and do
not collect personal information or offer computing power that
makes them attractive hacking targets. Think of sensors that
only measure water pressure or county the number of cars that
pass through an intersection. The users of these sorts of
devices also are often more sophisticated and the corporate
versus corporate relationship can contractually ensure that IoT
devices continue to work safely.
But the consumer ecosystem does not have many of these
checks and balances. Consumers are stuck in a take it or leave
it system and they will not have the option to leave it much
longer, as connectivity is built into everything. Lay users
just do not have the technical capacity to understand and
control the current crop of IoT devices on the market. They
also have few legal remedies when something does go wrong. If
security fails, devices can be a gateway to stealing personal
information or subject the owner to actual spying. Failures can
harm a person or her property in the real world like smart
locks that can remotely open front doors. And these devices can
be taken over as part of a botnet that can send scam email or,
in the case of the Mirai botnet, take down websites and
internet access, more generally.
In other words, there's a lot at stake in the consumer
market and the current system is just not working. We are
hoping that this committee finds the report to be just the
jumping off point for better oversight of consumer products and
we look forward to working with you and your staff on this
bill.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Richardson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much for your testimony.
Ms. Vachani, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DIPTI VACHANI
Ms. Vachani. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Schakowsky, and
members of the subcommittee.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of
Intel Corporation and I commend you and Congressman Welch for
your leadership on the SMART IoT Act.
First, I would like to turn to the vast benefits of the IoT
and discuss real-life IoT use cases that are relevant to the
committee's jurisdiction. Gartner predicts that IoT technology
will be in 95 percent of electronics for new product design by
2020. The transformational, societal, and economic benefits
that will flow from this broad deployment of IoT technology is
what energizes Intel. And the SMART IoT Act is a welcome
indication that this enthusiasm is matched by this
subcommittee. The IoT is already transforming sectors like
health care, smart cities, and transportation.
I would like to go over a few use cases. Smart health
care--less than .01 percent of patient data is available beyond
the bedside for health care teams to make clinical decisions.
To solve this problem, Medical Informatics, Intel, and Dell
partnered on an FDA-cleared IoT platform called Sickbay.
Sickbay continuously captures patient data from the bedside
medical devices and transforms it into actionable intelligence.
This enables care teams to make better and fast decisions and
predict patient deterioration before it occurs. In the last 4
1A\1/2\ years, Texas Children's Hospital used Sickbay to
improve health care for 2.1 million patients.
Smart cities--92 percent of the world's population lacks
access to clean air and leading to millions of deaths annually.
To address this, Intel and Bosch developed IoT-powered
pollution monitoring systems that provide intelligent data and
enable real-time analysis. These IoT systems are used by
governments to improve air quality in congested cities like
Pune, India, by factory owners to track emissions and provide
safety checks for all workers, by construction site managers to
provide air quality warnings and improve efficiency, and by
cities to provide residents with recommended times for
exercising outdoors.
Use case number three, transportation--as the subcommittee
is aware, the impact of autonomous vehicles will be life
changing, particularly in our disabled community and aging
population. The number of U.S. residents aged 78 and older will
increase by 53.7 million by 2030, compared to just 30.9 million
in 2014. Many of these residents live in communities with poor
or no public transportation. AVs will offer vastly improved
mobility benefits. Intel applauds the committee's leadership on
AV.
Next, I would like to offer Intel's strong support for the
SMART IoT Act and respectfully offer recommendations to enhance
the legislation. Nations are racing to lead in this competitive
IoT sector. It has been Intel's strong desire that the Federal
Government be more proactive in ensuring U.S. IoT leadership in
declaring the U.S. the IoT a national priority for the
innovation in investment and competitiveness.
We applaud the subcommittee for its bipartisan work to set
America on its leadership path by ensuring an IoT study and
recommendations to promote IoT adoptions to grow our economy.
I was on the Hill last October to unveil a broadly
supported industry report on IoT. Intel recommendations to the
SMART IoT reflect this report. First, we urge the subcommittee
to include a robust definition in IoT that is nonproprietary,
neutral regarding technologies and applications, and
contemplates both the consumer and the industrial IoT. In fact,
industrial, smart city, and connected health will make up 70
percent of the use cases.
Second, we urge you to seek specific recommendations that
would be highly impactful on laying the groundwork for the
national IoT strategy. This includes recommendations on
incentives for the Federal Government and agencies to adopt IoT
technologies to advance their Federal mission including smart
infrastructure solutions. How the Federal Government can best
support global industry-led IoT standard efforts and avoid new
regulations that duplicate existing industry standards and a
criteria for the Federal Government to invest in IoT public-
private partnerships and testbeds.
Thank you for the opportunity to share Intel's thoughts on
the SMART IoT Act. We look forward to working with you to see
this bipartisan bill enacted into law--that first step towards
a national IoT strategy--and ensure U.S. leadership in this
transformational sector.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Vachani follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Latta. Well, again, I want to thank our witnesses for
being with us today. We really appreciate your testimony, and
that will conclude our testimony from our witnesses and we'll
begin our questioning from our members, and I will recognize
myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Day, do you believe a compendium of all current Federal
action on IoT-related issues will help promote interagency
collaboration and consistent federal action?
Mr. Day. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, I think what
we've heard is that the Internet of Things holds incredible
promise for our economy and the quality of life for citizens.
I do. I think the draft that we have before us today helps
with increased transparency and how government regulates this
technology in a better way.
We are firm believers that the government should make data
available and complying a list of Federal policies that affect
IoT, I believe, would go a long way in enabling the companies
that we are working with at the Chamber and others and
especially also small and startup companies to understand the
regulatory environment that we are faced with today.
Mr. Latta. Yes, let me ask you about that right there
because I know that when my friend from Vermont and I were
doing our Working Group meetings--and actually we had them
right here in this room--it didn't make any difference if
you're from the East Coast, the West Coast, the Midwest, what
type you're in, as Ms. Vachani was talking about, from
everything from health care to manufacturing to FinTech, you
name it.
There was one thing that we heard from everyone--that we
needed to make sure that we have a soft touch regulation out
there so people can be out there innovating and it's no--we
didn't hear anybody ever say that they were against regulations
but not to have anything that was over burdensome that they
couldn't go out and regulate.
When you're talking about these smaller companies out
there, could you talk to me or talk to the committee a little
bit about what you have heard from them some of the major
hurdles that they're facing right now or things that need to be
overcome?
Mr. Day. Absolutely, and I think what's exciting about this
is that this does impact middle America, the coasts. Everyone,
as you said, is impacted by this and I think when you're a
small business and a startup, and my focus at the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce in the emerging technology space, it is just that.
It's emerging. It's changing by the day.
We are still learning what the technology means and so I
think there needs to be a structure but not too prescriptive in
the approach and, you know, quite frankly, business leaders and
new startups and entrepreneurs are looking to run their
businesses with the support of the government but not being
told exactly how to do it because we are still working on the
benefits and how this actually applies to the companies that we
are working with.
And so I think what business leaders want to know is give
me the ability to invest, to be able to take my idea to the
next step but don't regulate me so much that I am not able to
produce quality results and in the end be successful as a
startup.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Ms. Vachani, again, I would like to turn a question to you
now. What are some of the IoT applications that Intel is
focused on and can you explain how those applications benefit
the economy and jobs?
And, again, I was very interested because I know you were
going through the health care, the manufacturing, the
transportation, and construction, but if you could get a little
bit more in depth with that I would appreciate it.
Ms. Vachani. Absolutely. So we have over 500 market-ready
solutions that we work with the industry to create because one
of the common misconceptions about IoT it's vertical, right.
You have a retail solution and you have an industrial
solution, and honestly, when you look across the board, our
customers are looking at solutions that go across multiple
industries.
And so there are multi-industry solutions. They don't
necessarily sit in one nice little box as a vertical, and so
you will see an industrial environment where they're trying to
do predictive maintenance at the same time as inventory
management, the same time as building management, and you see
several different vertical like solutions coming together into
one application.
And we believe that the maximum benefit is when these
solutions start to come together. One of the areas that I want
to reflect on is that the U.S. is actually a leader worldwide
in our innovation that we have in IoT.
So you will see solutions overseas that have Intel or other
companies within the United States technology, our AI
applications, our software, that are driving innovation around
the world, and that's expanding our economy just the same
because that's created here in the United States.
It's built here by us and by our companies that are
innovating at a faster rate.
Mr. Latta. In my last 24 seconds follow up with that
because, again, it's good to hear the United States is leading
on this. What's happening across the globe that is making the
United States be the innovator out there?
Ms. Vachani. Well, I think that what we come down to is we
have some companies here that are able to look at these
solutions like Intel, truly, and that goes from the data center
all the way to the thing.
And so we can look at this problem holistically and that's
important that we do that, as well as some of the new
technologies that we come up with with specifically integrated
circuits as well as the software and artificial intelligence
and the leadership in artificial intelligence within this
country.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. My time has expired
and I yield back, and I recognize the gentlelady from Illinois,
the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you.
Connected devices can follow us through every aspect of our
lives, collecting data. At the same time, the committee has
spent a lot of time looking at how the data collected about us
is used by companies and by the government.
We heard from Facebook about how much data it collects, how
it shared that data with third parties, and how it used our
data to sell advertising. As more and more devices collect data
about us, that data can be used to affect our decision making.
So, Ms. Richardson, let me ask you some questions. While
IoT devices provide benefits, are you concerned about their
data collection?
Ms. Richardson. Absolutely. The way the U.S. works its
privacy law is to do it categorically, to cover, for example,
communications, financial data, health information held by
doctors, and if you don't fall into one of these categories
you're just not protected and there are very few, if any,
limits on how the information can be collected and used.
It's going to be possible that a lot of these IoT devices
are going to collect data that is not covered by one of these
categories already and that would be one of the benefits of
having a baseline comprehensive privacy law in the United
States as we would not have so many cracks and you would see
the IoT data have some procedural rights for Americans.
Ms. Schakowsky. I would like to work with you on that.
Five years ago, we were barely talking about location data
or facial recognition and now we are talking about genetic
information also.
Ms. Richardson, should we be concerned about what personal
information is out there and how the kinds of personal
information available to collect change over time?
Ms. Richardson. Yes. The information that is collected by
these devices is really unique. You only have to go back a few
years before we widely collected things, like you mentioned,
that reflect, let's say, your heartbeat, your location, the
food you eat, where you go, the people you know, and it can all
be aggregated in ways that give a very rich picture about
people in ways that they might be shocked to know.
I think one of the things you saw at your hearing with
Facebook is that the surprise factor is really what upsets
people in many ways.
So this is something we need to watch more closely and,
hopefully, a universal privacy law would be able to protect
that sort of really sensitive information right now.
Ms. Schakowsky. So it's clear that privacy legislation is
absolutely necessary. I like the way you talk about it in a
nonsiloed way.
In fact, the Federal Trade Commission has recommended many
times that Congress enact comprehensive privacy legislation.
Ms. Richardson, again, the SMART IoT Act would examine how
different industries are using and developing IoT. Could such a
resource be helpful in the development of best practices for
privacy and IoT devices?
Ms. Richardson. Yes. I think that would help us get a
better view of where the industry is going. I think you're
going to find, though, that there are very few when it comes to
privacy and for the most part the standards are about
interoperability, technical standards, and cybersecurity, and
you're going to find a really big gap here.
Ms. Schakowsky. So the FTC recommended in the past that
privacy legislation should not be IoT specific. Do you agree
with that?
Ms. Richardson. Absolutely. We want a forward-looking tech-
neutral law that will be able to cover all sorts of information
regardless of the type of device or entity that's creating it.
Ms. Schakowsky. So Mr. Day said that one of the things that
we need to worry about is too much regulation standing in the
way. Don't you think there's a balance, though, of making sure
that we set some rules of the road, some guidelines that
industry needs to follow?
Ms. Richardson. Yes, and in a way those can drive
innovations themselves. You end up having requirements that
inspire new solutions to protect privacy and security.
And CDT does believe in a light touch but there are a few
places that government intervention--or oversight is maybe a
better word--is most urgent and that's where you look at things
like cars or pacemakers and devices that really have life or
death consequences if something goes wrong, and I think we are
seeing the consumer market is just an area where everyday
people are not able to make informed decisions about the
devices they're buying, the information that's collected and
then how to secure the devices.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Costello. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to sort of continue down that path of consumer-
facing devices and speak a little bit more about being a small
business owner or a startup, and approaching the infrastructure
purchase questions from an adequate security measure
perspective.
In what direction do we need to head--and it may not be
necessarily government, it may just be more industry--in what
direction do we have to head in order to make sure that we are
getting it right.
A rather open-ended question, but why don't I start with
you, Ms. Richardson?
Ms. Richardson. As far as security standards go, we have
endorsed tech-neutral cybersecurity controls. So these are
really top-level decisions that both the manufacturers and the
operators can make.
So, for example, when you're building a device you should
always have the capacity to update the software, right, and you
could say that without getting a really prescriptive
technology, description of how to do that and each company can
decide how to do that.
And there is a list of maybe a half dozen of these sorts of
practices that I think are reasonably set as the baseline and
they include other things like being able to have passwords or
other authenticators that can be changed and things like that.
Mr. Costello. Following through on that, steps or
approaches that small and medium enterprises can utilize to
overcome concerns or difficulties relating to the system
integration side of IoT solutions, to--go ahead.
Ms. Richardson. Can you repeat the question about system
integration?
Mr. Costello. Small and medium enterprises, overcoming
their concerns or difficulties relating to system integration
of IoT solutions. If you're a really big company, integrating
is very easy. If you're a small----
Ms. Richardson. Not actually. It's actually difficult
either way.
Honestly, the number-one challenge for IoT right now is
scale. Scale is very difficult, right, and even with a company
as large as, you would say, Intel, if you look at our market-
ready solutions, rarely do we have a solution that only
involves Intel. There is others. There's Dell involved--as I
mentioned, many of our solutions--Bosch was involved.
And so you're talking about multiple companies coming
together to include a complete solution and for a small or
medium-sized company that gets even more difficult, right. And
this is where the industry standards come into play because
when we start to create standards that are interoperable and
that we know work together that a small or medium-sized company
can create a piece and we know that that piece will work with
the rest of the system.
And Intel and many other companies--we were here with
Samsung--are working across the industry to help those
standards get deployed and become more consistent
interoperable.
Mr. Costello. So when you use the term scale there, what
are you saying?
Ms. Richardson. What I mean by scale there is we are able
to create--I will give you an example. We'll create a proof of
concept inside of the walls of Intel in our building and it
will look beautiful and work perfectly.
It'll have the in system, the data center. It'll have the
store, let's say. It'll do inventory management. As soon as I
take that out of my office inside of Intel and try to put into
a Levi's store or I try to put it inside of a mall, now it's
working with everything else around it and that's when we
struggle, because there's other systems. There's old data.
There's new data. Maybe the infrastructure is there. Maybe they
have connectivity. Maybe they don't.
And so that becomes more difficult for us to deploy and
then think about thousands and then add millions to that,
right. And that's where we struggle with being able to take
that technology and deploy it into multiple instances across
the world.
Mr. Costello. That's helpful. You were speaking about
industry standards, and depending upon what industry we are
talking about--health care, manufacturing, whatever it may be--
the place that you go for that industry standard to make its
way into code or regulation or whatever the case may be is
oftentimes different.
Share with me challenges or frustrations in navigating
Federal regulatory agencies to determine IoT industry standards
and how we could go about improving that.
Ms. Richardson. Well, one, I would encourage----
Mr. Costello. That's a question for everyone.
Ms. Richardson. Yes. I can start. One, I would encourage
you to look at the industry standards that are already
available to us because the industry is starting to coalesce
around a few standards that go across multiple industries.
Again, we are not saying this is just for industrial or
environment or it's just for retail. This is how we collect
data across the board and that could be a standard.
So I would encourage you to look, and I think that's part
of the recommendations here, is to look at what the industry is
already doing and leverage that because we have come across
together in this space, and I will allow you guys some time.
Mr. Latta. Yes. Since the gentleman's time has expired, if
you all could just real briefly answer that would be great.
Mr. Day. Well, I think what we are doing today in
discussing is the right first step. I think between the DIGIT
Act and what we are doing with the legislation in draft form
today is that first step and it's the right approach to some of
these issues that we are discussing and bringing forward today.
Thank you.
Mr. Latta. Would you like to comment? OK, thank you very
much.
Mr. Costello. Yield back.
Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back. His time has expired.
And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from California
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Chairman Latta and
Ranking Member Schakowsky, for having his important hearing and
I would like to thank the witnesses for coming forward and
enlightening us as to what's going on out there in the real
world.
My background is in engineering. I got my electrical
engineering degree from UCSB back in the days when we used
punch cards in our programming, your technical you lack.
So I think a lot has changed, but I think that many of us
do welcome these changes, and having said that I think that
public policy needs to make sure that we are mindful of this
fast-moving effort of the Internet of Things and how it affects
individuals' privacy, how it affects industries, how it affects
jobs, how it affects the jobs of today and tomorrow, and how do
we get American workers ready and prepared to be the workers of
today and tomorrow.
These are the kinds of things that weigh on my mind. During
my careers, I actually owned a small business at one time so I
know what it's like for a small business to be able to pull
something off the shelf in a very efficient cost-effective
manner and I think the Internet of Things is making that much
more efficient every single day and making smaller businesses,
especially mom and pops a heck of a lot more competitive.
Wherein, the old days, maybe back in my days in the '80s
and '90s when I was a business owner, everything was in maybe
fives and tens of thousands of dollars to get an innovative
device. Now, it appears that we can actually get an innovative
device that changes and allows us to be more efficient and hire
more individuals and grow our business to the tune of hundreds
of dollars. Is that correct? Do we have devices out there that
maybe 20 years ago to innovate were in the thousands of dollars
and today it might be only a few hundred?
Can one of you give me an example of something that you can
think of that actually touches on that?
Ms. Vachani. Absolutely. If you think about, for example,
the building management that was in New York, the deployment
that we did, those were sensors that were not very expensive.
We are talking sensors that are dollars on--as it is, and
they can look into a room and save a small business on their
costs--their infrastructure costs by looking at occupancy
inside of a room and deciding that the AC needs to be turned on
because no one's in the room. This isn't expensive technology
from that standpoint but it's changing the way we live and the
way we operate within our businesses and saving us cost, right.
One of the major ways that this building in New York was
able to save money is we found a leak in one of their pipes.
Again, we are talking about a sensor that's able to determine
that there's a leak in a pipe and will waste, right, and they
were able to reduce that cost.
And so from that standpoint, innovation isn't necessarily
requiring extensive amount of investment but there are ways
where we can start to make decisions very quick when this data
comes together.
Mr. Cardenas. Ms. Richardson, I have a question for you
about consumer applications and how do you think the Internet
of Things devices are being used inside manufacturing
workplaces?
I happen to represent a community in Los Angeles that has a
big corridor of manufacturing, tens of thousands of
manufacturing jobs in my district.
Ms. Richardson. Yes, and I think it's still unknown how
this is going to affect the workforce on balance, right. You're
going to create new jobs of the people who actually have to
create the devices, and we hope that a strong privacy and
security practice will create professionals to deal with that
also.
I think there are questions to ask about whether they will
replace human beings on the job. But there will always be
decisions that human beings have to make that we can't let
computers do.
So I don't think it will eradicate humans altogether.
Mr. Cardenas. Well, on that note, there are things such as
smart helmets and smart glasses that now can be deployed in the
workplace, and do you have any comments about how these devices
might to affecting somebody's privacy in the workplace?
Ms. Richardson. Yes, and peoples' privacy in the workplace
is much more limited than in their home or out in public. This
is long established that employers can really control the type
of information that they're collecting on their property and
while they're conducting their services.
I think, though, when you see a lot of these sorts of
applications they don't have to necessarily collect a lot of
personal information, right.
This is where, again, the controls built into the products
on the front end are important so that you can collect the
information necessary for your work but not, let's say, what
they do on their breaks or the conversations they're having or
things that are really not core to doing the job.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you. Mr. Welch talked about the cow and
I was thinking, wow, I hope that cow is not creeped out about
the privacy about every time she walks into the barn.
[Laughter.]
But, Ms. Vachani, I know Intel has been active on the
connected worker's front and arguing that they keep workers
safe and productive. Can you give us an example of that?
Ms. Vachani. Absolutely. Actually, there's a really good
example with a fireman which resonates with me, right. By
connecting a fireman that goes inside a building we now know--
by the sensors we can tell what is the oxygen level around him,
or her, if the firewoman--the fireman is laying down or
standing up, what exact location they're in within the building
if they're laying down.
These are opportunities for us to save lives of some of our
workers that are working in critical conditions. I think it's
essential.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
And I am sure they only have happy cows in Vermont.
The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California for
5 minutes.
Mrs. Walters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Day, do you believe that a review of all regulations
guidelines standards and other policy efforts undertaken by
Federal agencies is important and do you think it will assist
us in ensuring consistent policy of Internet of Things-related
matters?
Mr. Day. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
Yes, I do. I think the SMART IoT Act, by studying all
sectors of the IoT and how they regulate technology and current
policies will go a long way in cutting down overly burdensome
regulations and duplicative regulation as well.
I think when you're looking at the broad spectrum of
applications here it's critical when you're looking at the
impact on self-driving cars to getting a patient through a
hospital more efficiently, cost effectively.
It's all important, and I think the legislation before us
today will streamline that process and benefit by, frankly,
everyone.
Mrs. Walters. OK. Thank you.
And Ms. Vachani, can you please discuss the benefits to a
connected world both for business like Intel as well as
consumers who use Internet of Things products?
Ms. Vachani. There's multiple benefits through the Internet
of Things. Whether it be more efficiency inside of a factory,
so predictive maintenance is a very simple use case that we use
in factories that allow us to determine if a machine is going
down sooner than it actually does go down and that'll prevent
the down time for the factory, right.
This is a fundamental analytics that has changed how
efficient our factories can be. Let's think of retail where one
of the number-one determinations of success or how they lose
customers is because the item you're looking for isn't there.
So you go in for a pair of jeans, you don't have your size,
you leave, you forget. That's important that we understand what
people are looking for and that we have the inventory ready for
them and that we understand what inventory you have. Inventory
loss is a major loss for our retail businesses, especially
brick and mortar businesses.
And then I would also look at cities and how cities are
using technologies to do gunshot detection at intersections or
monitoring the environment as far as air quality is concerned.
And that data enables us to decide if the changes we are
making--let's say we have in India electric rickshaws. Are they
actually having an impact on our air quality and to make wise
decisions based on data rather than hypotheses that we are
making things better?
Mrs. Walters. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Day, as we continue to advance toward an increasingly
connected world, some have expressed concerns with protecting
consumer information.
These are vitally important concerns, yet we also must
acknowledge that Internet of Things devices in a connected
world provide substantial societal benefits.
Can you speak to how we can protect consumer information
without losing the upside to a more connected world?
Mr. Day. I think it's obvious that the Chamber believes
that consumers deserve to have their personal data respected by
the companies and it's important that we are mindful of that,
going forward.
I think the other thing that I mentioned in my opening
statement was that technology is not a single all-powerful
industry and that I think it's important that this is a part of
every industry.
And when we are looking at the Internet of Things, I think
it's something that we need to be mindful of but not directly
linking the privacy issue to this legislation, as we go
forward. But I think it is something, as we've all testified
to, that it's important and we need to be considering what data
means now, because data is being created in massive amounts and
how that is handles is truly important.
And I think that's one of the areas where the Chamber is
doing a lot of work and you will be hearing more from us on
some of the importance of privacy principles, going forward, as
a result of some of the discussions that we've been hearing in
Washington lately.
Mrs. Walters. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Vachani, as you may know, this committee is very
focused on the advancement of self-driving cars. Your testimony
discusses the enormous benefit of increased mobility that
autonomous vehicles will provide for aging and disabled
populations.
Can you expand on this and discuss the role Internet of
Things plays?
Ms. Vachani. Autonomous vehicles, what the connection back
to an aging population is if you don't have public
transportation for someone to get to the hospital or someone to
get to where they want to go for a social benefit, let's say,
and having more independence for our elderly population, a
vehicle that is autonomous is safer for them to get from point
A to point B and that enables them the flexibility and the
independence that we want for our elderly population.
Mrs. Walters. OK. Thank you.
And I am out of time. Thank you.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back.
And the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to Ranking
Member Schakowsky for the leadership on this issue and to
everybody for being here.
I think that it's safe to say that we do have agreement on
both sides of the aisle about the significant and revolutionary
things that the Internet of Things is bringing to industry and
consumers, and you all have certainly talked today about
examples where it's already making a difference.
But I continue to have a reservation that's been expressed
by a number of other of my colleagues. As we compare the rise
of IoT to the development of the internet that the internet
thrived because of the light regulatory touch used and I think
we are not paying enough attention to security and privacy.
So I have to already say to you, Mr. Day, before I even ask
you my questions to say that we should deal with privacy is not
something that I am going to be comfortable with because I
think that the technology--that the Facebook hearings have
showed people had no idea of the amount of data that was being
tracked and there isn't security on how that information is
being used and we are not protecting even the privacy of an
individual.
So I won't go off on that right now. But I had to respond
to that comment. But I would like to ask a few questions.
Ms. Richardson, in a market that's rapidly evolving, how
have you seen companies balancing getting to the market first
with protecting security?
Ms. Richardson. Yes. We often see that privacy and security
is what fall short here, and a lot of these controls that are
considered to be best practices are not hard from a technical
matter.
For example, a couple of years ago the BitTag--the
broadband internet technical advisory group--put out a report
with a list of maybe 5 to 10 things that were of utmost
priority like encryption, right, making sure that the data
collected was protected in transit in storage, avoiding hard-
coded passwords--this is one of the problems with the Mirai
botnet, right. All of those cameras were accessible with the
same password the hackers knew and they were able to get all
these cameras.
And if you meet some of these baseline best practices
you're going to lift all boats, right. It's not going to solve
every problem but it will certainly give us herd immunity as
users of all these different devices.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you.
Ms. Vachani, on the consumer side, have you seen privacy
being designed into these products before they're hitting the
market?
Ms. Vachani. Yes. Actually, I will tell you and hope to
give you confidence that the security and privacy is utmost
imperative when we are designing a solution--where we store
data, how that data is transmitted, and we look at that as a
fundamental premise as we are integrating these solutions, and
we make decisions that are different.
We may store data locally because it makes it easier for us
to be able to protect it. And so these criterias are absolutely
in the solutions that we create and we--if you look at the
solution that we had with regards to the health care
monitoring, that's FDA approved and we follow all HIPAA laws,
right. We enable our silicon so that our solution developers
are able to follow HIPAA laws.
Mrs. Dingell. So not to be sarcastic, but as someone who
has been hacked at least 15 times, every one of the major ones,
and that's one of the difficulties is once that hack occurs--
once that data is obtained by somebody you can't put the genie
back into the bottle.
Mr. Day, I know your organization is concerned and
apprehensive about regulations, as you expressed it. But one of
my concerns is going to build right on what I just said--that
down the road there will be these massive data breaches that we
keep seeing or an abuse of privacy.
We'll convene a hearing. The witnesses will be questioned.
Everybody will express outrage and concern, but the damage will
have already been done, which was one on Facebook, which I just
talked about.
Do you think it would be helpful to develop some clear
rules of the road for companies now so we can try to mitigate
this for the future?
Mr. Day. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question.
And to answer you directly, yes, I firmly believe that and
I think I would like to suggest that the offer is extended to
work with you and your office on these issues.
In fact, the Chamber is currently going through a process
right now on developing privacy principles that we will be
working with Congress on.
And so I think probably earlier than later, to be engaging
with you and your staff would be a great opportunity.
I will tell you, again, that I firmly believe consumers
deserve to have their personal data respected by companies that
they're working with and I think that it's critical though that
we strike that proper regulatory balance that protects
consumers while promoting the technology that we all use every
day and appreciate.
Mrs. Dingell. That's one of the biggest challenges in this
committee.
I know I am out of time, Mr. Chairman, but it would be
interesting for the record to get what principles they are
coalescing around that you mentioned earlier in your testimony.
I think it would be useful for all of us.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky for 5
minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much. It's great to be here.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for having all the witnesses
here. We've had some really interesting hearings in this space.
The other day we did quantum computing, which I am still trying
to figure out.
The guy said, well, I will make it simple for you--it's
like flipping a coin and getting heads or tails is normal. In
the quantum world you can flip a coin and get heads and tails
at the same time. So that really made it simple for me. I've
been thinking about that all weekend, trying to figure out what
he actually meant. That's how he explained it.
But it is good that we are getting to a work product out of
this so it's important. So that's what I want to focus on today
and hopefully things I can understand.
So, Mr. Day, can you briefly explain while voluntary
industry-led, globally recognized, and consensus-based
processes for Internet of Things standards are so critical and
could you name some examples of industry-led efforts that are
currently taking place?
Mr. Day. So with this legislation is, as I testified to, I
think is an important first step and I think by having certain
standards set and compiling information again by all industries
and sectors will benefit all of us and that I think the
benefits both to consumers, to industrial, and to government
are very clear and, you know, it's everything from keeping a
global competitive lead on other countries and that this
country needs to continue to be the leader in technology and,
again, I think, it's a great attribution to what the
subcommittee and full committee has done on a bipartisan basis
on self-driving cars to the health care applications that we've
discussed.
So there's a whole host and wide variety of areas where
this is a true benefit and, again, fully support the draft
legislation and the DIGIT Act as well. We have come out in
support of that early on and hope to work with the committee,
going forward, on passing the legislation.
Mr. Guthrie. Thanks. And so, Ms. Richardson, why do you
believe compiling a list of industry standard-setting efforts
under the SMART IoT Act will be a critical part of helping to
inform future congressional action?
Ms. Richardson. Yes, and we would go one step further to
say the list should also come with an estimation of whether the
standards are being estimated. We don't want you to come back
or get a report back that has a thousand standards listed
because the next question is going to be well, are these being
implemented, right--who's using these and are they working.
That's the logical question and I think that's what Congress,
advocates, industry is dancing around at this moment--is that
process working?
So I would recommend to include that analysis top and that
would help you figure out where you really want to focus your
efforts, going forward.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thank you.
And Ms. Vachani, we've heard in the past hearings about the
critical need for security and good cyber hygiene both in
production lines for IoT devices and within the Federal
Government.
What are you doing at Intel to safeguard IoT devices and
networks from hacking vulnerabilities and what can small to
mid-size businesses do to take meaningful steps to address data
security concerns?
Ms. Vachani. So if I look at Intel's contribution here, our
security is fundamentally written into the silicon development.
So it's in hardware, its software. It's in the connectivity. So
we think of silicon across the board and we think of security
across the board.
One of the areas that you talked about was software
defined, right. As security standards start to change or as we
learn more can we reprogram our devices--can we update those?
And so that's included in our assumptions.
So we enable the industry through not only hardware but
software security to be able to implement the best known
security that we know at this point in our space.
So absolutely paramount in what we do.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thank you.
I know you mentioned earlier--and I had another hearing but
I heard you mention earlier--scale. But could you name what you
see as other potential impediments to deployment of IoT and
what we should be aware of, going forward?
Ms. Vachani. Well, we've talked quite a bit about standards
and one thing I want to make sure we make the point of is these
standards are international, and so scale is just not within
the United States.
I would like for us to be competitive internationally and
having these standards that were global allows us to provide
technology to other countries and export our great experience
that we have here.
And so I believe the interoperability and enabling us to be
competitive internationally and taking advantage of these
international standards will be important for us to be
successful.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, and thank you for your testimony. I
appreciate it. It's a little more understandable for someone
like me. I asked the guy how could you flip a coin and get
both.
Ms. Vachani. I have no idea.
Mr. Guthrie. He says, it's like putting it in a box and the
box is continually spinning and that really is the clue.
[Laughter.]
This is coming from a guy who's never solved the golf peg
game at Cracker Barrel. So we'll figure it out.
Thanks a lot. I appreciate it, and I yield back.
Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California for 5
minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
and the ranking member for having this hearing today and I want
to thank the witnesses very much for being here.
I've discussed the potential block chain applications with
the subcommittee before including its possibility to allow
spectrum sharing as next-generation broadband networks are
deployed. As you all know, block chain is a decentralized
accounting technology that verifies transactions through a
shared ledger system. When a transaction and a block chain is
completed, that transaction is verified against a ledger stored
on each computer in the network. The IoT and connected devices
will facilitate a significant expansion of data transactions
likely between multiple different networks and block chain
could be used to verify and secure these transactions.
Is there an opportunity for this legislation to more
precisely explore how new technologies could facilitate the
secure advancement of internet-connected devices? And anyone on
the panel can answer that.
Mr. Day. I will take a first attempt at answering that
question. And I agree with you--I think block chain is
certainly an area where IoT will offer a lot of benefit.
At the Chamber we are just now beginning to work on our
FinTech work and we are calling on members to help us
understand the benefits. And so I think there are a number of
ways that we should be looking at this.
I think the legislation as drafted, though, is the correct
step. It allows for technologies like block chain and others to
progress.
But as we are understanding the technology and the benefits
thereof we can continue to work with you and other members of
Congress on implementing certain regulations as appropriate
facing the technology.
Ms. Matsui. Anyone else?
Ms. Vachani. Block chain is absolutely a technology that
Intel is looking at and one that can be used in IoT
applications, so a really good connection there.
I think, though, one of the points that you made when you
kicked off as you're looking 5 to 10 years out and you have the
benefit of doing so, and so today it's block chain and tomorrow
it could be something even more revolutionary and that's why
it's important that we consider this not from a very
technology-specific standpoint but you're more holistically as
to what's necessary for us to be successful, regardless of the
implementation technology.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Narrow band IoT networks are particularly
useful for long-range low-power applications. Specifically,
these networks improve capacity, spectrum efficiency, and power
consumption levels of user devices.
Narrow band IoT networks have potential both nationwide and
particularly for rural and indoor coverage. These networks can
coexist with commercial mobile networks and their propagation
characteristics could provide better range and reduce coverage
costs for consumers in both rural areas and across the country.
Anyone on the panel--what role do narrow band networks have
in the IoT ecosystem from a spectrum efficiency cost and
deployment perspective?
Ms. Vachani. I think narrow band is going to help with--
there are several elements in narrow band that makes IoT
applications you have already referred to--it's lower cost,
lower power, and a longer--which enables longer battery life.
So think about we currently have an application where we
are sensing the environment for a case of strawberries, right.
We want to make sure the humidity is right. We want to make
sure the temperature is right. Narrow band allows for that
connectivity--the continuous connectivity while extending the
battery life and not increasing the cost of something that we'd
want to do with a pack of strawberries.
Also understand that when you move to the world of 5G, now
all of this comes together. So now we have a narrow band
spectrum. 5G includes all of those spectrums--will enable us to
be able to pull this together as a complete solution.
It revolutionizes how we think of connectivity and our
spectrums because narrow band is included as well as low
latency as well as high bandwidth.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Great.
Anyone else want to comment on that?
OK. Spectrum is the invisible infrastructure and
Congressman Guthrie and I are working on this. It underpins our
communications infrastructure and adequate supply is necessary
to realize the potential on next-generation broadband networks
and the IoT. Specifically, agencies should have access to funds
made available for engineering research that could lead to the
repurposing of spectrum for commercial use.
What role will next-generation networks play in our IoT
strategy and how would delivering more spectrum to commercial
users help?
Ms. Vachani. I would summarize it into one word, which is
interoperability. If you think about a wider spectrum analysis,
so 5G enables low spectrum as well as low latency high
bandwidth, and now you have that on one network.
And so you're able to include all of those. Remember I said
that it's not very much a vertical solution. We have all kinds
of pieces that are coming together into an IoT solution, which
can vary in spectrum and once we have a solution that
encompasses all those spectrums now it makes deployments easier
for our customers, thus enabling scale, which we----
Ms. Matsui. OK. I've run out of time, so thank you very
much.
Ms. Vachani. Thank you.
Ms. Matsui. Yield back.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentlelady's time has
expired and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from West
Virginia for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize to
the panel--that we've got a hearing going on downstairs so we
are back and forth in between them, and perhaps I've missed
some of your testimony that targeted what my questions were.
But I want to begin with saying that I am going to start by
assuming you have all read Case's book, ``The Third Wave.'' Two
out of three have. I was fascinated with that book--that the
possibilities of where we might go long term, it was mentioned
about the refrigerator that could speak to you, your clothing
could tell you how your--whether your wellness.
Those were all in the long terms. I am somewhat interested
in the short term, however, and that is, is there anyone--can
you tell me from the three experiences we have up here, is
there something in the pipeline of the IoT that might indicate
the propensity of an area to have a problem with opioid abuse?
I know some people have--or they've talked about doing it,
to be able to develop where that might be. But is there anyone
that you know of that's actually got something close to
fruition that we could do this? Because we are getting, as we
all know, nationally getting hit pretty hard with this and we
don't know where the next problem is going to crop up until
after. We are reacting rather than being proactive.
So I am curious to see with the Internet of Things in a
short term is there someone developing software that might be
able to identify where the next problem could crop up?
Ms. Vachani. Yes. Actually, Intel is working exactly on
that problem, concerning the monitoring of medicine and the
ability to know exactly where that medicine is going--is it
going to the right person, monitoring how many tablets are
there and knowing exactly who's taking those--having some
facial detection--who's picking up those tablets.
And so absolutely. I believe that you have made a very
relevant connection, and thank you for that.
Mr. McKinley. What's the time--do you have a sense of----
Ms. Vachani. We are seeing an implementation immediately,
and it's an evolution over time. We are not going to have
facial detection immediately at all of our pharmacies but it'd
be interesting.
It's an evolution over time but we are seeing
implementations right away in which we can start to monitor
medicine better. It's just a matter of is it getting to the
right person, how many, and are the right people taking it.
So you think about in the opiate but you can also think
about it with elderly patients as well, right, or making sure
they are taking their medicines on time.
Mr. McKinley. That may be a worry but, again, the
propensity, this community may be hit hard next. That's what I
am looking for as well.
The fact that there could be some software that says the
drugs--20 million pills are going to one pharmacy, that ought
to trigger something.
Ms. Vachani. Right.
Mr. McKinley. But in the meantime, are there socioeconomic
barriers that we need to break down?
So, Mr. Day, you look like you were going to contribute to
this conversation.
Mr. Day. So yes, at the Chamber, Congressman, we have been
looking at economic situations across the country and that
impact of joblessness and how communities have been impacted by
this plight and looking at ways that we can start to examine
the linkage between the two.
And I think to the point on monitoring pill bottles and
knowing times of when they're taken and monitoring who are
getting their prescriptions, et cetera, those are things that
are happening now but there is a lot more to be done.
Mr. McKinley. Well, if I could on that, because you touched
on something I am kind of sensitive to is the socioeconomic--
household income, education level.
Some will use that as the excuse for why West Virginia is
leading the Nation in opioid overdose but number two, until
last year, was New Hampshire, and New Hampshire has polar
opposites on that. It has one of the highest household income.
It has the highest education level, and on and on and on, with
good socioeconomics.
So I think there's something separating the two between us.
So I am just curious if someone's developing something more
sophisticated than just going on socioeconomics.
Mr. Day. I am not personally aware, to be honest with you.
But I think it would be an opportunity for us to work together
as we continue our work with the Chamber and working with our
member companies on various technologies, and I would be happy
to do that.
Mr. McKinley. I would like to pursue that.
Ms. Vachani. I would like to offer that we can follow up
with the details of the solution I just.
Mr. McKinley. If you could, back to my office, I would
appreciate that.
Ms. Vachani. I would love to do that, if I could help.
Mr. McKinley. All of you. Thank you very much.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Vermont, and I
want to thank him for all of his hard work not only in this
Congress but in the last Congress, working on IoT issues with
me.
So thank you very much. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you, and thank you as well, Mr. Latta.
I want to focus a little bit on rural America--just to have
each of you say what it is we need to do in rural America if we
are going to have any opportunity to yield the benefits of IoT.
I will start with you, Mr. Day.
Mr. Day. So I think one of the most important things, and
you mentioned it earlier, Congressman, is the fact that
broadband is not in every household in the country and that's
first and foremost, I think, for a lot of reasons, I think, for
being able to compete globally, being able to be connected and
be able to have a business based upon the internet is critical.
And so I think for rural America--and I applaud your
efforts. That's first and foremost.
Mr. Welch. Thanks.
Ms. Richardson.
Ms. Richardson. Well, I think the whole point of having
standards and what your bill is discussing is to shift the
responsibility for security to the people who can best address
it, right--the manufacturers, the operators--and I think this
is where low-tech users benefit most from this.
And so to the extent that your rural users are rapidly
deploying new technology that they're not familiar with they
will certainly benefit from better security standards.
Mr. Welch. Thanks.
Ms. Vachani.
Ms. Vachani. Absolutely. I absolutely applaud the benefit
to get broadband into rural America but understand that we can
do to implement technology today whether it be a cellular
signal, right.
I will give you the example of my parents, who still live
in the same house that I grew up in and won't leave no matter
what I do at this point. Having some type of monitoring, making
sure they're getting up in the morning and that they're--oh,
somebody's opened the refrigerator, that she's eating--there's
elements of that that I think is important that we can do today
for rural America with the connectivity that we have and we
don't have to limit ourselves to that deployment.
Mr. Welch. OK. Thank you.
The other broad question--I just want to go down the
panel--is about privacy and security. You have talked a little
bit about that.
But is there a role that you believe the Congress has to
play in ensuring an individual's personal data is protected and
is it your view that an individual has to have the control over
how his or her data is being used--something we asked Mr.
Zuckerberg when he was here a while ago?
Mr. Day. Well, again, I think to emphasize the point that
consumers have and deserve the right to have their personal
data respected by all.
Mr. Welch. Let's go quickly because I have one more
question.
Mr. Day. As we develop our principles at the Chamber, I
look forward to working with you on those details.
Mr. Welch. Thank you.
Ms. Richardson. We eventually need legislation. That's
going to be the only way out of this mess we are in.
Ms. Vachani. I think working together between government
and industry is essential to come up with the solutions.
Mr. Welch. But there has to be some role that Congress
plays. We can't be passive observers of what's going on.
Mr. Day. Right.
Mr. Welch. Do you agree with that? Thanks.
Let me ask you, Ms. Vachani--I know Intel has been a leader
in IoT advancement and I know you have had a high position as a
thought leader in that space for years.
So I want to follow up your testimony and ask if you can
expand your suggestions as to the definition that we should use
in his bill and why it's so important to get that definition
right.
Ms. Vachani. One of the number-one challenges of scale, and
it sounds very simple, is terminology. We talk past each other
when we are having--and I see us doing it in the industry, and
so we are in this space. We live it and breathe it. But we use
different words to represent different things and we are
talking past each other.
So one of the fundamental things I've had to do within my
organization, within my company as well as outside, is to start
to get on the same language and that's one of the things we are
asking for this as well is just to get on the same language so
we know when we are speaking to each other what we are
referring to.
Mr. Welch. OK. Thank you.
I thank the panel. Very helpful.
And I yield back.
Mr. Costello [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Mullin, is recognizes for
5 minutes.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank our panel
for being here.
I have just a few questions, and Ms. Vachani--is that how
you pronounce it? I appreciate you being here and I just, for
the help of myself and you might have already been asked this
question, but as you have heard we were running back and forth
between committees.
Ms. Vachani. No problem.
Mr. Mullin. Are there barriers or what are the barriers
that's keeping the U.S. from leading in the IoT?
Ms. Vachani. I answered this question of scale but I will
answer this question slightly differently, to add to that.
What I find is, if you look at the city level there's quite
a bit of innovation going on. I talked about San Diego and what
San Diego is doing within their lights in California. We talked
about New York and the building management that's happening in
New York. At the city level, I believe that that implementation
is taken seriously and there's a lot of innovation happening.
But where I think we can make a difference is scale across the
city at a nationwide--right.
So these pockets of innovation, how we can reuse, how can
we learn, and how can we deploy it more worldwide, more United
States wide. That's slightly different than what I see in other
countries where we are looking at it more nationally. India,
China are looking at it more nationally, and so you'd get the
benefit of the individual innovations that are happening at a
national level.
Mr. Mullin. Well, I will use my district, for example, even
my personal house. We don't even have slow dial up. The best we
can do is 3G through our phone, and 50 percent of my district
has little to no access to the internet.
Ms. Vachani. Yes.
Mr. Mullin. And so we talk about metropolitan areas. But
you're right, we are leaving out the rural pockets, which
mileage-wise is the vast majority of our country.
Are the other countries, as you alluded to, are they doing
a better job at that and then--and if so, what are they doing
that we are not?
Ms. Vachani. So large parts of India and large parts of
China don't have connectivity either, right, and so that isn't
an isolated and probably more of an issue there than it is even
here.
They are looking at how to deploy faster so that these
rural areas do have connectivities--that's one area we could
look further at--as well as leveraging the technology that is
available.
So going into a factory in another country--they have
connectivity, no broadband, but they have some level of 3G--we
are able to leverage that to at least start to get some
automation within the factory. So, again, taking advantage of
the connectivity that we do have a maximizing that, at the same
time deploying more robust connectivity.
Mr. Mullin. So what role can Congress play then? How can we
encourage companies or industry to look out farther than just
in metropolitan areas?
We did this with electricity. We did this with phone
service. This is a new technology that's keeping us from
connecting. So what is that we can do? What can Congress do, to
put in place, to help encourage that?
Ms. Vachani. I think we can look at this not in the siloes
that we do today. You have the benefit of a holistic view, not
just in each department but as a holistic view how we deploy
this.
Mr. Mullin. Right.
Ms. Vachani. That's the benefit, and then, frankly
speaking, how do we invest so that we start to deploy this
technology more robustly--is there an investment strategy to
that as well.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you so much.
Switching gears, Ms. Richardson, how difficult is it to
secure an IoT device?
Ms. Richardson. I think that would depend on the device
itself and how it's connected to the internet. I think there
are a handful of best practices that we see across different
sectors and industries, things like encryption, strong password
and other authentication models, update ability.
Mr. Mullin. Have certain security measures been put in
place since the 2014 Target breach, especially the Wanna Cry
ransom?
Ms. Richardson. There's nothing mandatory and I think these
sorts of practices that----
Mr. Mullin. Should there be?
Ms. Richardson. That's a hard question and I am realistic
about mandatory requirements on the private sector. I don't
think we are there.
I think, though, the government should explore its own
purchasing power. Right now, the Trump administration and some
of the agencies are writing privacy and security guidelines in
preparation for a big level up in purchase of IT modernization
and that would be one way that you could influence the market
without forcing anybody to do anything specific.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Costello. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Clarke, is recognize for
5 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our
ranking member, Ms. Schakowsky. I would like to also thank our
panel for their expert testimony here this morning.
As you may be aware, earlier this year I launched the
congressional Smart Cities Caucus and I would add Smart
Communities with Rep. Darrell Issa. I was inspired to start the
Smart Cities Caucus from my personal interactions with seeing
the amazing build-out first hand in New York City. The Smart
Cities Caucus serves as a bipartisan group of members dedicated
to bringing American communities into the 21st century through
innovation and technological change. Embracing smart technology
will make our communities more sustainable, resilient,
efficient, liveable, and competitive in a world in which
technology is constantly advancing.
So I would like to ask a couple of questions, first to you,
Ms. Richardson. What are your recommendations for the SMART IoT
Act considering the interplay of the Smart Cities and which
Federal agencies should play an active role in sort of
harnessing what we know already?
Ms. Richardson. Well, you have some of the work horses of
the cybersecurity world in Commerce, right, so that is a
benefit that you have with NIST, NTIA, and other places.
I think when you look at the smart cities you have a couple
of different types of devices. You have really basic ones that
don't collect personal information, they're low broadband
information sharers, right, and they're just water pressure,
how many cars passed through here, things like that, that are
going to be less risky from both a security and privacy
standard.
I hope that your report will highlight some of the more
high-risk things that are either facial recognition, location
tracking, right. That's the result of many of these things like
license plate readers or toll roads and how those are being
deployed by the government.
Ms. Clarke. Ms. Vachani, Intel IoT portfolio includes smart
cities, smart buildings, and smart video. What are your
recommendations and why are smart cities so important to
Intel's IoT portfolio?
Ms. Vachani. Essentially, the Smart Cities enables us to
create an infrastructure for safer cities as well as enabling
our cities to do better planning.
If you look at the GE solution that we deployed on smart
cities, it does stuff like gunshot detection, right. It's
determining if there was a shot and, if so, what we do about
it.
It looks at air quality, right, and so this enables us to
take advantage of the technology we've built for many other
industries. Smart Cities is a culmination of many other
technologies we've built maybe for a factory or for a home but
we are able to leverage that to improve not only our
environment as well as our cities and its planning.
So we see that there's a leverage of our technology across
the board and that Smart Cities can take advantage of it.
Ms. Clarke. And would you just envision for some of my
colleagues who are in rural communities how we can look at that
ecosystem that is being developed in more densely populated
areas and what can be taken from that for more sprawling
communities in terms of connecting them in smart ways?
Ms. Vachani. Yes, and I will go back to the GE solution.
The GE solution takes advantage of a light pole. So that's what
we are building on top of. It already has electricity. It
already has power. You take advantage of that power to connect
up sensors and then it uses a 3G connection that goes back up
into a data center.
So, again, we are able to take advantage of infrastructure
that's already there and built in as best as possible.
Ms. Clarke. Very well.
And, Mr. Day, anything that you'd like to add in this?
Mr. Day. Absolutely, and I want to applaud you on your
efforts with Congressman Issa with co-chairing that caucus.
It's very important, and C-TEC has joined a couple of events
and we look forward to continuing to work with you.
But I think when you look at a city, for example, 20
percent of a given city in the United States is dedicated
during the work day to parking, and I think one of the things
that C 09TEC has been taking as a priority and working with you
and others on is the fact that autonomous vehicles will impact
both that issue as well as the environment and other issues and
I think it, in the end, will prove to be very beneficial for a
lot of reasons.
And so smart city activities are critical and what we are
trying to do and be creative in our thinking and our approach
and how IoT plays in that is paramount and a top priority of
ours, going forward.
Ms. Clarke. Well, thank you very much for your response
today, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Costello. Gentlewoman yields back.
Seeing there are no further members wishing to ask
questions, I would like to thank all of our witnesses for being
here today.
Before we conclude, I would like to include the following
documents to be submitted for the record by unanimous consent:
a letter from the Consumer Technology Association, a letter
from CTIA, and a letter from EPIC.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Pursuant to committee rules, I remind members that they
have 10 business days to submit additional questions for the
record and I ask that witnesses submit their response within 10
business days upon receipt of the questions.
Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. Have a
good day.
[Whereupon, at 11:54 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]