UTS LITERASI DIGITAL DAN KEMANUSIAAN

“Ketimpangan Etika dalam Penggunaan Internet dengan Maraknya

Cyberbullying”

Disusun oleh:

Abdul Rachman A. (5211419019)

JURUSAN TEKNIK MESIN

FAKULTAS TEKNIK
UNIVERSITAS NEGERI SEMARANG
TAHUN 2020
 Dewasa ini, teknologi berkembang sangat pesat. Hal ini dikarenakan dunia
telah memasuki era globalisasi. Globalisasi berasal dari bahasa Inggris yakni
globalization yang artinya adalah proses yang dilakukan oleh perorangan atau secara
organisasi untuk memperluas pengaruh atau operasi pada skala internasional. Menurut
Hassan dan Qadri (2014), globalisasi merupakan fenomena yang meliputi beberapa
sektor yakni ekonomi, sosial, politik, teknologi, maupun budaya.

Globalisasi telah banyak mengubah dunia. Dengan adanya globalisasi,

manusia dapat melakukan jual beli, transaksi uang, komunikasi, maupun melakukan
pembelajaran dari jarak yang jauh. Hal ini dapat terjadi karena hadirnya internet yang
memudahkan pekerjaan manusia.

Internet menurut Abbate (2017) adalah sistem global dari jaringan komputer
yang terhubung menggunakan protokol internet. Dengan definisi ini, dapat
dikonfirmasi bahwa keterhubungan yang terjadi secara global ialah terjadi karena
adanya internet.

Penggunaan internet pada saat ini sering dikenal juga dengan istilah IoT yang
merupakan singkatan dari Internet of Things. IoT dihadirkan untuk menjawab
tantangan – tantangan kelayakan hidup yang terjadi di dunia ketika populasi
berkembang sangat pesat, dibutuhkan ketahanan pangan serta kecukupan pada aspek
kehidupan lainnya (Atzori et al. 2017).

Internet memang membawa berbagai macam manfaat dalam kehidupan

manusia, namun terjadi beberapa penyelewengan pada praktiknya. Penyelewengan ini
sangat merugikan pihak pengguna (user) maupun pihak penyedia (provider), baik itu
penyedia jaringan, penyedia layanan, dan lain – lain. Penyelewengan yang termasuk
ketidaketisan dalam penggunaan internet adalah cybercrime atau dalam padanan
bahasa Indonesia adalah kejahatan siber.

Kejahatan siber atau cybercrime memiliki tiga bentuk pelanggaran utama.

Pelanggaran tersebut yakni pelanggaran terhadap komputer atau perangkat keras lain
sebagai instrument, pelanggaran terhadap komputer secara insidental,dan pelanggaran
terhadap komputer sebagai sasaran utamanya (Sarre et al. 2018). Kedua pelanggaran
utama cukup jelas targetnya. Untuk pelanggaran ketiga, yang menjadi sasaran adalah
data dari pengguna yang diambil untuk keuntungan pribadi penyadap. Hal ini juga
dapat terjadi dengan dilakukannya proses data mining.

Kejahatan siber memiliki jenis – jenis lainnya menurut praktiknya. Berikut

merupakan jenis – jenisnya.

 Unautorized Accsessto Computer System and Service

Kejahatan yang dilakukan dengan memasuki/menyusup ke dalam suatu sistem

jaringan komputer secara tidak sah, tanpa izin atau tanpa sepengetahuan dari pemilik
sistem jaringan komputer yang dimasukinya. Biasanya pelaku kejahatan (hacker)
melakukannya dengan maksud sabotase ataupun pencurian informasi penting dan
rahasia. Namun begitu, ada juga yang melakukannya hanya karena merasa tertantang
untuk mencoba keahliannya menembus suatu sistem yang memiliki tingkat proteksi
tinggi. Kejahatan ini semakin marak dengan berkembangnya teknologi
Internet/intranet.

 Illegal content

Merupakan kejahatan dengan memasukkan data atau informasi ke Internet tentang

sesuatu hal yang tidak benar, tidak etis, dan dapat dianggap melanggar hukum atau
mengganggu ketertiban umum. Sebagai contohnya, pemuatan suatu berita bohong atau
fitnah yang akan menghancurkan martabat atau harga diri pihak lain, hal-hal yang
berhubungan dengan pornografi atau pemuatan suatu informasi yang merupakan
rahasia negara, agitasi dan propaganda untuk melawan pemerintahan yang sah dan
sebagainya.

 Data Forgery

Merupakan kejahatan dengan memalsukan data pada dokumendokumen penting

yang tersimpan sebagai scripless document melalui Internet. Kejahatan ini biasanya
ditujukan pada dokumen-dokumen e-commerce dengan membuat seolah-olah terjadi
“salah ketik” yang pada akhirnya akan menguntungkan pelaku karena korban akan
memasukkan data pribadi dan nomor kartu kredit yang dapat saja disalah gunakan.
  Cyber Espionage

Merupakan kejahatan yang memanfaatkan jaringan internet untuk melakukan

kegiatan matamata terhadap pihak lain, dengan memasuki sistem jaringan komputer
(computer network system) pihak sasaran. Kejahatan ini biasanya ditujukan terhadap
saingan bisnis yang dokumen ataupun data pentingnya (data base) tersimpan dalam
suatu sistem yang computerized (tersambung dalam jaringan komputer).

 Cyber Sabotage

Kejahatan ini dilakukan dengan membuat gangguan, perusakan atau penghancuran

terhadap suatu data, program komputer atau sistem jaringan komputer yang terhubung
dengan Internet. Biasanya kejahatan ini dilakukan dengan menyusupkan suatu logic
bomb, virus komputer ataupun suatu program tertentu, sehingga data, program
komputer atau sistem jaringan komputer tidak dapat digunakan, tidak berjalan
sebagaimana mestinya, atau berjalan sebagaimana yang dikehendaki oleh pelaku.

 Offense Against

Kejahatan ini ditujukan terhadap hak atas kekayaan intelektual yang dimiliki pihak
lain di Internet. Sebagai contoh, peniruan tampilan pada web page suatu situs milik
orang lain secara ilegal, penyiaran suatu informasi di Internet yang ternyata merupakan
rahasia dagang orang lain, dan sebagainya.

 Infrengments of Piracy

Kejahatan ini biasanya ditujukan terhadap keterangan pribadi seseorang yang

tersimpan pada formulir data pribadi yang tersimpan secara computerized, yang
apabila diketahui oleh orang lain maka dapat merugikan korban secara materil maupun
immateril, seperti nomor kartu kredit, nomor PIN ATM, cacat atau penyakit
tersembunyi dan sebagainya.
 Tindak pidana dalam kejahatan dunia maya antara lain konten ilegal, kesusilaan,
perjudian, pencemaran nama baik, berita bohong dan lainnya. Terdapat juga kegiatan
transaksi ilegal, gangguan data atau pencurian data dan gangguan terhadap sistem.

Kapolri Jenderal Tito Karnavian dalam wawancara nya

dengan okezone.com menyebut bahwa kasus kejahatan di dunia Siber atau Cyber
Crime meningkat dibandingkan pada tahun 2016. Setidaknya, tahun 2017 ini
mengalami peningkatan sebanyak tiga persen.

Dalam data yang disajikan, di tahun 2016 tercatat ada 4.931 kasus yang ditangani Polri.
Sedangkan tahun ini, aparat menangani Cyber Crime sebanyak 5.061 kasus.

 Contoh Kasus Cyber Crime

1. Unautorized Accsess to Computer System and Service

Pembajakan situs web KPU tahun 2009 .Web resmi KPU kpu.go.id Sabtu 15 Maret
2009 pukul 20.15 diganggu orang tak bertanggungjawab. Bagian situs kpu.go.id yang
diganggu hacker adalah halamanberita, dengan menambah berita dengan kalimat ”I
Love You Renny Yahna Octaviana. Renny How Are You There?”.

Bukan hanya itu, sipengganggu juga mengacak-acak isi berita kpu.go.id

Pengurus situs web kpu.go.id untuk sementara menutup kpu.go.id sehingga tidak bisa
diakses oleh publik yang ingin mengetahui berita-berita tentang KPU khususnya
mengenai persiapan Pemilu 2009. Padahal awal April 2008 tahapan awal pelaksanaan
Pemilu 2009 yaitu pemutakhiran data pemilih dan pendaftaran Parpol peserta Pemilu
mulai dilaksanakan.

2. Illegal content

Kasus Pelajar 18 Tahun yang menyebarkan berita Hoax. Seorang pelajar berinisial
MPA berusia 18tahun asal Sukabumi ditangkap polisikarena menyebarkan status
Facebook berisi informasi hoaxa tau bohong adanya. Dalam postingan yang berisi
berita palsu atau hoax dan ujaran kebencian yang berisi akan adanya penyerangan
terhadap ulama ini tersebar akun komunitas media sosial Facebook. Postingan yang
disebar MPA adalah postingan dari seorang warga-net pemilik akun Facebook ‘Dhegar
Staiger’. Dalam kalimat akhir dalampostingan tertulis “Sebarken Lamun DidinyaUmat
Muslim, cinta NKRI (Sebarkan jika kamu umat muslim, cinta NKRI)”.

MPA mengaku menyesali perbuatannya. Dia tidak tahu isi postingan yang dia
bagikan bermasalah. MPA juga mengaku tidak mengetahui istilah Hoax. Dia baru tahu
setelah berurusan dengan apparat kepolisian.
Meski begitu polisi tetap menetapkan MPA sebagai pelaku hate speech dan hoax. Dia
dijerat dengan Pasal 28 ayat (2) junto pasal 45A ayat (2) UURI Nomor 19 tahun 2016
tentang perubahan atas UU RI Nomor 11 tahun 2008 tentang informasi dan transaksi
elektronik.

3. Data Forgery

Kasus Pencurian Data Nasabah. Setelah kasus skimming terbongkar, terbaru

Subdit Siber Ditres krimsus Polda Jawa Timur berhasil mengungkap kasus kejahatan
pencurian data nasabah kartu kredit atau carding crime.

Sebelum mendapatkan kartu kredit, ketiga pelaku melakukan spamming terlebih

dahulu. Spamming adalah kegiatan mengirim email palsu dengan memanfaatkan
server email yang memiliki “smtp open relay” kepada target untuk mendapatkan data
kartu kredit sehingga kartu kredit tersebut beralih dalam penguasaan pelaku dan bebas
pelaku gunakan.

Kemudian mengambil nomor kartu seseorang melalui data yang ia peroleh selama
melakukan spamming. Setelah berhasil, kartu tersebut dipergunakan tersangka untuk
belanja secara online.

Kebanyakan barang yang diperoleh dari belanja secara online pelaku adalah
produk impor bermerk. Pihaknya menafsir, semua produk jika di uangkan bernilai
hampir Rp 500 juta.

Selain menggunakan email, pelaku juga menjerat korban melalui akun Facebook
yang bernama ‘kolamtuyul’. Berbagai barang bukti bernilai ratusan juta rupiah disita
dari tangan tersangka yang kebanyakan adalah produk fashion, perhiasan serta alat-
alat elektronik import.
 Ke-tiganya dijerat dengan undang-undang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik
(ITE) nomor 19 tahun 2016 dengan ancaman hukuman 7 tahun penjarasertadenda 700
juta rupiah. Firdaus dan Sepriandi asal Bengkulu, keduanya adalah nasabah Bank
Mandiri yang baru-baru ini kehilangan uang, masing-masing sekitar Rp50 juta di
rekening Bank. Dalam konferensi pers di Bengkulu pada hari Sabtu (08/08/15)
keduanya mengalami kejadian yang hampir sama yaitu kehilangan uang saat
melakukan transaksi internet banking. Mereka melaporkan kejadianinike Bank
Mandiri. Penjelasan dari Bank Mandiri menyebutkan bahwa keduanya merupakan
korban tindakan phising, yaitu pencurian data rahasia di internet (bisa melalui
computer atau pun smartphone) ataupun melalui telepon.

Menanggapi kasus ini, pihak Bank Mandiri tidak memberikan solusi terkait
bagaimana mengembalikan dana nasabah. Secara teknis di sisi perbankan, transaksi
tersebu tterlihat normal, sama dengan kejadian bila seseorang menggunakan kartu atm
orang lain untuk mengambil uang. Di sisi perbankan, semuanya tercatat sebagai
transaksi normal.

Kasus yang dialami Firdaus dan Sepriandi bukanlah hal baru. Menurut Kepala
Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (OJK) Bengkulu, Yan Syafrie sejak 2013 tidak kurangRp 100
miliar uang nasabah di perbankan raih dari akibat tindakan phishing. Pelakunya pun
sangat susah ditelusuri karena dana dengan cepat berpindah termasuk keluar negeri.

Untuk itu kewaspadaan ini mutlak diperlukan.Selain itu, pihak bank ataupun pihak
berwenang lainnya tidak mungkin mengganti dana nasabah bila kesalahan terletak
pada pihak nasabah. Bila kerugian terlanjur terjadi, OJK, bank, dan kepolisian hanya
berwenang melakukan penyelidikan untuk mengungkap kejahatan phising.

4. Cyber Espionage

Penyebaran virus dengan sengaja, ini adalah salah satu jenis kasus cyber crime
yang terjadi pada bulan Juli 2009, Twitter (salah satu jejaring social yang sedang naik
pamor di masyakarat belakangan ini) kembali menjadi media infeksi modifikasi New
Koobface, worm yang mampu membajak akun Twitter dan menular melalui
postingannya, dan menjangkiti semua follower. Semua kasus ini hanya sebagian dari
sekian banyak kasus penyebaran malware di seantero jejaring social. Twitter tak kalah
jadi target, pada Agustus 2009 diserang oleh penjahat cyber yang mengiklankan video
erotis. Ketika pengguna mengkliknya, maka otomatis mendownload
Trojan Downloader.Win32.Banload.sco.

Modus serangannya adalah selain menginfeksi virus, akun yang bersangkutan

bahkan si pemiliknya terkena imbas. Karena si pelaku mampu mencuri nama dan
password pengguna, lalu menyebarkan pesan palsu yang mampu merugikan orang
lain, seperti permintaan transfer uang. Untuk penyelesaian kasus ini, Tim keamanan
dari Twitter sudah membuang infeksi tersebut. Tapi perihal hukuman yang diberikan
kepada penyebar virusnya belum ada kepastian hukum.

5. Cyber Sabotage

Sabotasi terbesar yang baru-baru ini terjadi adalah tersebarnya WannaCry. Tak
kurang dari 150 negara terkena dampak ransomeware yang mengunci sistem
komputer, termasuk Indonesia.

Dibanding ransomeware lain yang sebelumnya hanya menyebar secara relatif

terbatas, WannaCry lebih “sakti” karena memanfaatkan tool senjata cyber dinas intel
Amerika Serikat, NSA, yang mencuri hacker dan dibocorkan di Internet.

Kronologi singkatnya sebagaimana dirangkum KompasTekno dari ABC dan

Financial Times, Senin (15/5/2017), menyebutkan bahwa pagi hari operator
telekomunikasi di Spanyol, Telefonica, melaporkan telah terkena serangan WannaCry.
Tak lama kemudian, sejumlah rumah sakit dan klinik di Inggris ikut melaporkan
adanya serangan serupa.

Wannacry juga menyerang pabrikan mobil Renault di Perancis yang menyebabkan

beberapa pabriknya berhenti berproduksi. Wannacry juga membuat kacau tampilan
jadwal kereta di sejumlah stasiun kereta api di Deutsche Bahn, Jerman.

Siang harinya, sejumlah rumah sakit yang bergabung dalam jaringan National Health
Service (NHS) di Inggris mulai terinfeksi WannaCry. Dokter-dokter kesulitan
memberi layanan medis karena ransomeware mengunci data rekam media pasien.
 Pada Jum’at sore, WannaCry terdeteksi sudah mulai memasuki wilayah
Indonesia. Ransomeware ini menghantam Rumah Sakit Harapan Kita dan Dharmais.
Ratusan server dan PC terkena dampaknya, termasuk komputer untuk antrean
sehingga pasien kesulitan mengantre. Hari Jumat itu saja, WannaCry tercatatat sudah
menyebar ke 74 negara dengan jumlah korban sebanyak 45.000.

Dikutip dari kumpan.com, polisi telah menjalin kerja sama dengan unit siber
kepolisian dari berbagai negara untuk mengungkap pembuat dan penyebar program
tersebut. Direktur Siber Bareskrim Polri Brigjen Pol Fadil Imran mengatakan pihaknya
telah mengumpulkan berbagai informasi serta melakukan analisa forensik digital dan
menjalin komunikasi dengan berbagai komunitas siber untuk melacak asal usul
penyebaran ransomeware itu. Penyebar ransomware meminta tebusan data lewat
transaksi bitcoin. Menurut Fadil, pelacakan transaksi itu akan sulit dilakukan karena
menggunakan media mata uang terenkripsi bitcoin yang anonim.

Fadil berujar, “UU ITE sudah mencakup untuk menjerat pelaku karena masuk
dalam kategori ilegal akses.” Lalu Fadil menambahkan, “Kami juga sudah
membentuk emergency respond team bersama personel Kemkomminfo dan lembaga
lain yang tugasnya membantu melakukan recovery.”

6. Offense Against

Kasus Pembajakan Software di Jakarta. Penyidik PPNS Direktorat Jenderal Hak

Kekayaan Intelektual bersama BSA (Business Software Association) dan Kepolisian
melaksanakan Penindakan Pelanggaran Hak Cipta atas Software di 2 tempat di Jakarta
yaitu Mall Ambasador dan Ratu Plasa pada hari Kamis (5/4).

Penindakan di Mall Ambasador dan Ratu Plasa dipimpin langsung

oleh IR.Johno Supriyanto, M.Hum dan Salmon Pardede, SH., M.Si dan 11 orang PPNS
HKI.

Penindakan ini dilakukan dikarenakan adanya laporan dari BSA (Business

Software Asssociation) pada tanggal 10 Februari 2012 ke kantor Direktorat Jenderal
Hak Kekayaan Intelektual yang mengetahui adanya CD Software Bajakan yang dijual
bebas di Mall Ambasaador dan Ratu Plasa di Jakarta. Dalam kegiatan ini berhasil disita
CD Software sebanyak 10.000 keping dari 2 tempat berbeda.

CD Software ini biasa dijual oleh para penjual yang ada di Mall Ambasador dan
Ratu Plasa seharga Rp. 50.000 – Rp. 60.000 sedangkan harga asli software ini bisa
mencapai Rp. 1.000.000 per softwarenya.

PT Nirwana Arvindo Mahaputra adalah perusahaan yang bergerak dalam

bidang desain grafis. Perusahaan ini memasarkan dan memperdagangkan karya dan
jasanya secara nasional mapun internsional, melalui pemasaran secara langsung
maupun melalui media internet.

Pada tanggal 21 januari 2008 PT NIRWANA membuat dan mendaftarkan website

perusahaan www.NirwanaArvindoMahaputra.com dan melakukan upload karya-
karya desain grafisnya dalam website tersebut. Kemudian pada tanggal 13 Februari
2008 PT NIRWANA mengetahui dari
salah seorang pegawainya, bahwa karya desain grafis nya telah digunakan seseorang
dalam web-pages di website http://www.deviantart.com
dan diakui sebagai ciptaan dari seseorang berkebangsaan Thailand yang beridentitas
HAIRO, karya desain grafis tersebut didapatkan dengan cara didownload dari website
perusahaan PT NIRWANA tanpa izin.

7. Infrengments of Piracy

Cyber Stalking adalah kejahatan menggunakan internet atau alat elektronik lainnya
untuk melecehkan atau meneror seseorang dengan email, chat, forum Salah satu kasus
nya adalah Pembajakan software/software piracy yang termasuk dalam Intellectual
Property Crima.

Pembajakan software adalah piranti lunak atau yang lebih dikenal dengan istilah
software di Indonesia saat ini sudah sangat memperihatikan sekali. Dengan
mudahnya software-software bisa didapatkan saat ini. Mulai dari dijual secara terbuka
di pusat-pusat perbelanjaan (mall), pusat penjualan komputer, internet sampai pada
pedagang kaki lima di pinggir-pingir jalan.
 Sebagai bangsa Indonesia merasa malu dengan predikat yang disandang oleh
bangsa ini, terkadang software baru yang belum resmi diluncurkan di negara asalnya,
tetapai di negara kita versi bajakannya (full verision) sudah beredar dan dapat dibeli
dengan harga yang relatif murah, yaitu antara Rp. 20.000 s/d Rp. 25.000,- per CD.

Dalam sebuah survei global yang dilakukan Business Software Alliance (BSA)
pada tahun 2015 yang lalu tentang penggunaan software illegal diseluruh dunia.
Sebanyak 39% software yang dipasang pada komputer di seluruh dunia
merupakan software illegal.

Berdasarkan hasil survei ini, terlihat adanya penurunan

penggunaan software illegal jika dibandingkan dengan hasil survei dua tahun
sebelumnya, 2013 yang menunjukkan total 43% penggunaan software di dunia
adalah software illegal.

Sedangkan di Indonesia sendiri berdasarkan data yang dirilis oleh Business

Software Alliance (BSA) tersebut. Persentase penggunaan software illegal di tanah air
mencapai angka 84%. Persentase tersebut terbilang cukup tinggi jika dibandingkan
dengan negara-negara lain di dunia.

Berdasarkan angka persentase yang dirilis Business Software Alliance (BSA)

tersebut, Indonesia termasuk dalam sepuluh negara dengan persentase
penggunaan software illegal terbesar di dunia. Indonesia hanya kalah dari Belarusia
(85%), Bangladesh (86%), Armenia (86%), Venezuela(88%), Libya(90%) dan
Zimbabwe (90%). Sedangkan negara tetangga Indonesia, yaitu Malaysia tercatat
hanya memiliki 53% penggunaan software illegal.

Dengan persentase tersebut, berarti 8 dari 10 aplikasi yang dipasang di komputer

pengguna tanah air merupakan software illegal. Persentase
penggunaan software illegal di Indonesia ini tidak mengalami perubahan dari data
survei yang dilakukan oleh Business Software Alliance (BSA) pada tahun 2013 silam
yang menunjukkan penggunaan software illegal di Indonesia juga sebanyak 84%.

Sedangkan pada tahun 2011, persentase penggunaan software illegal di Indonesia

mencapai 86%. Hal ini berarti ada penurunan persentase penggunaan software illegal
pada tahun 2013 dari tahun 2011, kemudian bertahan pada tahun 2015.
 Namun persentase jumlah penggunaan software bajakan yang tinggi di suatu
negara tidak langsung berarti jumlah kerugian yang diakibatkan dari
penggunaan software illegal juga tinggi. Business Software Alliance (BSA) juga
mendata negara-negara yang memberikan nilai kerugian terbesar akibat
penggunaan software illegal.

Menariknya adalah jika dilihat dari jumlah nilai kerugian yang diakibatkan dari
penggunaan software illegal, Amerika Serikat (US) menjadi negara penyumbang nilai
kerugian terbesar dari pembajakan software dengan estimasi nilai kerugian mencapai
$9,095 milyar US Dollar.

Padahal jika dilihat dari persentase penggunaan software bajakan di negara

raksasa-raksasa perusahaan software tersebut, persentase penggunaan software illegal
di Amerika Serikat (US) hanya sebesar 17%, yang sekaligus membuatnya menjadi
negara dengan persentase penggunaan software illegal terkecil di dunia.

Sedangkan di peringkat kedua dan ketiga negara yang mengakibatkan jumlah

nilai kerugian terbesar karena penggunaan software illegal adalah China ($ 8,7 milyar
US Dollar) dan India ($2,7 milyar US Dollar), kemudian diikuti oleh Perancis di posisi
keempat dengan nilai kerugian yang diakibatkan sebesar $2,1 milyar US Dollar dan
Inggris di posisi kelima dengan nilai kerugian sebesar $1,9 milyar US Dollar.

Jika dilihat dari nilai jumlah kerugian yang diakibatkan oleh

penggunaan software illegal, Indonesia berada pada posisi ke 10 dengan nilai kerugian
sebesar $1.1 milyar US Dollar.

Angka pembajakan software di Indonesia masih sangat tinggi. Baik dari jumlah
persentase penggunaan atau nilai kerugian yang diakibatkan. Ini bukanlah hal yang
baik.

Gerakan dan upaya memerangi pembajakan software di Indonesia sudah

dilakukan oleh berbagai pihak, baik pemerintah atau komunitas-komunitas. Salah
satunya adalah komunitas open source dan Linux dengan menyarankan
penggunaan software open source yang gratis alih-alih melakukan
pembajakan software.
 Pada dasarnya sebuah tindakan cybercrime bisa dilakukan oleh siapapun
dengan jumlah berapapun. Hal ini dikarenakan dengan penggunaan teknologi yang
semakin canggih maka kita bisa membuat sebuah pengalihan issue tanpa memerlukan
personel tambahan. Bisa juga kita membuat jalan memutar ketika menuju sasaran
cybercrime. Hal-hal semacam ini sering terjadi dalam peristiwa cybercrime. Akan
tetapi, bagaimana seorang pelaku bisa selalu menghindar dari jeratan hukum dam
memperoleh keuntungan yang lebih?

Mungkin yang dapat kita ketahui bahwa dalam dunia kejahatan konvensional
kita mengenal semacam faksi-faksi atau yang lebih kita kenal sebagai geng. Dari
organisasi ini seluruh tindak kejahatan bisa dilakuakan secara detail dan terstruktur.
Kenapa? Karena mau tidak mau ketika sebuah sistem mempunyai sebuah organisasi,
maka setiap tindakan yang dilakukan kemungkinan besar menjadi terstruktur juga.
Sederhananya jika sebuah tindakan kriminal atau kejahatan dilakukan bukan hanya
oleh satu orang maka setiap orang yang terlibat dapat memerankan perannya secara
maksimal dan fokus. Hal ini yang menjadikan sebuah tindak kriminal kemungkinan
besar berhasil dengan memperoleh keuntungan yang besar. Lain halnya jika pelaku
hanya seorang, dimana semua rencana baik pengintaian, aksi dan cara meloloskan diri
di pikirkan dan di desain sendiri.

Perlu diketahui bahwa sebuah tindak kriminal yang terorganisir biasanya

mempunyai struktur yang jelas layaknya organisasi resmi. Dalam struktur tersebut
terdapat seorang ketua yang biasanya disebut sebagai bos yang dibantu beberapa
tangan kanan atau ajudan dan mempunyai bawahan pada setiap daerah. Bawahan ini
menguasai wilayah-wilayah sesuai dengan lokasi kekuasaan. Sehingga dalam
tugasnya setiap perwakilan wilayah akan bertanggung jawab terhadap wilayahnya
yang kemudian dilaporakan kepada bos (ketua).

Secara umum, ada tiga jenis aktivitas kriminal yaitu kriminal yang dilakukan oleh
seseorang, dua orang dan kolaborasi lebih dari 3 orang. Yang digambarkan sebagai
tindakan kriminal terorganisir adalah jenis ketiga yaitu dilakukan oleh 3 orang atau
lebih yang terorganisir. Seperti gambaran yang sudah disampaikan sebelumnya
dimana setiap tindak kejahatan yang terorganiser dapat menjadi ancaman besar untuk
suatu wilayah karena selain terstruktur, biasanya sasaranya targetted atau sudah di
targetkan.

Tindakan kriminal yang terorganisir berkembang dan berevolusi sesuai dengan

perubahan zaman. Dulu kita mengenal geng, sekarang kita mengenal istilah mafia.
Mafia sendiri hampir serupa dengan geng, akan tetapi dalam operasionalnya biasanya
bergerak lebih tertata dan mempunyai konsep disamping jangkauan atau wilayahnya
lebih besar. Dalam perkembangannya juga, mafia bekerja sesuai dengan hirarki
organisasi.

Jika berkaca melalui banyak film kejahatan didunia maya terutama cybercrime
sering kita lebih mengarah kepada seseorang yang biasanya disebut dengan hacker.
Dalam banyak gambarannya bahwa seorang hacker biasanya berkaca mata tebal,
penyendiri dan melakukan segala sesuatu secara sendiri bukan berkelompok. Akan
tetapi apakah kita sadar bahwa cybercrime bisa dilakukan oleh kelompok orang yang
terorganisasi? Hal ini mungkin masih sedikit yang sependapat. Hal ini ditunjukkan
dengan persepsi dikalangan pubilk yang masih menyebutkan bahwa pelaku
cybercrime adalah perseorangan walaupun sudah banyak pelaporan terkait cybercrime
yang terorganisir.

Lebih dalam lagi, ketika kita berbicara organisasi kejahatan konvensional,

maka mau tidak mau kita berhubungan dengan kelompok besar orang yang
melakukannya. Sehingga apakah hal ini juga terjadi di dunia siber atau cybercrime?
Tentunya kita bisa melihat bagaiamana dengan teknologi siber kita bisa
memperpendek proses, mempercepat dan memudahkan akses. Hal ini juga
mempengaruhi organisasi kriminal di dunia maya dimana semua porses pada dasarnya
bisa di otomatisasi, akan tetapi kembali bagaimana jika tindakan tersebut harus
dilakukan oleh seorang manusia? Maka mau tidak mau sebuah organisasi cybercrime
harus mempertimbangkan hal ini. Beberapa hal mungkin masih bisa diotomatisasi,
akan tetapi untuk menghindari kontak dengan penegak hukum maka proses pencucian
uang biasanya diutus seseorang untuk melakukannya. Akan tetapi dalam organisasi
cybercrime tetap mengakomodasi beberapa pakem yang ada di organisasi kejahatan
konvensional dimana terdapat pemimpin dan struktur organisasi pendukungnya.
 Bagaimana karakteristik cybercrime yang terorganisir? Karakteristik dunia
maya adalah dinamis sehingga dalam proses peradilan mengalami berbagai macam
kendala yaitu kendala empiris, difus, perkembangan lingkungan dan struktur
organisasi yang tidak sesuai dengan kejahatan dunia nyata. Dimana pola organisasi
kejahatan konvensional atau dunia nyata lebih condong ke arah desain hubungan yang
cenderung kaku akan tetapi lain halnya dengan kejahatan dunia maya yang lebih cair
dan dinamis. Untuk hal ini maka dibutuhkan pertimbangan subkultural hacker pada
saat ini. Banyak media yang menggambarkan hacker sebagai orang anti sosial yang
tertutup oleh dunia nyata. Akan tetapi kenyataannya banyak hacker yang bekerja
secara berkelompok terutama online hacker activities.

Evolusi struktur hirarkis berevolusi untuk memungkinkan kelompok kriminal

untuk melaksanakan skala besar, pada kegiatan di dunia nyata. Penjahat mungkin akan
terlibat dalam kegiatan cybercrime di dunia maya, tetapi organisasi kegiatan ini dapat
mengambil bentuk yang sangat berbeda daripada yang mereka lakukan di dunia nyata.
Dalam dunia nyata, hirarki digunakan untuk mengatur upaya setiap individu menjadi
proses yang relatif mulus yang diarahkan untuk mencapai tujuan tertentu, misalnya,
manufaktur, pembotolan, pengiriman, pemasaran, dan mengumpulkan pendapatan dari
minuman keras ilegal. Dalam dunia nyata, proses seperti ini cenderung sangat
bergantung pada usaha individu. Di dunia maya, banyak proses dapat otomatis, yang
mungkin berarti bahwa modus hirarkis organisasi tidak akan dibutuhkan saatt transisi
ke dunia siber.

Jika cybercrime mengadopsi model bahwa individu menyatu untuk jangka

waktu terbatas untuk melakukan tugas yang didefinisikan secara khusus atau mengatur
tugas dan, setelah berhasil, berpisah maka tugas penegakan hukum akan menjadi jauh
lebih sulit. Di dunia nyata, stabilitas dan konsistensi dari kelompok penjahat
terorganisasi memberikan penegakan hukum target tetap. Polisi berkonsentrasi pada
identifikasi kelompok permanen peserta yang terlibat dalam serangkaian kegiatan
terlarang rutin. Prediktabilitas ini, dalam dirinya sendiri, meningkatkan kemampuan
penegak hukum untuk memerangi kejahatan terorganisir. Jika organisasi kriminal
online berkembang ke dalam “Mafia momen” atau “kartel hari,” polisi akan
kehilangan keuntungan ini, yang hanya akan memberikan kontribusi bagi keberhasilan
cybercrime terorganisir
 Sebenarnya issue cybercrime terorganisir di Indonesia sudah mulai terlihat
sejak banyak WNA ditangkap akibat kasus cybercrime. Hal ini bisa menjadi gambaran
bahwasanya cybercrime tidak dapat dijalankan sendirian apalagi oleh warga negara
asing. Beberapa bukti empiris sudah menjawab akan hal ini. Seperti pada berita yang
dilansir oleh Warta Kota pada tanggal 9 November 2015 [2]⁠ yang menyebutkan bahwa
86 WNA di deportasi karena terlibat cybercrime yang merupakan sindikat lintas
negara. Masih di warta kota dimana terdapat berita pada tanggal 12 Mei 2015
menyebutkan bahwa terdapat koordinator dalam melaksanakan kejahatan siber.
Bahkan pesuruh dari kegiatan ini bisa digaji dengan nilai 4 juta rupiah [3]⁠. Lebih lagi
ditemukannya modus baru dengan melakukan kerjasama untuk melakukan penipuan
melalui dunia siber dengan menggunakan toko online fiktif sesuai dengan berita warta
kota pada tanggal.

Dari beberapa berita yang diperoleh pada beberapa media masa digital dapat
disimpulkan bahwa cybercrime di Indonesia tidak hanya bisa terjadi, akan tetapi sudah
terjadi. Sehingga selain memperkuat polisi siber, seharusnya Indonesia melakukan
peninjauan ulang terhadap aturan perundangan terkait cybercrime. Hal ini tentu sangat
penting dimana yang terjadi sekarang adalah banyak dipenjarakannya eksekutor akan
tetapi pemilik ide dan koordinator bebas. Kebebasan ini saling berkaitan dengan
adanya struktur organisasi yang cair dan dinamis dalam cybercrime. Sehingga mau
tidak mau proses penegakan hukum perlu ditingkatkan dengan dukungan peraturan
yang syah.

Menurut sebuah laporan baru-baru ini, informasi kartu kredit adalah kategori yang

paling banyak diiklankan di server ekonomi bawah tanah, memberi peringkat tertinggi

dalam hal informasi yang dipasok dan diminta pada tahun 2009. Alasan popularitas

mereka yang tinggi adalah: (a) frekuensi kredit transaksi kartu karena konsumen

hampir sepenuhnya beralih dari jenis pembayaran tradisional seperti uang tunai dan

cek ke kartu debit dan kartu kredit; dan (b) preferensi yang meningkat untuk transaksi
online – pertumbuhan e-commerce dan perbankan online meningkatkan kesempatan

pencurian online informasi kartu kredit.

ID pencurian umumnya menggabungkan metode online dan offline. Metode online

termasuk mencuri informasi pribadi yang tersimpan dalam database komputer

menggunakan Trojans atau hacking; atau melalui phishing, vishing dan pharming.

Metode offline mencakup mencegat tagihan dan dokumen bank dari pos dan tempat

sampah. Menurut Layanan Penipuan Inggris (CIFAS), tiga dokumen palsu atau dicuri

yang digunakan oleh penipu yang mencoba kecurangan identitas di tahun 2006 adalah:

tagihan listrik, paspor dan laporan bank. Pada tahun 2011 Kantor Kabinet Inggris

memperkirakan bahwa kecurangan identitas telah membebani ekonomi Inggris

sebesar 1,7 miliar poundsterling di tahun sebelumnya. CIFAS menunjukkan bahwa

kecurangan secara keseluruhan sedang meningkat, misalnya, pada tahun 2005 jumlah

kasus penipuan yang diidentifikasi adalah 152.176. Pada akhir tahun 2010 angka ini

meningkat menjadi 217.385, dimana 47% merupakan kecurangan ID.

Cybercrime keuangan meningkat secara dramatis dalam beberapa tahun terakhir di

seluruh dunia. Perekonomian tingkat lanjut tetap berada di daftar teratas karena para

pencetus dan penerima serangan cybercriminal. 17 Namun, dari data yang tersedia

mengenai cybercrime, 18 ditambah dengan proliferasi dan adopsi teknologi

komunikasi di seluruh dunia, bersama-sama memberi sinyal potensi untuk

melanjutkan pengembangan aktivitas cybercriminal. Ketersediaan keterampilan TIK

yang meluas, yang diperburuk oleh penurunan ekonomi global saat ini, berpotensi

menjadi lahan subur bagi peningkatan pertumbuhan cybercrimes keuangan.

Ekonomi keamanan juga merupakan faktor pendukung pertumbuhan cybercrime

finansial. Hal ini terutama karena perusahaan mengandalkan jaringan digital untuk

operasi bisnis mereka, misalnya, dalam e-banking dan e-retailing.

Untuk mengeksplorasi elemen inti ekosistem cybercrime, kami mengacu pada tulisan

kunci pada rantai nilai, kemampuan dinamis dan model bisnis untuk membantu

mengungkapkan aktivitas cybercriminal dan bagaimana cybercrime beroperasi dan

berfungsi. Bagian berikut membahas setiap literatur, terutama menyoroti relevansi dan

utilitas utamanya untuk memahami ekosistem cybercrime.

Literatur tentang analisis rantai nilai mendefinisikannya sebagai rangkaian kegiatan

yang dibutuhkan untuk membawa produk atau layanan dari konsepsi, melalui fase

produksi yang berbeda kepada pengguna akhir atau konsumen. Konsep rantai nilai

juga berkaitan dengan masukan dari beberapa pelaku di berbagai industri, walaupun

hubungan yang digambarkan oleh rantai nilai cenderung lebih vertikal dalam satu jenis

komoditas industri daripada konsep ekosistem bisnis, yang melintang secara

horizontal di banyak sektor, komoditas dan jasa. Meskipun demikian, konsep rantai

nilai memberikan kontribusi penting untuk memahami ekosistem sejak: pertama, ia

menempatkan pelaku tertentu dalam rantai nilai dan menunjukkan bagaimana mereka

mengubah posisi dari waktu ke waktu. Kedua, ini memetakan arus kegiatan yang sama

yang dipersyaratkan untuk produksi barang dan jasa. Ketiga, ini mengidentifikasi

keterkaitan antara berbagai aktivitas dalam rantai. Keempat, ini membantu kita untuk

melihat siapa yang mendapatkan keuntungan sepanjang rantai pasokan dan

mengidentifikasi hubungan yang kuat dan lemah. Dengan kata lain, ini

mengidentifikasi siapa yang memegang peranan penting dalam keberhasilannya, atau

bagaimana hal itu diatur.

Kemampuan perusahaan adalah “kumpulan rutinitas yang menganut manajemen suatu

organisasi kemampuan untuk menghasilkan keluaran signifikan dari tipe tertentu”.

Para ilmuwan, bagaimanapun, berpendapat bahwa kemampuan dinamis, lebih dari

sekadar kemampuan ‘rutin’, diharuskan menciptakan dan mempertahankan

keunggulan kompetitif dalam lingkungan bisnis yang sedang berubah. Dinamika

berkonotasi mengubah, kemampuan dinamis adalah kemampuan yang memperluas,

memodifikasi atau menciptakan kemampuan untuk memenuhi tantangan dan tuntutan

pasar. Kemampuan tersebut, oleh karena itu, mendukung kemampuan sebuah

organisasi untuk menggunakan peralatan atau teknologi baru dengan sebaik-baiknya

untuk menghasilkan produk dan layanan baru dan inovatif, dan karenanya

meningkatkan produktivitas dan keunggulan kompetitifnya

Penggunaan keterampilan non-cyber untuk memanen data. Mengaduk /membongkar

tong sampah dan intersepsi email dan diuji cara mendapatkan data pribadi dan

keuangan. Metode yang lebih cepat, efektif dan semakin umum melibatkan bekerja

dengan ‘subkontraktor’ atau pencuri.

Penggunaan kemampuan cyber untuk memanen data. Penipuan kartu kredit menjadi

jauh lebih mahir dalam mengeksploitasi teknologi baru untuk aktivitas kriminal

mereka. Mereka mengikuti perkembangan teknologi dan bahkan melampaui mereka

melalui adaptasi dan peningkatan perangkat lunak yang ada.

Kemampuan dalam eksploitasi informasi

Spesialisasi dalam eksploitasi adalah meminimalkan tingkat keterampilan terkait TI

yang dibutuhkan untuk melakukan kejahatan. Beberapa contohnya adalah:

1. Penggunaan keterampilan non-cyber untuk memanfaatkan informasi

Banyak penipu kartu kredit lebih memilih untuk mendapatkan kartu sendiri tapi tanpa

mencuri mereka. Salah satu cara untuk melakukan ini dikenal sebagai

“pengambilalihan akun.”

2. Penggunaan keterampilan cyber untuk memanfaatkan informasi

Tren terhadap pengembangan dan pemasaran alat yang mudah digunakan untuk

eksploitasi kriminal berkembang dengan cepat menjadi crimeware-as-a-service

(CaaS). Munculnya crimeware sebagai layanan membebaskan penjahat karena harus

menghadapi tantangan teknis cybercrimes. Beberapa layanan ini termasuk toolkit

crimeware.

Bagian ketiga dari pekerjaan yang penting dalam memahami bagaimana ekosistem

cybercrime bekerja adalah model bisnis. Istilah ‘model bisnis’ digunakan dalam

literatur untuk menggambarkan komponen kunci dari sebuah bisnis, dan telah

memperoleh minat khusus dalam penelitian yang berkaitan dengan bisnis elektronik

Model bisnis adalah alat konseptual yang mengartikulasikan visi bisnis dan

menyampaikan pemahaman tingkat tinggi tentang sasaran strategis keseluruhan bisnis

dan interaksinya dengan pesaing

Model bisnis offline

Dua kemungkinan model bisnis offline adalah model bisnis loyalitas dan proses bisnis

outsourcing.

1. Model bisnis loyalitas digunakan saat sumber daya perusahaan digunakan untuk

meningkatkan loyalitas pelanggan dan pemangku kepentingan lainnya untuk

memenuhi harapan perusahaan.

2. Proses bisnis outsourcing model (BPO) melibatkan operasi kontraktor dan

tanggung jawab fungsi bisnis tertentu (atau proses) ke penyedia layanan pihak

ketiga. Hal ini secara tradisional dikaitkan dengan perusahaan manufaktur besar

yang mengunggah sebagian besar rantai pasokan mereka.

Model bisnis hibrida (gabungan jalur fisik (off-line) dan saluran web (online)

Banyak penulis telah membedakan model hibrida dari model bisnis internet saja,

menggunakan istilah seperti ‘batu bata dan klik’, juga dikenal sebagai “klik dan

mortir”, “ombak dan tur,” “ritel yang disempurnakan cyber,” dan “hibrida e-commerce

dan model bisnis yang mengasyikkan.

1. Model bisnis bata dan klik dan variasinya umumnya menggambarkan kemitraan

antara bisnis internet dan perusahaan distribusi tradisional, misalnya model bisnis
 yang sukses yang diadopsi oleh Amazon, dimana pesanan yang ditempatkan secara

online didistribusikan secara fisik oleh sistem pos.

2. Model bisnis yang menggairahkan melibatkan kolaborasi sementara individu

untuk memenuhi tantangan atau sasaran tertentu. Di dunia yang sah, anggota

“Rekanan” bekerja menuju kepentingan kolektif, yang secara luas didefinisikan

oleh pemangku kepentingan dan didorong oleh inovasi.

Model bisnis berbasis internet

1. Model berbasis periklanan:

2. Model pialang (perantara):

3. Model komunitas internet:

4. Crimeware-as-a-Service (CaAS):

5. Toolkit penjahat menawarkan alat off-the-shelf

6. Model bayar per infeksi mengemulasi pendekatan ‘pay-as-you-go’, (bayar sesuai

yang anda pakai)

Integrasi model bisnis ke dalam ekosistem kriminal memungkinkan kesempatan untuk

mengidentifikasi struktur bisnis cybercriminal yang khas. Namun semua model bisnis

memiliki kelemahan dan juga kekuatan. Dengan demikian dapat diperdebatkan bahwa,

dengan memperoleh pemahaman yang lebih baik tentang kelemahan model bisnis

cybercrime (bagaimana mereka diatur dan dioperasikan), perspektif dan tindakan yang

lebih baik untuk menangani kejahatan dunia maya dapat dikembangkan. Demikian

pula, pemahaman yang lebih baik tentang model bisnis cybercriminal cenderung

memfasilitasi tingkat pemahaman yang lebih besar mengenai aktivitas kriminal, yang

pada gilirannya dapat memberikan kecerdasan yang lebih mendasar yang dapat

digunakan untuk menetralisir aktivitas semacam itu.

Daftar Pustaka

Abbate, Janet. 2017. "What and where is the Internet? (Re)defining Internet histories."
Internet Histories: Digital Technology, Culture and Society 8-14.

Atzori, Luigi, Antonio Iera, and Giacomo Morabito. 2017. "Understanding the Internet of
Things: definition, potentials, and societal role of a fast evolving paradigm." Ad Hoc
Networks (Elsevier) 56: 122-140.

Broadhurst, Roderic, and Yao-chung Chang. 2012. "Cybercrime in Asia: Trends and
Challenges." Asian Handbook of Criminology 20-21.

Mir, Usman Riaz, Syeda Mahnaz Hassan, and Mubashir Majeed Qadri. 2014.
"Understanding Globalization and its Future: An Analysis." Pakistan Journal of Social
Sciences (PJSS) Vol. 34, No. 2 607-624.

Sarre, Rick, Laurie Yiu-Chung Lau, and Lennon Y.C. Chang. 2018. "Responding to
Cybercrime: Current Trends." Police Practice and Research: An International Journal
515-518.
 Internet Histories
Digital Technology, Culture and Society

ISSN: 2470-1475 (Print) 2470-1483 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rint20

What and where is the Internet? (Re)defining

Internet histories

Janet Abbate

To cite this article: Janet Abbate (2017): What and where is the Internet? (Re)defining Internet
histories, Internet Histories

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2017.1305836

Published online: 28 Mar 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rint20

Download by: [University of Newcastle, Australia] Date: 06 April 2017, At: 03:15
INTERNET HISTORIES, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2017.1305836

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

What and where is the Internet? (Re)defining Internet histories

Janet Abbate
Department of Science, Technology and Society, Virginia Tech National Capital Region, Falls Church, VA, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The ways in which historians define the Internet profoundly shape Received 16 December 2016
the histories we write. Many studies implicitly define the Internet in Accepted 9 March 2017
material terms, as a particular set of hardware and software, and KEYWORDS
consequently tend to frame the development of the Internet as the Internet history; Internet
spread of these technologies from the United States. This essay definition; infrastructure;
explores implications of defining the Internet alternatively in terms social capital; users
of technology, use and local experience. While there is not a single
“correct” definition, historians should be aware of the politics of the
definitions they use.

1. Introduction
Over the past two decades, the field of Internet history has produced a sophisticated body
of research with a global scope. Empirical studies in different national and regional con-
texts have opened up a broad understanding of what networks can be and the decisions
and contingencies that have shaped them. For example, Schafer’s (2015) research on
French and European networks demonstrates how design choices were tailored to local
and regional user communities and regulatory environments; studies by Gerovitch (2008)
and Peters (2016) analyse how networks in the former Soviet Union mirrored the organisa-
tional and political dynamics of the Soviet state; and books by Gottlieb and McLelland
(2003) and Franklin (2005) demonstrate how Internet technologies have been appropri-
ated and naturalised by residents and diasporas of Japan and the Pacific Islands. Such
diverse accounts challenge the US-centric narratives of heroic invention, expansion and
transfer found in much popular writing and go beyond genealogies of technical innova-
tions to trace histories of Internet use and governance.
Yet the object at the centre of this collective research effort remains strangely elusive.
Haigh, Russell, and Dutton (2015) raise the question, “What is the history of the Internet
the history of?” and find answers ranging from a narrow, technical definition of the Inter-
net as a set of routers and protocols enabling network interconnection to a broader
notion of the Internet that encompasses “the contents of the networks being intercon-
nected and their users, social practices, and skills” (pp. 143–144). Can we write Internet his-
tories if we do not know what the Internet is? I suggest that it is time to reconsider not
only what defines the Internet but the politics of such definitions. The ways in which

CONTACT Janet Abbate abbate@vt.edu

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 J. ABBATE

historians define the Internet shape the geographic and temporal scope of our narratives,
the activities we include or ignore, the dominance of certain countries and social groups
and the marginality of others. This essay will consider the strengths and limitations of
three broad ways of framing Internet histories.

2. The Internet as technology

In actors’ accounts and popular culture, the Internet is defined in terms of hardware and
software; a typical example is Wikipedia’s description of the Internet as “the global system
of interconnected computer networks that use the Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP).”1 This
framework, which was shared by early histories that sought to explain the origins of net-
work hardware and software, has several advantages. A close focus on technical compo-
nents allows historians to reconstruct the social shaping of design choices, while not
precluding serious consideration of national politics or user agency (Abbate, 1999). Using
the framework of systems theory (Hughes, 1987), historical accounts of network creation
have raised important questions about the politics of standardisation, interoperability and
governance mechanisms (DeNardis, 2009).
More recently, infrastructure studies have offered a rich body of theory and research for
unpacking how the Internet – and the more specialised information systems layered over
it – function and are defined within social relations. Star and Ruhleder’s (1996) classic defi-
nition of infrastructure highlights its socio-technical characteristics: infrastructures depend
on the human labour of standardisation in order to interact seamlessly with other systems;
infrastructures shape user practices, and vice versa; once learned, infrastructures become
transparent to their users until a failure abruptly makes them visible again. But Star and
Ruhleder also point out, crucially, that these infrastructural characteristics are not inherent
in the technology but only exist in relation to a social group that uses the infrastructure
for a shared purpose and whose members have integrated the technology into their con-
ventions of practice. This usefully raises the historical question of how – and for which
people and purposes – the Internet has taken on the character of an infrastructure.
Theorising how infrastructures develop over time, Blanchette (2012, p. 33) proposes
several “infrastructural dynamics,” such as “persistence” and “drift,” that can help histori-
ans explain aspects of the Internet’s technical evolution. Persistence means that “comput-
ing resources are repurposed rather than merely replaced” and that change “proceeds
conservatively through mutation and hybridisation, rather than outright break with the
past,” while the concept of drift acknowledges that infrastructure change is “only partially
responsive to rational control” and subject to “the push and pull of competing stakehold-
ers working to shift its evolution in the most advantageous direction” (p. 34). Such propo-
sitions about the general characteristics of infrastructure can help counter tendencies to
see the Internet as unique or exceptional and invite historians to situate Internet infra-
structure in a larger economic or institutional context.
The invisibility of infrastructure described by Star and Ruhleder simultaneously pro-
motes ease of use and difficulty of social or political accountability. Recent work on the
politics of algorithms reveals how the hidden calculations behind search engines, news
feeds and ad placement can violate privacy and perpetuate social bias (Gillespie, 2014;
Halavais, 2008). Labour is often invisible online as well, whether it is the unpaid labour of
forum moderators and social media content providers or the obscured labour relations of
 INTERNET HISTORIES 3

contingent workers who contract through online labour markets (Scholz, 2012). Making
infrastructure invisible is a social and historical process that involves phenomena as
diverse as protocol standards, trade secrets, user interfaces and user training. Internet his-
tories can and should unpack how such invisibility is achieved and its social and political
consequences.
One limitation of defining the Internet as a large technological system or infrastructure is
that this tends to frame the Internet as a channel for transmitting data, rather than as a field
of social practice. A systems approach also privileges the role of system builders over users
in historical accounts. Perhaps most problematically, tracing the Internet’s history to a par-
ticular set of hardware and software innovations reinforces a perception of the United
States as the Internet’s centre. The computer communications system that first bore the
label “Internet” grew out of the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET),
which was funded by and located within the United States; but the persistence of the
name “Internet” for today’s global data network should not imply that the ARPANET has
been the sole source of its technology, practices or meaning. An instructive example of a
non-US-centric infrastructure study is Medina’s Cybernetic Revolutionaries: Technology and
Politics in Allende’s Chile (2011), which follows a nationally networked computing project
called Cybersyn. Challenging the notion that all innovations in computer communications
originate in the global North, Media describes how Cybersyn was locally conceived in 1971,
independently of the US ARPANET (which was not yet operational). The fact that Cybersyn
did not survive Chile’s political upheaval long enough to join today’s Internet does not
negate its significance for Internet history: what did persist were social visions for network-
ing, technical capacities and individual actors who went on to other projects.

3. The Internet as content and social space

While it is clearly important to understand the history of technical infrastructures, much of
what is culturally interesting about the Internet involves applications, content, services
and interaction – social media, shopping and games, rather than switches, packets and
protocols. Early studies of “cyberspace” and “virtual community” highlighted how social
groups constructed the Internet as a virtual space for social interaction and individual
expression (Rheingold, 1993; Turkle, 1995), and more recent studies of social media and
gaming explore similar issues of identity and community (Corneliussen & Rettberg, 2008).
Framing the Internet as content or social space usefully highlights the active role of users
as content creators as well as the political role of information and its implications for
democracy. It shifts the focus away from hardware innovation and thereby potentially
decentres the US and highlights local or subcultural content and practices. On the other
hand, since many online communities require paid memberships and leisure time, there
may be a bias toward economically privileged groups, early adopters (especially young
people) and recreational uses of the Internet.
Much of this online content and social activity previously existed offline, which
raises questions of periodisation. Should the history begin when the activity in ques-
tion was first moved online, which could imply historical discontinuity or Internet
exceptionalism, or should the online version be positioned within a longer history of
the activity? And should the historical trajectory centre on technology, providers or
users to explain the success and form of online practices? For example, a
4 J. ABBATE

technology-focused history might include the development shopping-cart software,

delivery services and banking and credit systems with their attendant regulations. A
business history of e-commerce might examine the economic rationales behind busi-
ness plans and how online and offline enterprises both compete and complement
each other (Aspray & Ceruzzi, 2008). A history focused on how users came to trust
and value e-commerce could include mail-order catalogues as a familiarising prece-
dent, lower prices as an incentive to buy online, the ability to locate and economi-
cally buy or sell hard-to-find goods (such as used or hand-made items) and
mechanisms that lower the perceived risk to buyers (such as secure payments and
return policies). Different histories offer different policy lessons.
One important framing of online social space theorises the Internet as a “public
sphere,” with political significance as a place in which a collective understanding of public
issues can be formed and political action organised (Benkler, 2006). Attention to political
activism highlights the connections between online and offline identities and behaviours.
The framework of the online public sphere can be used critically to analyse ways in which
the Internet fails to measure up to this political ideal, as when social media platforms cre-
ate “filter bubbles” (Pariser, 2011) that prevent users’ exposure to diverse views. As a his-
torical framework, the concept of the public sphere could also reposition the Internet
within the history of the press or of social spaces for information exchange, such as cafes
and public squares (Darnton, 2000).

4. The Internet as locally situated experience

The Internet’s infrastructure may be global, but for its users, the Internet is always local.
Users experience the Internet through specific, locally situated machines, programs, service
providers and cultures, and their service providers respond to local markets and regulatory
regimes. Economics partially determine what forms of online experience are locally accessi-
ble: the geographical coverage of Internet service is highly uneven and reproduces existing
power disparities. Castells (2004) has argued that the “network society” is based on “a
binary logic: inclusion/exclusion. Within the network, distance between nodes tends to
zero… Between nodes in the network and those outside the network distance is infinite”
(p. 4). These disparities also exist within local contexts: where access is mediated by the
market, class position shapes which of many possible Internets one experiences. As
Warschauer (2003) has argued, meaningful access also requires social capital, which could
include competency in English or another language not native to the user and an under-
standing of what types of online services are available and how they might benefit the
individual.
Qiu’s (2009) study of working-class network users in China illustrates how local con-
straints on physical interfaces can shape what the Internet means to users. While drawing
on Castells’s theory of the network society, Qui goes beyond Castells’s binary logic of
inclusion/exclusion to argue that access is a matter of degree – his subjects are “have-
less” rather than “have-nots” – and that different levels of access produce different user
experiences. Qiu illustrates how the machines that working-class Chinese use for access
(mostly low-end phones) constrain their experience and perception of the Internet’s capa-
bilities; many have never used email or search engines and do not regard these communi-
cative and information-seeking tools as part of their Internet. The issue of low-cost
 INTERNET HISTORIES 5

interfaces is not unique to China; mobile phones are the primary means of Internet access
in much of the developing world (Katz, 2008). Focusing on local access capabilities and
practices can force us to reconsider how we define the hardware and software that consti-
tute the Internet. As Dutton (2013) points out, “Internet” is increasingly an umbrella term
for “computing, telecommunication, cable and satellite, mobile, and other ICTs,” which
form a larger “ecology of media and ICTs within which the Internet is embedded” (p. 13).
To see the Internet as local is to see it as multiple. Defining the Internet by local
user experience undermines any notion of a singular Internet by showing how users
can experience radically different “Internets” based on the technologies and content
that their political environment, social position and personal capacities make avail-
able. The user’s physical ability (sight, hearing, ability to manipulate a keyboard) and
fluency in the language(s) used for content and interface software also constrain
Internet access and shape user experience. Gender can be another defining factor,
since the spaces available for online access, such as Internet cafes, may be off-limits
to women in some cultures. These factors mean that the “same” infrastructure can
produce extremely variable experiences between users and even for the same user
in different situations.
Political issues such as privacy are also defined in important ways by local social set-
tings. A user’s privacy depends in part on whether the machine is shared or individually
owned and whether the local provider (such as an employer) asserts a right to inspect net-
work traffic. Government censorship and surveillance are another local factor that shapes
the type of information available to users as well as the types of interaction and personal
expression they feel safe engaging in. Users in a public library, a family living room or a
Chinese Internet cafe may face human as well as electronic surveillance.
Another important local variable is the real-world social environment in which the
Internet is used, which could include groups of friends, family, classmates or strangers in
an Internet cafe. Socially situated Internet use can provide additional capacities to users,
such as informal training. Local cultures also colour the meanings users attach to their
Internet use. For example, Miller and Slater’s study of Internet use in Trinidad shows how
national discourse about the Internet draws on local histories and politics; for example,
the meaning of “freedom” online is understood in relation to both the nation’s history of
slavery and its current ideology of neoliberalism (2000, p. 18). While defining the Internet
in terms of situated resources and practices highlights the role of social capital and cul-
ture, the limitations of this approach are that it does not address the larger, supra-local
forces shaping infrastructure and content or the similarities, connections and shared expe-
riences across the global user base.

5. The politics of history

I have argued here that the content and boundaries of “the Internet” depend on the activ-
ity, community or issues we wish to focus on in any given case. This means that the defini-
tion – and therefore the history – of the Internet depend on why we are asking the
question. For example, Streeter (2010) has traced how ideas about the purpose and prom-
ise of computer networks have reflected the political and economic ideologies of different
decades. He argues that dominant framings of the Internet often reflect the perspectives
and interests of those in power; definitions are not innocent. Likewise, questions about
6 J. ABBATE

the purpose and meaning of history are raised not merely by historians but also by advo-
cates of particular policy positions who would harness history to certify that their views
represent the true nature of the Internet. As Haigh et al. (2015), p. 146) warn:
Tracing a particular practice back to its prehistory in the ARPANET or arguing that a certain
philosophy was clearly formulated in the creation of the Internet and has guided it ever since
is a way of giving oneself the moral high ground.

Histories that focus on the dominant players, those with the resources to create expen-
sive new technologies, run the risk of privileging their visions in a contemporary Internet
system that has, and should take into account, a much broader scope and constituency.
Definitions that locate the defining features of the Internet in situated social practices can
help challenge the claim of hardware- and software-builders to speak for the Internet. In
the arena of public policy, histories that frame the Internet as the evolution of the public
sphere can support arguments for protecting freedom of speech or subsidised public
access in a way that histories framing the Internet as an entertainment service or a vehicle
for private expression would not.
Given the multiple meanings attached to the Internet, it may be misleading even
to speak of “the” Internet. Yet the dominance, at least in popular English-language
usage, of “the Internet” indicates that there is also a cultural reality to its status as a
single global system. Part of the historian’s role is to explain how public and expert
understandings of “the Internet” have been formed and to what extent these under-
standings are tied to historical periods, places and cultures. Using “Internet” as an
adjective – “Internet histories” instead of “histories of the Internet” – is one way to
signal a shift in historical focus from a singular technical entity to its myriad cultural
manifestations.

Note
1. Wikipedia, accessed 3 June 2017.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor
Janet Abbate is associate professor of Science and Technology in Society at Virginia Tech and serves
as co-director of the STS graduate program in Northern Virginia. She received her BA degree from
Harvard-Radcliffe College and her PhD degree from the University of Pennsylvania. Abbate’s
research has focused on the history, culture and policy of computers and the Internet. Her 1999
book, Inventing the Internet, was the first scholarly history of the Internet and has become a standard
reference. Her 2012 book, Recoding Gender: Women’s Changing Participation in Computing, explores
how gender has shaped computing and suggests how the experiences of female pioneers can
inform current efforts to broaden participation in science and technology. She also co-edited (with
Brian Kahin) Standards Policy for Information Infrastructure (MIT Press, 1995). Her current research
investigates the historical emergence of computer science as an intellectual discipline, an academic
institution and a professional identity.
 INTERNET HISTORIES 7

ORCID
Janet Abbate http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8230-6334

References
Abbate, J. (1999). Inventing the internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Aspray, W., & Ceruzzi, P. (Eds.) (2008). The Internet and American business. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks how social production transforms markets and freedom. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Blanchette, J.-F. (2012). Computing as if infrastructure mattered. Communications of the ACM, 55(10),
32–34. doi:10.1145/2347736.2347748
Castells, M. (2004). Informationalism, networks, and the network society: A theoretical blueprint. In
M. Castells (Ed.), The network society: A cross-cultural perspective (pp. 3–45). Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
Corneliussen, H. G., & Rettberg, J. W. (Eds.) (2008). Digital culture, play, and identity: A world of war-
craft® reader. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Darnton, R. (2000). An early information society: News and the media in eighteenth-century Paris.
The American Historical Review, 105(1), 1–35. doi:10.1086/ahr/105.1.1
DeNardis, L. (2009). Protocol politics: The globalization of Internet governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dutton, W. H. (2013). Internet studies: The foundations of a transformative field. In W. H. Dutton (Ed.),
The Oxford handbook of internet studies (pp. 1–23). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Franklin, M. (2005). Postcolonial politics, the internet, and everyday life: Pacific traversals online.
Abingdon: Routledge:.
Gerovitch, S. (2008). InterNyet: Why the Soviet Union did not build a nationwide computer network.
History and Technology, 24, 335–350. doi:10.1080/07341510802044736
Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. Boczkowski, & K. Foot (Eds.), Media
technologies (pp. 167–194). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gottlieb, N., & McLelland, M. (Eds.) (2003). Japanese cybercultures. Abingdon: Routledge.
Haigh, T., Russell, A. L., & Dutton, W. H. (2015). Histories of the Internet. Information & Culture, 50, 143–
159. doi:10.1353/lac.2015.0006
Halavais, A. (2008). Search engine society. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Hughes, T. P. (1987). The evolution of large technological systems. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, &
T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems (pp. 51–82). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Katz, J. E. (Ed.) (2008). Handbook of mobile communication studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Medina, E. (2011). Cybernetic revolutionaries: Technology and politics in Allende’s Chile. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Miller, D., & Slater, D. (2000). The internet: An ethnographic approach. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. London: Penguin Press.
Peters, B. (2016). How not to network a nation: The uneasy history of the Soviet Internet. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Qiu, J. L. (2009). Working-class network society: Communication technology and the information have-
less in Urban China. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Schafer, V. (2015). Part of a whole: RENATER, a twenty-year-old network within the internet. Informa-
tion & Culture, 50, 217–235. doi:10.1353/lac.2015.0010
Scholz, T. (Ed.) (2012). Digital labor: The internet as playground and factory. New York, NY: Routledge.
Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for
large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7, 111–134. doi:10.1287/isre.7.1.111
Streeter, T. (2010). The net effect: Romanticism, capitalism, and the internet. New York, NY: NYU Press.
Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Warschauer, M. (2003). Social capital and access. Universal Access in the Information Society, 2(4), 315–
330. doi:10.1007/s10209-002-0040-
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274640873

Understanding Globalization and its Future: An Analysis

Article · January 2014

CITATIONS READS
13 90,943

3 authors:

Usman Riaz Mir Dr. Syeda Mahnaz Hassan

Virtual University of Pakistan University of the Punjab
9 PUBLICATIONS   33 CITATIONS    40 PUBLICATIONS   98 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mubashar Majeed Qadri

Virtual University of Pakistan
19 PUBLICATIONS   55 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Situation of Child Labour in Tannery Sector of Kasur View project

Global Dynamics of Social Policy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mubashar Majeed Qadri on 08 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS)
Vol. 34, No. 2 (2014), pp. 607-624

Understanding Globalization and its Future: An Analysis

Usman Riaz Mir
Lecturer, Virtual University of Pakistan
Email: usmanriazmir@vu.edu.pk

Syeda Mahnaz Hassan, PhD

Assistant Professor, Department of Social Work,
University of the Punjab, Lahore
Email: drsyedamahnazhassan@gmail.com

Mubashir Majeed Qadri

Lecturer, Virtual University of Pakistan

Abstract
Globalization is a complex and dynamic phenomenon. What make this
phenomenon more complex are the contradictory justifications on the
origin of globalization, conflicting ways of defining the phenomenon
and differing viewpoints on globalization dimensions. This paper tries
to provide definitions of globalization which support its historical
development perspective. History has provided some details about
ground breaking events in different eras of globalization. Various
dimensions of globalization are also available in this study. Brief
description of each dimension is given for understanding globalization
from different aspects. Last and most important part of this paper is
comprised of current events, statistics, reports and trend analysis
which help in predicting globalization’s future. Future is forecasted
based on available facts and figures. Conclusively, the result of all
discussion on future of globalization is that it will survive and
gradually grow with respect to all aspects. Stage is set for enhanced
globalization. Although it has pros and cons, it is on our part to
support, facilitate and encourage positive impacts of globalization,
while searching ways to minimize or discourage its drawbacks.

Keywords: Globalization, dynamic phenomenon, future.

I. Introduction
Globalization is a multifaceted phenomenon which encompasses economic, social,
political, technological and cultural dimensions. Whether globalization is newly
constituted phenomenon? Answer of this question depends upon how far researcher is
ready to extend the chain of causation which resulted in those social and technological
arrangements that many scholars have associated with globalization. The basis of today’s
technological advancements like supersonic jet planes and computer are based on earlier
inventions like steam engine, cotton ginning, typewriter, telephone and electrical
appliances.. These inventions are further based on some previous inventions like the
invention of wheel, domestication of wild animals & plants and finally migration of
African ancestors at the dawn of human invention.
608 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 34, No. 2

Some scholars have deliberately limited the scope of globalization to the last four
decades in order to understand the contemporary features of globalization. Others are
trying to find the linkages of globalization in the ground breaking developments of 19 th
century. Even some others are looking back into the beginning of industrialism and
capitalism for understanding globalization. Finally, few scholars reject the concept of
confining globalization in few decades, rather according to them globalization is a
process which has been unfolding for millennia (Steger, 2003).

Above mentioned history of globalization indicates that it is an ongoing process.

Intensity of globalization changes in the times of boom and recession. Many scholars are
talking about the future of globalization (Robb, 2007; Hufbauer & Suominen, 2010;
Muller, 2010). Some are worried about the impact of terrorism on globalization process.
Some others have keen interest in the study of recent financial crisis. Muller (2010) has
suggested a new phase of globalization with an alarming end of globalization. He also
suggested some remedies about securing the process of globalization from going towards
the worst situation.

The purpose of this paper is to give a brief history of globalization along with its
dimensions and phases. Finally, the paper tries to predict the future of globalization in the
lights of recent political, social, economic and cultural trends.

II. History of globalization

It seems a moot question, when someone asks about the history of globalization.
By looking at the contemporary feel regarding effects of globalization, it is a common
practice in media and even in scholars to look at globalization as a recent trend emerged
before few decades (Pieterse, 2012). The usual timeline of globalization emphasized by
the scholars and researchers is post-second world war and on the minimum post-cold war.
Effective database on globalization in the fields of social sciences, humanities, political
science, media, cultural studies, communication, film studies and international relations
can be found out from 1970s or 1980s onward (Pieterse, 2012) and this era has been
considered as most relevant as well as have accelerated global flows and effects.

But a question arises that does it make sense that a momentous concept like
globalization emerged in only few decades? Globalization, as a complex connectivity,
may situate before few decades but globalization process comprised of social, political,
economic and cultural flows instigates us to go further back in times (Tomlinson, 1999).
According to Pieterse (2012), many features of globalization can be found in the past and
embedded in the evolutionary times. In this sense, globalization becomes part of big
history which situates planetary evolutionary processes within cosmic evolution (Spier,
2010). The study of “historical globalization” indicates that the world had never been a
place for unconnected/discrete communities rather there were strong evidences of cross
cultural exchanges and interactions from the earliest times of human existence in the
planet (Bentley, 2004). Looking at globalization as current trend probably is a semantic
issue. Many historians have found out the basis of deep and wide infrastructure of
globalization in the past era without using the term globalization (Pieterse, 2012).

Historians have taken different threshold levels for defining the emergence of
globalization. The emergence of world economy is one of the thresholds for
 Usman Riaz Mir, Syeda Mahnaz Hassan, Mubashir Majeed Qadri 609
globalization. Frank (1998) in his research in Asia and Gunn (2003) in his research on
Southeast Asia considers 1200s as a most relevant time for economic emergence. But
Hobson (2004) has found out evidences of world economy as far back as 3500 BC.
According to Hobson (2004), although economic globalization starts emerging from 3500
BC but a huge expansion of global connections and trade occurred during post 600-
period which is termed as oriental globalization encouraged by the revival of camel
transport.

Era of commercial revolution is also a threshold for defining globalization which

unfolded from 1000 BC. A web of commercial ties have created a link between big
portion of the world in which India, South China and Mediterranean, and with the help of
Europe, East & West Africa, Central Asia, Indonesia and North & Western Pacific were
active points. The core element of newly established commerce system was widely
recognized money system, development of new technology of accounting, merchandizing
and shipping, establishment of commercial routes and development of social institutions
(Ehret, 1998; Manning, 2005).

If trade linkages between different distant regions are taken as the criterion of
globalization emergence, then it may leads further back to Bronze Age. Besides cotton
and silk from China, early trade includes turquoise, agate, beads and lapis. The Silk Road
from Xian to Mediterranean dates back to 800 BC and evidence of Jade road from central
Asia to China can be found in 3000 BCE (Mair, 2006). It also matches with the early
commerce technologies like charging interest on loans, whose evidence can be found in
Sumer dated back to 3000 BC (Goetzmann & Rouwenhorst 2005).

Jennings (2011), who is an Archeologist, takes the formation of cities as a

threshold for globalization. There was rapid social changes and urbanization in
Mesopotamian world in Uruk period (4200-3100 BCE). Uruk-Warka was a major urban
center which was three times in size of Athens (Jennings, 2011).

Steger (2003) has summed up the debate on history of globalization and provided a
short chronology, based on five distinct historical periods. These periods are segregated
by significant changes in the social, cultural, political, technological and economical
factors. Following are distinct historical periods suggested by Steger (2003) with some
important characteristics.

Pre-historic period (10000 BC – 3500 BC)

In the start of this human history, interaction among thousands of hunter all over
the world was limited to geographical limitations and was coincidental. But the extent of
social interaction changed dramatically when food cultivation was focused. Although, the
process of globalization started but its magnitude was limited. Evidence showed centrally
administered warfare, agriculture, bureaucracy and religion as key agents of social
interaction which ultimately resulted in growing societies in different regions of the
world.

Pre-modern period (3500 BC – 1500 C)

There was a dramatic change in globalization in this period because of invention of
wheel (3000 BC) in South Asia and writing in central China, Egypt and Mesopotamia.
610 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 34, No. 2

Invention of wheel encouraged huge infrastructural innovations like permanent roads (for
example silk road) and animal-drawn cart that helped in transportation of goods as well
as human resources to distant places. Major technological innovations of that time
includes tapping of natural gas, hydraulic engine, paper printing, sophisticated metal
working techniques and silk fabric. Irrigation system comprised of canals; not only
encouraged productivity but also provided best transportation system. Furthermore values
of coinage encouraged the market and trade expansion.

Early modern period (1500-1750)

The term modernity and enlightenment have been associated with eighteenth
century project of liberating thoughts. The remarkable advancement during these two
centuries accelerated globalization. European benefited a lot from Islamic and Chinese
innovations. European entrepreneurs laid the foundation of capitalist world system and
resulted in the emergence of joint stock companies. Expansionistic desire of Europeans
instigated them to seek for profitable sea routes, which encouraged the innovations like
revised maritime technologies, postal system and advance navigation system.

Modern period (1750-1970)

Idea of globalization became at the stage of rapid growth in this period. Due to
political and economical influences, significant level of networking and integration was
visible in social, cultural and technological sectors. Level of world trade dramatically
increased due to multinational banks, global pricing systems, railway system, mechanized
ships and air transport. Furthermore, social interaction increased because of telegraph
system that provides basis for telephones, mobile, internet and many other related
inventions.

Contemporary system (1970 onward)

A dramatic expansion and acceleration of globalization is another quantum leap
in its history. Now, the world is socially interconnected through mobile, social media,
internet and electronic media, as well as, MNCs played their role in cultural integration.
Global integration increased drastically due to technological advancement in this era.

III. Definition of Globalization

Definition is not everything but it is the main source of understanding a
phenomenon. A misguided or muddled concept may lead towards misunderstanding
issues, whereas, a revealing and sharp definition promotes knowledge, insight and
interest that help to move forward in positive direction. As globalization is a multifaceted
phenomenon, so it is necessary to first define what is meant by globalization. Many
scholars tried to define globalization. This section firstly attempts to trace the vocabulary
of globalization, and then definitions of different scholars are provided followed by
conclusive definition on globalization.

Although word of ‘globalization’ has been used by scholars in their work in

second half of 20th century but the word has a longer pedigree. In English language,
several hundred years ago, when it was discovered that earth is round, a noun ‘globe’
began to use for planet (Scholte, 2002). In late nineteenth century, other than its meaning
of spherical, the adjective ‘global’ was used for “world scale”. The word globalism and
globalize appeared in 1940s and in 1961, the word globalization was first entered in
 Usman Riaz Mir, Syeda Mahnaz Hassan, Mubashir Majeed Qadri 611
American English dictionary (Scholte, 2002). There are examples of word globalization
in languages other than English like ‘quanqiuhua’ in Chinese, ‘globalizacion’ in Spanish,
‘lil` alam’ in Arabic, ‘globalizatsia’ in Russian and ‘mondialisation’ in French.

Researcher has defined globalization in various perspectives. This article includes

definitions of those scholars who perceive globalization as a historic process. Let’s look
at some of the definitions of globalization and see how researchers observe this
multifaceted phenomenon.

According to Albrow (1990), globalization refers to “all those processes by which

the people of the world are incorporated into a single world society”. Similarly, McGrew
(1992) stated:

Globalization constitutes a multiplicity of linkages and interconnections that

transcend the nation states (and by implication the societies) which make up the
modern world system. It defines a process through which events, decisions and
activities in one part of the world can come to have a significant consequence for
individuals and communities in quite distant parts of the globe.

These two researchers have broadly defined globalization as process of integration

and haven’t specified any factors to be integrated.

Cerny (1995), Jones (1995) and Bairoch & Kozul-Wright (1996) have defined
globalization as a process of economic and financial integration. According to Cerny
(1995):
Globalization is defined here as a set of economic and political structures and
processes deriving from the changing character of the goods and assets that
comprise the base of the international political economy - in particular, the
increasing structural differentiation of those goods and assets.

Similarly, Jones (1995) suggested “globalization may simply be an intensification

of the process of international interdependence, a function of the growth of competition
in an international free trade system intensified by the diffusion of technology”.
Furthermore, Bairoch & Kozul-Wright (1996) referred globalization as:

A process in which the production and financial structures of countries are

becoming interlinked by an increasing number of cross-border transactions to create
an international division of labour in which national wealth creation comes,
increasingly, to depend on economic agents in other countries, and the ultimate
stage of economic integration where such dependence has reached its spatial limit.

Thomas, & Wilkin (1997) and McGrew (1998) have focused on social aspect of
globalization. According to Thomas (1997), “globalization refers broadly to the process
whereby power is located in global social formations and expressed through global
networks rather than through territorially-based states”. McGrew (1998) defined
globalization as:

A process which generates flows and connections, not simply across nation-states
and national territorial boundaries, but between global regions, continents and
612 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 34, No. 2

civilizations. This invites a definition of globalization as: ‘an historical process

which engenders a significant shift in the spatial reach of networks and systems of
social relations to transcontinental or interregional patterns of human organization,
activity and the exercise of power.

Jameson (1998) has highlighted cultural aspect. According to him:

As a cultural process, globalization names the explosion of a plurality of mutually
intersecting, individually syncretic, local differences; the emergence of new,
hitherto suppressed identities; and the expansion of a world-wide media and
technology culture with the promise of popular democratization. As economic
process, the assimilation or integration of markets, of labor, of nations.

At the end, Al-Rodhan, & Stoudmann (2006) and Hebron & Stack (2013) have
provided more generalized and conclusive definitions, comprising the dimensions of
economic, political, cultural and social. According to Al-Rodhan, & Stoudmann (2006),
“globalization is a process that encompasses the causes, course, and consequences of
transnational and transcultural integration of human and non-human activities”.
Similarly, Hebron & Stack (2013) defined globalization as “the further development of
the process initiated over many centuries, reflected in the trade expansion, exploration,
conquest, migration, colonization, technological advancement, and so on that have taken
place throughout world history”.

Different scholars have tried to define globalization from various perspectives but
as far as this study is concerned, it is important to know that globalization is not a new
phenomenon. It is part and parcel of the process of expansion across continents based on
migration, trade, warfare, military alliances, conquest, exploration, colonization and
technological advancement. Contacts among states, societies and people from Stone Age
till now have knitted the world in the shape of interdependent patterns which attenuated
and intensified overtime. The outcome of the process of globalization is characterized by
unpredictable, far-reaching and ongoing changes (Hebron & Stack, 2013).

IV. Dimensions of Globalization

Preceding definitions revealed that globalization is comprised of multiple
dimensions. These dimensions include economic, political, cultural and social. By
looking at the literature of globalization, it is evident that whenever scholars talked about
globalization, they are mostly concerned about economic globalization (Hebron & Stack,
2013). Although economic globalization is an important factor but one must not ignore
other important factors like political, cultural and social factors.

So, from one aspect, globalization represents unstoppable and relentless economic
force which integrated national markets, financial services, labor and firms on an
unprecedented scale. This aspect can be characterized by unrestricted and massive flow
of financial information, capital, goods and services in virtually every part of the world
(Friedman, 1999). Other aspect focuses on the capacity and sovereignty of states in the
era of globalization (Clark, 1999). Yet another aspect conceptualized globalization as
entanglement of diverse culture (Ellwood, 2003) and social structures (Hebron & Stack,
2013). Carefully analyzing these dimensions revealed that each one of this supports
emergence as well as intensification of other dimension.
 Usman Riaz Mir, Syeda Mahnaz Hassan, Mubashir Majeed Qadri 613

Economic Globalization
Contemporary economic globalization is a result of gradual emergence of
international economic order which started from economic conference held at the end of
World War II in Bretton Woods, England. Major economic powers of global North
reversed their interwar (1918-1939) policy of protectionism. America and England
played leading role in the success of that conference (Steger, 2003). Other than reaching
towards consensus on increasing international trade, these countries also agreed on
establishing binding rules of international activities. Bretton Wood’s conference laid
foundation for the establishment of other important international organizations like IMF,
World Bank and World Trade Organization (Steger, 2003). International Monetary Fund
was established to handle international monetary systems. Similarly, World Bank was
created to facilitate loan facility for the reconstruction of post-war Europe, its scope was
expanded to provide loan for developing countries of the world. General agreement on
tariffs and trade was established to cater the problems of international trade in 1947
which was converted into World Trade Organization in 1995.

Economic globalization refers to “the intensification and stretching of economic

interrelations across the globe” (Steger, 2003). According to Martin, Schumann &
Camiller 1997, “economic globalization refers to the progressive “networking” of
national market economies into a single, tightly interconnected global political economy
whose accumulation and distribution of resources are increasingly governed by neoliberal
principles-emphasizing the role the market while minimizing governmental involvement
in economic matters”.

The economic networking is possible, when concept of transnational

decentralization of services and production markets is materialized which helps in
integrated global market and enable farther, cheaper, faster and more efficient flow of
information, goods, services and people across borders (Katzenstein, et al., 1998). This
process of economic globalization is fueled by government deregulation policies,
international transportation, revolutionary and innovative technological advancement and
ecological forces that asks for integration (Kudrle, 1999).

In the area of trade, globalization means continuous process of openness in goods

and services market and high dependence on international trade as a source of prosperity
and income. According to Milton (2000), “today all countries trade internationally and
they trade significant proportions of their income. Indeed, trade has reached
unprecedented level, both absolutely and proportionate to world output”.

In the realm of finance, globalization is characterized by an increased integration

of international financial market, which is, higher level of foreign investments across
borders, capital flow, foreign lending and joint ventures than before (Hebron & Stack,
2013). Therefore, economic globalization is manifested by increased capital flows,
transnational flow of goods and services, march towards global market and dismantling
of national borders (Hebron & Stack, 2013).

Political Globalization
614 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 34, No. 2

Political globalization refers to “the intensification and expansion of political

interrelations across the globe” (Steger, 2003). For last few centuries, humans have
developed a sense of belongingness with a particular nation and political differences were
built on these territories. This artificial division has nurtured a concept of common “us”
and unfamiliar “them” which segregates the social space into foreign and domestic
spheres. People believe in the superiority of nation and other’s demonizing image has
supplied energy, responsible for large scale war-fares (Steger, 2003). Contemporary
phenomenon of globalization somehow tried to soften the conceptual boundaries and old
territorial borders.

On one side, hyper-globalizers commented that period since 1960s is characterized

by deterritorialization of rules, politics and governance (Steger, 2003). This group sees
globalization as process which resulted in a reduced capacity of states (Hebron & Stack,
2013). According to Clark (1999), “it is the sovereignty which is most at risk from
globalization”. Weiss (2003) repeated the similar threat as, “changes in the international
political economy have radically restricted policy choice and forced policy shift that play
to the preference of global investors and mobile corporations, rather than to the needs of
domestic political economy and its citizens”. Negroponte gave concluding remarks on the
debate which are quoted by Gray (1998) as, “Like a mothball, which goes from solid to
gas directly, I expect the nation-state to evaporate”.

On the other hand, globalization skeptics consider hyper-globalizer viewpoint as

erroneous at worst and premature at best (Steger, 2003). This state-centric group has
contend, “States still are at the center of international systems” (Wendt, 1999). Reflection
of state-centric world order can be visible in economic expansion, geopolitical and post-
cold war policies from the World’s most powerful states (Kapstein, 1999). According to
Hebron & Stack, 2013, “States are simply adapting to a political and economic structure
put in place following the World War II”.

Rosenau (1997) has summed up the debate in following words, “States are
changing, but they are not disappearing. State sovereignty has been eroded, but it is still
vigorously asserted. Governments are weaker, but they can still throw their weight
around”. Simply, “the reach of state has increased in some areas but contracted in others”
(Krasner, 2001).

Socio-cultural Globalization
Talking about economic and political globalization may represent a part of the
story as globalization is not comprised of economic/political process only but affected by
social and cultural spheres, where people confront major shifts (Hebron & Stack, 2013).
Giddens (1990) tried to define social aspect of globalization as, “worldwide social
relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by
events occurring many miles away and vice versa”. Similarly cultural globalization refers
to, “the intensification and expansion of cultural flows across the globe” (Steger, 2003).
Social and cultural globalization are somehow mixing concept. Both dimensions affect
the emergence and intensification of each other. If people are socially integrated, there is
an increased chance of cultural proximity due to value exchange. This idea is
strengthened by looking at the famous index developed by Dreher (2003) of measuring
globalization. Dreher bifurcated globalization into three main dimensions: economic,
 Usman Riaz Mir, Syeda Mahnaz Hassan, Mubashir Majeed Qadri 615
political and social. Social globalization includes three aspects which are personal
contact, information flows and cultural proximity (Dreher, 2006).

According to De-Soysa & Vadlamannati (2011), economic globalization is a

concept which is well researched but social (including cultural) aspect of globalization is
somehow under-researched, neglected and given less importance. But research conducted
by De-Soysa & Vadlamannati indicated that social globalization has more weightage in
overall globalization.

Looking at the historical perspective, socio-cultural globalization was under

gradual development process but the extent and volume of transmission exceeds
dramatically in the contemporary period. People to people interaction facilitated by
immigration and tourism, cultural exchange, information flows, technology dissemination
and exchange of ideas through the medium of radio, TV channels, newspapers, telephone,
and internet helped in disseminating new idea from developed to less developed countries
(De-Soysa & Vadlamannati, 2011) and this idea dissemination helped in more social and
cultural integration.

On the positive end, an accelerated march towards homogeneous culture where

linguistic, ethnic and racial differences are washed away, will leads towards
institutionalized, modernized and rationalized global culture. This kind of social
arrangement may cause a true transnationalism and give rise to more peaceful and
tolerate world order.

But according to a contrary perspective, homogeneous culture predominated by

western as well as American values and symbols threaten the cultural identities.
Therefore, globalization proves a challenge for authentic culture communities through the
power of expanding interchange of values, norms, identities, ideas and self-conceptions
(Hebron & Stack, 2013).

Barber (1998) provided rationale of cultural globalization by arguing that threat

posed by cultural homogeneity is as serious as any threat arising from economic and
political globalization because they also somehow carry elements of individual and group
destruction.
616 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 34, No. 2

Table 1: Weights of globalization indicators

Indices and Variables Weights

A. Economic Globalization [38%]

i) Actual Flows (50%)
Trade (percent of GDP) (19%)
Foreign Direct Investment, flows (percent of GDP) (20%)
Foreign Direct Investment, stocks (percent of GDP) (23%)
Portfolio Investment (percent of GDP) (17%)
Income Payments to Foreign Nationals (percent of GDP) (21%)
ii) Restrictions (50%)
Hidden Import Barriers (21%)
Mean Tariff Rate (29%)
Taxes on International Trade (percent of current revenue) (25%)
Capital Account Restrictions (25%)
B. Social Globalization [39%]
i) Data on Personal Contact (34%)
Telephone Traffic (26%)
Transfers (percent of GDP) (3%)
International Tourism (26%)
Foreign Population (percent of total population) (20%)
International letters (per capita) (26%)
ii) Data on Information Flows (34%)
Internet Users (per 1000 people) (36%)
Television (per 1000 people) (36%)
Trade in Newspapers (percent of GDP) (28%)
iii) Data on Cultural Proximity (32%)
Number of McDonald’s Restaurants (per capita) (37%)
Number of Ikea (per capita) (39%)
Trade in books (percent of GDP) (24%)
C. Political Globalization [23%]
Embassies in Country (25%)
Membership in International Organizations (28%)
Participation in U.N. Security Council Missions (22%)
International Treaties (25%)
Note: Weights may not sum to 100 because of rounding.
 Usman Riaz Mir, Syeda Mahnaz Hassan, Mubashir Majeed Qadri 617
V. Future of Globalization
According to Muller (2010), “the future of globalization will be quite different
from its past or it will not be at all”. Many scholars have written on this crucial issue in
recent past (Muller, 2010; Hufbauer & Suominen, 2010; Robb, 2007). Reasons include
instable situation of globalization in the past few decades especially financial crisis of
2008 and terrorism. To predict the future of globalization, this article not only includes
previous findings but also analyzes some most recent trends, events and indicators.

Before going into the globalization analysis, it’s better to look at phases of
globalization which emerged in last few decades. An overview of previous phases of
globalization may help in understanding and predicting future of globalization. Muller
(2010) has briefly elaborated each of these phases.

Phase-I of Globalization
The process of economic integration accelerated in 1989/90 with the fall of Berlin
Wall. Until then, only west had actively participated and process developed with a slower
pace. After this historical event, a wave of globalization came. Soviet Union has opened
up trade, China has speeded up its reforms, India and Latin America has changed the
policy of import substitution, common market and currency of European countries was
created, NAFTA was established, GATT was completed and resultantly world was
moving towards trade liberalization and free flow of capital.

Phase-II of Globalization
First phase euphoria ended in 1994/95 with Mexico crisis. Mexico had to take
multi-billion dollar loan from IMF to escape from insolvency caused by short term
capital. This crisis effect spilled over to US, Europe, Portugal and Spain. Situation was
calmed down soon and a new wave of globalization started. In Asia, Indonesia and
Thailand enjoyed rapid growth. The process was disturbed again in 1997/98 due to
capital flight from emerging markets like Asia, South Korea, Russia and Latin America.
But situation was again ebbing rapidly. A new story of digitalization and networks started
and gave boom to globalization.

Phase-III of Globalization
All hopes of developments from boom of 1990s seemed to be symbolic. Terrorist
attack in New York and Washington DC in September 2011 resulted in market crash and
USA started an endless war on terror with the help of few EU member states and Russia.

After all these happenings, still world did not come across any big crisis. World
economy again approached towards boom and reached highest world growth of 5%
where China and India were able to achieve 10% & 8% growth respectively during this
period. Although world has enjoyed increased growth but benefits of globalization may
not be equal and for all. A question of equitable distribution of wealth was a big question
mark for the economists.

There was a historic distortion in the process of globalization in 2007 due to credit
crisis which caused the virtual break down of banking industry. Credit crisis gave birth to
many other problems ranging from food shortage, hunger to dramatic increase in prices.
618 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 34, No. 2

Phase-IV of globalization
Muller (2010) in his article “Phase 4 of globalization” has predicted fourth phase
of globalization, in which he predicted some situations like slower growth ahead, political
destabilization and diffusion of power. He also suggested some remedies including work,
thrift, creating solidarity, openness, cooperation, originality.

VI. Globalization Now and Onward

Above mentioned phases of globalization showed that globalization is such a
sensitive phenomenon that even a single event can change the intensity of its process.

Ninth WTO Ministerial Conference

WTO’s Bali Ministerial Conference was held in December 2013 and turned out to
be the most important one in the history of WTO because of consensus on ‘Bali
Package’. According to Roberto Azevedo, the chief of WTO, “for the first time in our
history, the WTO has truly delivered”. He further announced, “people all around the
world will benefit from the package you have delivered here today: the businesses
community; the unemployed and the underemployed; the poor; those who rely on food
security schemes; developing country farmers; developing country cotton growers; and
the least-developed economies as a whole”.

Similarly Indonesian trade minister (who chaired the conference) also shared his
sentiments as:

We achieved what many said could not be done. What we have done here in Bali is
truly extraordinary. We have negotiated a package that will bring food security to
billions of the world’s poorest. We have delivered an Agreement on Trade
Facilitation that will inject up to a trillion dollars into the world economy and we
have agreed a ground-breaking suite of initiatives to help Least Developed
Countries to benefit more from the multilateral trading system.

Bali package was considered as first major agreement in the history of WTO. It
included ‘Trade facilitation’ whose benefits to the world economy are calculated to be
four hundred billion to one trillion. Similarly, there are packages on food security, tariff
quota administration and export subsidies. Furthermore, there are special development
packages for least developed countries.

Social Dimension of Globalization

On North Carolina government’s site, there are few statistics and trend analysis
available. According to these analyses, there might be more mobile phone on earth than
people by the end of 2013. Furthermore, report revealed that there will be 3.6 billion
internet users in 2017 and till now, 1 in 4 people worldwide are using social media sites.
In end of document, a trend analysis is available which predict social networking users
worldwide from 2011-2017. Figure shows gradual increase in social networking all over
the world which is a sign of social globalization.
Figure 1:
 Usman Riaz Mir, Syeda Mahnaz Hassan, Mubashir Majeed Qadri 619

Globalization Index 2013

There are two authentic and comprehensive reports available, providing
globalization index 2013. One report is based on the research work of Pankaj Ghemawat
and his partner Steven A, Altman, published in 2013. Second report is presented by KOF
Swiss Economic Institute in 2013.

Ghemawat & Altman (2013) have presented more detailed report and used the data
till 2012. Probably, it is the only report catering latest data. Following is the overall
globalization index

Figure 2

It is clear from Figure 2 that globalization has hit hard after the financial crisis but
started to recover from 2009. Although till now, it may not be able to catch up the peak
level of 2007 but still it recovered well with steady pace.

Figure 3
620 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 34, No. 2

Figure 3 has provided a very clear picture about the factors contributing towards
overall globalization and their fluctuation from 2005-2012. It is evident that economic
globalization (Trade and Capital) was on stake after the financial crisis and decreased
drastically. Important thing to notice is the gradual increasing trend of information and
people dimension where information integration seems to be continuously increasing
with a rapid pace.

KOF index provides the globalization index from 1980-2010.

Figure 4

KOF index clearly shows small ups and downs in the process of globalization but
overall, the process wasn’t reversed badly in last 30 years. Political globalization seemed
 Usman Riaz Mir, Syeda Mahnaz Hassan, Mubashir Majeed Qadri 621
to be stagnant in the period of 1980-1990 and then increased with accelerated pace.
Economic and social globalization comparatively grew with steady and gradual pace with
only one severe shock to economic globalization in 2008 crisis.

Above discussion about the future of globalization can be summarized with the
statement of Hufbauer & Suominen (2010), “The big news is that globalization has
survived”. Statement given 3 years before still has relevance and significance for today’s
globalization future. Globalization not only survived easily but also moved forward with
increased pace in terms of economic globalization. As there is consensus between all
WTO members on an agreement called ‘Bali Package’ which hopefully will help in
increasing the economic integration.

Depth index of globalization, KOF globalization index and North Carolina

government statistics also showed positive and healthy sign for the growth of every
dimension of globalization in the future. Statistics also revealed that if there is any
mishap with economic globalization, even then social and cultural globalization factors
will keep on increasing with gradual pace.

The overall environment is very fruitful for all kinds of integrations. One thing to
understand is that globalization does not only comprise of economic factor, it has four
dimensions. Each dimension is important and has its own significance. Social
globalization required keen attention of researchers for exploration as it also facilitates
economic and cultural globalization.

VII. Conclusion
Globalization, a multifaceted phenomenon has a history from the first interaction
between the people; it continues till now and will continue in the future. As a process of
integration, globalization affects every aspect of human life ranging from economic,
cultural, and political to social. Globalization is not an out there phenomenon, its in here.
Being part of society, humans daily experience globalization, its effects on the lives and
on the society, its power of changing social as well as cultural structures and its blessings.
Globalization has passed through many phases throughout its history. There are ups and
downs in the globalization process. Globalization is a process which keeps on increasing;
may decrease for a while but it never ends and it cannot be stopped. Human beings
cannot live in isolation. They interact with each other; help one another and share
knowledge and experiences with each other.

Recent indicators are highly in favor of growth in globalization in future. WTO

members have signed a ground breaking agreement whose fruits may be visible in the
shape of prosperity of developing nations and increase in economic globalization.
Technology seems to be irreversible and there are new technological inventions, like
smart phones, which facilitates social integrations. Tweeter, Facebook and other social
media sites also facilitated social interaction. MNCs and media have shaped up and
boosted up cultural homogeneity. Stage is set for increased globalization. Although, it has
pros and cons, it is a work on our part to support, facilitate and encourage positive
impacts of globalization simultaneously searching ways to minimize or discourage its
drawbacks.
622 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 34, No. 2

References
Albrow, M., & King, E. (Eds.). (1990). Globalization, knowledge and society: Readings
from international sociology. Sage.
Al-Rodhan, N. R., & Stoudmann, G. (2006). Definitions of globalization: A
comprehensive overview and a proposed definition. Program on the
Geopolitical Implications of Globalization and Transnational Security, 6.
Bairoch, P., & Kozul-Wright, R. (1996). Globalization myths: some historical
reflections on integration, industrialization and growth in the world economy.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
Barber, B. R. (1998). Democracy at risk: American culture in a global culture. World
Policy Journal, 29-41.
Bentley, J. H. (2004). Globalizing history and historicizing globalization.
Globalizations, 1(1), 69-81.
Cerny, P. G. (1995). Globalization and the changing logic of collective action.
International Organization, 49(4), 595-625.
Clark, I. (1999). Globalization and international relations theory (p. 114). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
De Soysa, I., & Vadlamannati, K. C. (2011). Does being bound together suffocate, or
liberate? The Effects of economic, Social, and Political Globalization on
Human Rights, 1981–2005. Kyklos, 64(1), 20-53.
Dreher, A. (2003). Does globalization affect growth. Evidence from a new index of
globalization, forthcoming in Applied Economics.
Dreher, A. (2006). The influence of globalization on taxes and social policy: An
empirical analysis for OECD countries. European Journal of Political
Economy, 22(1), 179-201.
Ehret, C. (1998). An African classical age: Eastern and Southern Africa in world
history, 1000 BC to 400 AD. London, James Currey
Ellwood, W. (2003). The no-nonsense guide to globalization. London: New
International Publication LTD.
Frank, A.G. (1998). Re-Orient: global economy in the Asian age. Berkeley, University
of California Press
Friedman, T. L. (1999). The Lexus and the Olive Tree. Thomas, Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.
Ghemawat & Altman (2013, November 20). Depth Index of Globalization 2013.
Retrieved March 16, 2014, from http://www.ghemawat.com/dig/

Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford University Press.

 Usman Riaz Mir, Syeda Mahnaz Hassan, Mubashir Majeed Qadri 623
Goetzmann, W. N., & Rouwenhorst, K. G. (Eds.). (2005). The origins of value: The
financial that created modern capital markets. Oxford University Press.

Gray, J. (1998). False dawn: The delusions of global capitalism. The New Press.

Gunn, G.C. (2003). First Globalization: the Eurasian Exchange, 1500-1800.Lanham,

MD, Rowman & Littlefield
Hebron, L., & Stack Jr, J. F. (2013). Globalization: Debunking the myths. Dorling
Kindersley India Pvt. Ltd.
Hobson, John M. (2004). The Eastern origins of Western civilisation. Cambridge
University Press

Hufbauer, G. C., & Suominen, K. (2010). Globalization at Risk. Yale University Press.

Jamieson, F. (1998). Notes from Globalization as a Philosophical Issue. The Culture of

Globalization, 54-80.

Jennings, J. (2011). Globalizations and the ancient world. Cambridge University Press.

Jones, R. B. (1995). Globalisation and interdependence in the international political

economy: rhetoric and reality. London: Pinter.
Kapstein, E. B. (1999). Sharing the wealth: Workers and the world economy (p. 8). New
York: WW Norton.
Katzenstein, P. J., Keohane, R. O., & Krasner, S. D. (1998). International organization
and the study of world politics. International Organization, 52, 645-686.
KOF Swiss Economic Institute. (2013, March 01). KOF Index of Globalization 2013
Slight Recovery of Economic Globalization. Retrieved March 16, 2014, from
http://globalization.kof.ethz.ch/media/filer_public/2013/03/25/press_release_20
13_en.pdf

Krasner, S. D. (2001). Sovereignty. Foreign Policy, 122(24), 11.

Kudrle, R. (1999). Three Types of Globalization: Communication, Market, and Direct.

Globalization and Global Governance, 3-25.
Lin, K. Y., & Lu, H. P. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical
study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in
Human Behavior, 27(3), 1152-1161.
Mair, V. H. (Ed.). (2006). Contact and exchange in the ancient world. University of
Hawaii Press.

Manning, P. (2005). Migration in world history. London, Routledge

Martin, H. P., Schumann, H., & Camiller, P. (1997). The global trap: Globalization and
624 Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences Vol. 34, No. 2

the assault on prosperity and democracy. London: Zed Books.

McGrew, A. (1992). A global society?. Modernity and its Future, 61-116.

McGrew, A. G. (1998). Global legal interaction and present-day patterns of

globalization. Emerging Legal Certainty: Empirical Studies on the
Globalization of Law, Aldershot and Brookfield: Ashgate and Dartmouth, 325-
345.
Mittelman, J. H. (2000). The globalization syndrome: transformation and resistance.
Princeton University Press.
Muller, H. (2010). An Agenda for Phase 4 of Globalization. In Globalization 2.0 (pp.
69-81). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Müller, H. (2010). An Agenda for Phase 4 of Globalization. In Globalization 2.0 (pp.
69-81). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
North Carolina Government. Global Internet Usage stats. Retrieved December 10, 2013,
from
http://export.gov/northcarolina/build/groups/public/@eg_us_nc/docume
nts /webcontent/komarketingpresentation065541.pdf

Pieterse, J. N. (2012). New Global Studies.

Robb, J. (2007). Brave new war: The next stage of terrorism and the end of
globalization. John Wiley & Sons.
Rosenau, J. N. (1997). Along the domestic-foreign frontier: Exploring governance in a
turbulent world (Vol. 53). Cambridge University Press.

Scholte, J. A. (2002). What is globalization? The definitional issue-again.

Spier, F. (2010). Big history and the future of humanity. Oxford University Press

Steger, M. B. (2003). Globalization: Avery short introduction. Oxford University Press.

Thomas, C., & Wilkin, P. (1997). Globalization and the South. Palgrave Macmillan.

Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and culture. University of Chicago Press

Weiss, L. (Ed.). (2003). States in the global economy: Bringing domestic institutions
back in (Vol. 86). Cambridge University Press.

Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.

 Usman Riaz Mir, Syeda Mahnaz Hassan, Mubashir Majeed Qadri 625

View publication stats

 Police Practice and Research
An International Journal

ISSN: 1561-4263 (Print) 1477-271X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gppr20

Responding to cybercrime: current trends

Rick Sarre, Laurie Yiu-Chung Lau & Lennon Y.C. Chang

To cite this article: Rick Sarre, Laurie Yiu-Chung Lau & Lennon Y.C. Chang (2018)
Responding to cybercrime: current trends, Police Practice and Research, 19:6, 515-518, DOI:
10.1080/15614263.2018.1507888

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2018.1507888

Published online: 20 Sep 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 12536

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gppr20
POLICE PRACTICE AND RESEARCH
2018, VOL. 19, NO. 6, 515–518
https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2018.1507888

EDITORIAL

Responding to cybercrime: current trends

a
Rick Sarre , Laurie Yiu-Chung Laub and Lennon Y.C. Changc
a
University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia; bAsia Pacific Association of Technology and Society, Hong
Kong; cMonash University, Melbourne, Australia

The world has well and truly entered the digital age where technology is ever-present and all
pervasive. The development of technological innovations facilitate our everyday lives. But they
also make significant contributions to criminality. Cybercrime has become a serious problem
globally. The research needed to match the reality is struggling to keep up. There is a great need
for more academics to get involved in cybercrime prevention and cyber security research. It is also
especially important to look into this topic interdisciplinarily. The work needs not only a
criminological lens, but a multitude of lenses: legal, sociological, and political, in order for us to
understand the impact of cybercrime across the globe. Existing literature on cybercrime is
dominantly from the global north. Since half of all internet users are located in Asia, there is a
growing need to encourage academics to do cyber security and cybercrime research in the Asia-
Pacific region (Broadhurst & Chang, 2013).
There is still no precise and clear definition of cybercrime in academic parlance. It is sometimes
called ‘electronic crime,’ ‘computer crime,’ ‘computer-related crime,’ ‘hi-tech crime,’ ‘technology-
enabled crime,’ ‘e-crime,’ or ‘cyberspace crime’ (Chang, 2012). Grabosky (2007) classified three
general forms from his exploration of legislation and the common law: crimes where the
computer is used as the instrument of crime; crimes where the computer is incidental to the
offense, and crimes where the computer is the target of crime. These classifications, while
imperfect, are useful to our understanding of cybercrime.
Another classification is that espoused by Gordon and Ford. They classified cybercrime into
Type I and Type II offenses using a continuous scale. Type I cybercrime, they said, is crime which
is more technical in nature (e.g. hacking) while Type II cybercrime is crime that relies more on
human contact rather than technology (e.g. online gambling). However, these authors state that
‘there are likely to be very few events which are purely Type I or Type II; these types represent
either end of a continuum’ (Gordon & Ford, 2006, p. 16). However, artificial intelligence and
developments in robotics are quickly changing the technological landscape. One could argue that
these phenomena could give rise to a ‘Type III’ cybercrime perpetrated by instruments capable of
self-learning.
McGuire and Dowling (2013) also developed a useful classification tool. They classify
cybercrime into ‘cyber-enabled’ crime and ‘cyber-dependent’ crime. Cyber-enabled crimes
are traditional crimes facilitated by the use of computers. The range of ‘cyber-enabled’ crimes
is myriad – from white-collar crime, such as fraudulent financial transactions, identity theft,
and the theft of electronic information for commercial gain, to drug-trafficking, aberrant
voyeuristic activities, harassment, stalking or other threatening behaviors. While these have
always been deemed criminal activities, they are now so much easier to pursue with a
computer.
Cyber-dependent crimes are those crimes that cannot exist without the cyber technology. A
cybercriminal can inflict massive commercial damage using the internet. In fact, it is now easier

CONTACT Rick Sarre rick.sarre@unisa.edu.au

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
516 R. SARRE ET AL.

and safer for a criminal to disrupt a business by destroying its database through malware than by
throwing a Molotov cocktail through its front door. Cyber-dependent criminality was acutely felt
across the world in May 2015 when Cryptowall 3.0 ransomware began attacking businesses. Using
an exploit kit capable of attacking software vulnerabilities, Cryptowall 3.0 searched for files on the
victims’ computers, encrypted these documents, deleted the originals, and then alerted the victims
that they needed to pay thousands of dollars in ransom money in order to get their files back. It
has been estimated that these attacks infected hundreds of thousands of computers across the
world, and caused close to USD325 million damage.
Another modern manifestation of cyber-dependent crime is the work of the ‘hacktivist,’
someone who protests against an organization’s actions or policies. Perhaps the most memorable
is the 2010 Anonymous hacktivist attack on Mastercard, Visa and Paypal in retribution for their
ceasing to transact donations to the WikiLeaks group. Anonymous encouraged the spread of
Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks which bombarded the trio’s websites with requests.
A DDoS attack is when one attempts to make an online service unavailable by overwhelming it
with traffic from multiple sources, causing it to collapse. Damage from this specific cybercrime
was considerable. For PayPal alone, damage was estimated at USD5.5 million. Cyber-dependent
crimes can be set up easily and cheaply using tools that may be readily available online. Indeed, it
was widely reported on 25 April 2018 that access to a website (later taken down by police) had
been offered for USD14.99 to anyone wishing to carry out a DDoS attack.
Possibly the greatest concern to governments, however, is the ability of cybercriminals across
the globe to use the internet for purposes of espionage and terrorism (Sarre, 2017). The borderless
nature of the internet, and hence cybercrime, means that governments can be targeted from
anywhere in the world, making law enforcement not only challenging, but, in some instances,
almost impossible. Moreover, today’s criminals can engage in espionage without the need for
high-level technical skills. As mentioned above, the internet can assist, with ‘do-it-yourself’
malware kits, for example, available in online forums.
Fraudulent scams, too, need not be sophisticated in order to be highly successful and therefore
seriously damaging. These scams have seen lonely hearts swept up in false relationships, with the
unsuspecting victims sending vast amounts of money electronically to support the ‘unfortunate’
situation of their fraudulent ‘partner’. Businesses, too, are perennially vulnerable to scammers.
Many businesses may not even realize their vulnerability, or the fact that they have become
victims.
What can we do to curb the spread of cybercrime? Surveillance by government agencies can be
an effective crime deterrent at some level. To that extent police (public and private) are necessary
(indeed essential) but not sufficient. In the short term, criminal justice responses are usually a case
of ‘too little, too late’ – assuming that police can detect the behavior at all. It is rarely the case that
they can thwart it ahead of time.
In the longer term the best responses to cybercrime are in the education of those who are most
vulnerable, and the deployment of crime prevention tools more generally. There has been some
success with victims of fraud and deception, particularly those people who have sent money
overseas in the expectation of winning a heart or claiming a prize (neither of which ever existed).
We suggested this special issue for the journal as a reflection of the valuable work done by the
International Conference on Cybercrime and Computer Forensics (ICCCF). The papers in this
Special Issue emerged from the ICCCF conference co-hosted by the Australian Institute of
Criminology (AIC) and the Asia Pacific Association of Technology and Society (APATAS). It
was held at the Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, in July 2017. The conference theme,
Cybercrime Research, Policy and Practice: the Collaboration Imperative, was especially relevant
for two reasons. First, cybercrime is a subject that cries out for urgent prophylactic measures
across the globe. Indeed, cybercrime is one of the most pressing problems for policing today and
into the future, as advanced technology becomes more deeply embedded into daily life.
International collaboration is thus essential in the fight against cyber criminality. Second, this
 POLICE PRACTICE AND RESEARCH 517

conference drew on and brought together the learning and experience of persons from the Asian
region and the Pacific Rim, extending beyond the boundaries of the global north to the global
south.
As a matter of structure, this volume is a collection of selected papers from the conference.
Between them, the articles cover both emerging and key issues which Asian and Pacific Rim
jurisdictions face in their efforts to meet, understand, and overcome cybercrime.
Importantly for readers of Police Practice and Research, Diarmaid Harkin, Chad Whelan
and Lennon Chang in ‘The challenges facing specialist police cyber-crime units: An empirical
analysis’ review the significant challenges facing police organisations by the growing threat of
cybercrime.
The next two papers discuss cybercrime victimization generally. Jacqueline Drew and Lucy
Farrell in ‘Online victimization risk and self-protective strategies: developing police-led cyber
fraud prevention programs’ highlight the role of police in preventing online fraud. Likewise, the
paper from Cassandra Cross, ‘Victims’ motivations for reporting to the ‘fraud justice network’
reveals effective counter-measures that emerged from her interactions with victims of online
fraud.
In their paper ‘Policing image-based sexual abuse: Stakeholder perspectives,’ Nicola Henry,
Asher Flynn and Anastasia Powell explore the cyber-enabled crime of image-based sexual abuse.
The penultimate paper touches on the role of international cyber-policing more specifically,
namely tackling crimes committed with computers across mainland China. Tianji Cai, Li Du,
Yanyu Xin and Lennon Chang, ‘Characteristics of cybercrimes: Evidence from Chinese judgment
documents’ give readers a rare insight into the cybercrime phenomenon in the Far East.
Finally, in their essay, ‘Intelligence-sharing in the context of policing transnational serious and
organized crime: a note on policy and practice in an Australian setting,’ Phil Kowalick, David
Connery and Rick Sarre look specifically at what they believe are the shortcomings of the current
approach to cybercrime in Australia, and suggest the means by which the malaise should be
addressed.
It is clear from this volume that no other field of criminality observes international borders
more permeable than they are in cyber criminality. There is thus a need for international co-
operation between the public sector, academia, industry and private practitioners. The phenom-
enon presents all nation states with an uphill task. The authors in this volume make a significant
contribution to the means by which that challenge can be met by academics and police practi-
tioners. We commend it to you.
In conclusion, we wish to thank each of the authors for their contributions, and offer our
sincere gratitude to the general editorial staff of the Police Practice and Research for making this
Special Issue possible.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Rick Sarre is Adjunct Professor of Law and Criminal Justice at the School of Law, University of South Australia.
During his 34 years in the tertiary sector, Dr Sarre taught commercial law, criminology, and policing law. He is the
immediate Past President of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology. He served eight years as the
President of the South Australian Institute of Justice Studies, and eighteen years as an Associate of the Australian
Institute of Criminology. He is currently a Director of the IPES.
Laurie Yiu-Chung Lau is currently Chair of the Asia Pacific Association of Technology and Society (APATAS) and
an active member of IEEE Hong Kong Section. He is an entrepreneur and philanthropist in Hong Kong with a PhD
from the University of Glamorgan, UK. Dr Lau has wide experience in research on policing internet-related crime,
518 R. SARRE ET AL.

including O2O fraud, technology and society, the Internet of things, and AI and robotics. Dr Lau is actively
involved in mentoring students at Wu Yee Sun College, the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
Lennon Y.C. Chang is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology at Monash University. Dr Chang has degrees from
National Taipei University, Taiwan, and a PhD from the Australian National University, Canberra. He is the author
of Cybercrime in the Greater China Region: Regulatory Responses and Crime Prevention Across the Taiwan Strait.
Dr Chang researches crime and governance of cyberspace in Asia and is working on training programmes to build
cyber security capacity and cyber security awareness in ASEAN. He is currently researching online vigilantism in
Asia.

ORCID
Rick Sarre http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6268-1313

References
Broadhurst, R., & Chang, L. Y. C. (2013). Cybercrime in Asia: Trends and Challenges. In J. Liu, B. Hebenton, & S.
Jou (Eds.), Handbook of Asian Criminology (pp. 49–63). New York: Springer.
Chang, L. Y. C. (2012). Cybercrime in the Greater China Region: Regulatory responses and crime prevention across
the Taiwan Strait. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gordon, S. & Ford, R. (2006). On the definition and classification of cybercrime. Journal of Computer Virology, 2,
13–20.
Grabosky, P. (2007). Electronic crime. New Jersey. Prentice Hall.
McGuire, M., & Dowling, S. (2013). Cybercrime: A review of the evidence: Summary of key findings and implications.
Home Office Research Report 75. London: Home Office, October.
Sarre, R. (2017). Metadata retention as a means of combatting terrorism and organized crime: A perspective from
Australia. Asian Journal of Criminology, 12, 167–179.
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311953774

Understanding the Internet of Things: definition, potentials, and societal role of

a fast evolving paradigm

Article  in  Ad Hoc Networks · December 2016

DOI: 10.1016/j.adhoc.2016.12.004

CITATIONS READS

215 18,471

3 authors:

Luigi Atzori Antonio Iera

Università degli studi di Cagliari Università della Calabria
255 PUBLICATIONS   14,860 CITATIONS    338 PUBLICATIONS   16,488 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Giacomo Morabito
University of Catania
186 PUBLICATIONS   14,651 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

A-WEAR View project

Virtual User in IoT View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Antonio Iera on 09 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This is the final version of the paper accepted for publication in Ad Hoc Networks , Elsevier, 2016.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adhoc.2016.12.004
Understanding the Internet of Things: definition,
potentials, and societal role of a fast evolving
paradigm
Luigi Atzori, Antonio Iera, Giacomo Morabito
Abstract—The high penetration rate of new technologies in all
the activities of everyday life is fostering the belief that for any
new societal challenge there is always an ICT solution able to
successfully deal with it. Recently, the solution that is proposed
almost anytime is the “Internet of Things” (IoT). This apparent
panacea of the ICT world takes different aspects on and, actually,
is identified with different (often very different) technological
solutions. As a result, many think that IoT is just RFIDs, others
think that it is sensor networks, and yet others that it is machine-
to-machine communications. In the meanwhile, industrial players
are taking advantage of the popularity of IoT to use it as a very
trendy brand for technology solutions oriented to the consumer
market. The scientific literature sometimes does not help much
in clarifying, as it is rich in definitions of IoT often discordant
between them.
Objective of this paper is to present the evolutionary stages,
i.e., generations, that have characterized the development of IoT,
along with the motivations of their triggering. Besides, it analyzes
the role that IoT can play in addressing the main societal
challenges and the set of features expected from the relevant
solutions. The final objective is to give a modern definition
of the phenomenon, which de facto shows a strong pervasive
nature, and, if not well understood in its theories, technologies,
methodologies, and real potentials, then runs the risk of being
regarded with suspicion and, thus, rejected by users.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Years have passed since the Internet of Things (IoT) has
appeared on the scene becoming one of the major research
and industrial subjects in the Information and Communications
Technology (ICT) arena. The IoT term appears so frequently
in so many contexts as rarely happened in the past to other
ICT themes, so as to raise the doubt whether it is more a
“trendy” name, speculatively ridden to increase the attention
on studies and products around mature technologies, rather
than a real element of technological discontinuity. This doubt
comes also from the fact that, in spite of its huge success,
what IoT really represents is not completely clear. This is
mostly due to the fact that several works in the literature
associate the idea of IoT to some of its building blocks only
rather than to a complete combination of all the necessary
elements. This is the case, for instance, of platforms that
just use RFID for global traceability of goods, algorithms for
new intelligence and pervasive computing solutions, network
architectures based on IP protocols (especially IPV6) enhanced
to support resource constrained devices, and proposals for
novel application protocols to collect sensed data from wireless
sensor networks. Indeed, the numerous proposals that just
touch some of these disparate issues do not offer a complete
picture of IoT, as it will be elaborated in Section VII. All this
noise around the phenomenon has increased the confusion so
that it has become necessary to shed light on it and come to
a definition, shared by the whole community, of what IoT is
and what is not.
Some researchers [1] [2] are inclined to think that the idea
of IoT has its roots back in the late nineteenth century, when
Nikolas Tesla theorized that
“When wireless is perfectly applied the whole earth will
be converted into a huge brain, which in fact it is, [...]
and the instruments through which we shall be able to do
this will be amazingly simple compared with our present
telephone”
(Nikola Tesla, Teleautomation).
Maybe it is a little excessive to assume that the undoubted
genius and visionary nature of Tesla allowed him to imagine
the Internet of Things so many years ago, but certainly, from
that date on, he and many others helped forming the idea of
IoT by starting from a clear knowledge of current technologies
and making a leap into the future. To name a few, it is the
case of Mark Weiser who defined Pervasive Computing and
stated that “The most profound technologies are those that
disappear. They weave themselves into the fabrics of everyday
life until they are indistinguishable from it” [3], of Bruce
Sterling who coined the SPIME neologism referring to an
object “by definition, the protagonist of a documented process
[...] an historical entity with an accessible, precise trajectory
through space and time” [4], of Kevin Ashton who first used
the term “Internet of Things” at that time focusing mainly on
the RFID technologies.
The idea of IoT has, therefore, evolved over time and has
undergone succeeding transformations that will predictably
still continue over the next years with the advent of new
enabling technologies. For instance, the advent of the new
concepts, such as cloud computing, information centric net-
working, big data, social networking, have already partially
impacted and still are impacting the IoT idea and novel
futuristic paradigms are already in the horizon (see [5], [6]).
This paper is motivated by the above considerations and
aims at providing a careful analysis of the technologies that
have contributed to the birth of the IoT and to its growth over
the time.
The approach we follow to conduct the analysis of the
Internet of Things paradigm is evolutionary in nature. Ac-
cordingly, we identify three main stages of evolution of the
paradigm, each one characterized by key enabling technolo-
gies, major reference architectural solutions, and available
products. The transition from one generation to the next is not
only characterized by the introduction of new technologies
and architectures complementary to those of the previous
generation, but also by a distinctive approach to the design of
the IoT. Notwithstanding, what is IoT today and what it will
be in the future is, undoubtedly, the result of the convergence
into the primary evolutionary path of all R&D experiences in
several ICT domains, as shown in Figure 1 and described in
the remainder of the paper.
To ease the reading, in Table I we summarize all the
acronyms that are used throughout the paper. Additionally, in
order to have a comprehensive view of all the technological
fields involved in the evolution of the IoT over the three
generations, in Table II we summarize the major objective for
each addressed technological field, the key standards, and the
representative scientific works.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In
Section II we describe how the IoT had the potential to
play a key role in the solutions of most societal challenges.
In the following Sections III, IV, and V we provide details
of the major technical concepts and solutions proposed for
each generation of the IoT. In Section VI we overview the
technologies that will impact the evolution of the IoT in the
next few years. In light of such upcoming evolutions, we
elaborate on the concept of the IoT itself to reach a correct
definition of the IoT paradigm in Section VII. Finally, in
Section VIII we draw our final conclusions.
II. ROLE OF I OT FOR S OCIETAL CHALLENGES
Our societies are facing many challenges and ICT can
assume a pivotal role, with the raise of IoT systems taking
a momentous responsibility in this process. An effective
classification of the societal challenges is provided by the
Horizon 2020 framework, which is the main program funding
research and innovation activities in Europe [7]: health, demo-
graphic change and wellbeing; food security and sustainable
agriculture; secure, clean and efficient energy; smart, green and
integrated transport; climate action, environment, resource ef-
ficiency and raw materials; inclusive, innovative and reflective
societies; secure societies.
In the following Section II-A we describe how IoT can
play a key role in addressing the above societal challenges.
Then, in Section II-B we describe how public authorities
can support the adoption of IoT for the above purposes and
discuss technical and non-technical barriers that still exist to
the adoption of the IoT technologies.
A. IoT and societal challenges
The aging process of the working population puts the health
and wellbeing issues among the top priorities in our society.
Advancements in this area require the introduction of systems
and technologies able to continuously monitor the status of the
environment where people live, work, travel, and to acquire
data about conditions of people themselves. The resulting
information should be available everywhere to doctors, nurses,
and relatives so that proper actions can be taken when needed.
Automatic context-aware processes will be also activated, for
instance to guide the patient in taking the right medicines. The
IoT can play a key role in this context. However, this implies
that its components should be ubiquitously embeddable in
the environment, wearable so to constantly monitor human
conditions, transparent as much as possible, and trustful in
handling personal data in a secure way.
Food security and sustainable agriculture is aimed at making
the best use of our biological resources. The smart farms
built by exploiting the IoT paradigm represent major means
to reach these goals. In a smart farm the status of the crop
and terrain is always under control, many of the production
procedures can be activated remotely by the farmer, sales can
be synchronized with the production (as the time schedule of
the crop can be shared with external systems), and the usage of
resources matches the actual needs (thus, wastage are avoided).
However, it is extremely important that the relevant systems
are easy to deploy and use. Otherwise, the configuration and
the maintenance costs may overcome the benefits.
Most countries have agreed on ambitious plans to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, increase the share of renewable en-
ergies, and improve energy efficiency. Achieving these objec-
tives would advance our society along the path to sustainabil-
ity. IoT technologies will take a major role in this context with
the intent of delivering systems for automatic management of
production and distribution of energy by means of sensors and
actuators distributed across the whole chain, with the smart
grid as one of the major application scenarios. Stringent QoS
(quality of service) requirements characterize the management
of power grids as immediate actions have to be taken upon
failure detections. Additionally, the resulting network should
be highly adaptive to match the time varying behaviour, which
characterize both the renewable energy production systems and
the energy consumption.
The challenge of a smart, green and integrated mobility
is enabling a transportation system that is resource-efficient,
environment-friendly, safe and seamless for the benefit of all
citizens and of the economy. This is the area where IoT has
taken its first steps, since RFID tags have been massively used
to track goods and improve the efficiency of transport and
logistics procedures. Indeed, real-time information processing
technology based on RFID and NFC can implement real-time
monitoring of almost every segment of the supply chain. By
obtaining information related to products promptly, timely, and
accurately, either a single enterprise or even the whole supply
chain can respond to intricate and changeable markets in the
shortest time. It is a matter of fact that the era of seemingly
plentiful and low cost natural resources is coming to an end:
sources of raw materials, water and air, as well as terrestrial,
aquatic and marine ecosystems are all under pressure. As a
consequence, there is a need for decoupling economic growth
from resource usage. An IoT challenge in this direction is to
support green economy activities. An exemplary application
is the automatic management of the energy consumption in
smart cities so that the waste of energy resources is limited if
not completely avoided. To this end, IoT systems should be
able to become aware of the environment through a sort of
distributed intelligence and take appropriate local decision on
 TABLE I
L IST OF ACRONYMS USED THROUGH ALL THE PAPER .
Fig. 1. Evolution of the IoT.

TABLE II
T HE THREE I OT GENERATIONS : MAJOR OBJECTIVE FOR EACH ADDRESSED TECHNOLOGICAL FIELD , KEY STANDARDS AND REPRESENTATIVE SCIENTIFIC
WORKS .
 TABLE III
E XPECTED MAJOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE I OT SYSTEMS IN ADDRESSING THE SOCIETAL CHALLENGES AND DESIRED FEATURES .
the energy usage.
Our society is also facing a number of important economic
and political challenges posed by global interdependencies
and unprecedented transformations. These strongly affect its
capacity to ensure economic growth, high employment lev-
els, and social stability. However, it suffers from sluggish
growth, difficulties to effectively implement structural reforms
in favour of innovation and employment, and increasing scepti-
cism among citizens, especially young people. The revolution
of having our physical world at our hands through the net-
work, introduces huge opportunities for innovators and new
entrepreneurs for the benefit of the whole society. However, the
relevant technologies should be available to anybody, should
be easy to understand. Thus, schools will assume a funda-
mental role, as they will be the places where innovations are
taught to everybody. Additionally, the data generated by these
systems have to be available to everybody; also the process
should be open to foster the interoperability and reutilization
of the services, especially those deployed by public authorities.
Security is one of the major concerns in our society, and
in this respect IoT systems are involved from two different
points of view. First, pervasiveness of the IoT deployments
will imply that trillions of objects will be observing us in our
daily activities; these must be designed so that the collected
data is used in the most reliable and secure way. Second, IoT
systems themselves will be used as an effective tool in support
of the security of our society as the connected smart things
should be able to collect data about malicious behaviours in
both the digital and physical worlds. Additionally, IoT systems
should be trustable, i.e., they should provide the requested
services at the needed quality of service. Even more important,
they should be perceived as trustable, i.e., it is necessary that
people feel that IoT systems handle their data by preserving
freedom and security, like it is happening with cloud services
that almost everybody uses without caring about security.
Table III summarizes the described challenges and the
corresponding required IoT features and possible contributions
to their overcoming.
B. Role of public authorities and barriers to the adoption of
IoT solutions
In the contexts we have described above, public authorities
must play a key role in actively driving innovation. This may
happen in different ways:
• Forcing the diffusion of open IoT data and processes:
as already mentioned, produced data and relevant services
should be available to the external world, for other public
or private activities. There are already rules that obligate
public authorities to provide some data in an open way.
However, incentives to make available data produced by
private companies should be introduced as well, at least
for the data relevant to the status of public environments.
• Fostering the utilization of the IoT infrastructure in
the city management: for instance, multiple distributed
sources available in the context of the open data, the
big data and the smart city activities, can be managed,
analyzed and visualized to understand urban development
patterns [8];
• Introducing regulatory changes: the way the data is
exchanged must be well-regulated to prevent any abuse.
IoT has still to face several challenges to be ready to play
the pivotal role we expect.
First of all, it has to gain the trust of people. In fact, the
idea of a smart world all around us, which observes our habits
and modifies its behavior according to what we do, what we
say, and (soon maybe) what we think, may scare people for
several reasons:
• What if an IoT system controlling personal health related
processes makes a mistake? We are accustomed to com-
puters and smartphones malfunctioning (due to software
or hardware failures). What if the above computers or
smartphones are key players in ensuring our healthy life?
 In other words, the IoT, with all relevant technologies,
must prove to be robust and resilient.
• What if some hackers violate IoT systems to compromise
the correct functioning of the processes governing our
daily life? What if they steel our private data? There are
many people worldwide who avoid any form of electronic
payments for this type of fear. Are we sure that those
people will consciously accept the risks associated to a
violation of a pervasive IoT systems? Again, IoT must
prove to guarantee security and privacy.
• How can an obscure technology be trusted by people who
do not have a clue about its internal operations? This is a
typical problem that technology faces: to be accepted they
need people to build a mental model of their operations
[9]. This can be done in two ways: by educating people or
by deceiving them, that is by hiding the real operations
behind the interfaces people are used to. Recall: many
electronic digital appliances still have a knob to control
their behavior.
Only when the IoT will be much more resilient, robust,
secure, and easy to understand, people will trust it.
Additionally, IoT solutions must be practical. A smart
environment enriched with a large number of sensors and
actuators is an attractive prospect as long as people will not
be required to periodically change the batteries on each of
them. A lot of work has been done in this context, however,
energetically autonomous smart sensors and actuators have not
reached the maturity level required to fulfil the real needs of
IoT applications. In other words,
advances are required in both the domains of energy
efficiency and energy harvesting.
As a last remark,
people will accept the IoT if there are applications
justifying the presence of such an intrusive system
around them.
However, applications need developers and developers need
clearly defined, easily programmable, hopefully extensible,
and rarely changing APIs. Here, the diffusion of the RESTful
model in the Web of Things domain is helping a lot although,
like we have seen, the IoT keeps evolving and nobody can
safely say that the APIs typical of a RESTful model are at the
end of such an evolution. In this context, public bodies can
play a fundamental role by at least taking clear and shared
decisions on the open APIs to be used to access those data
collected by sensors deployed with the taxpayers money and,
thus, belonging to the collectivity.
Furthermore, a naming scheme must be decided. In fact,
APIs allow interactions with IoT resources (objects, services,
data servers, etc.) and, to this end, it is necessary to identify
these resources. A lot of work on naming is being carried
within the context of Information-Centric Networking (ICN)
and even if there are very different opinions [10], the most
accepted approach is the one proposed in [11] and derived
by the Universal Resource Locator [12]. As discussed in the
following Section V-D, an ICN network would be able to route
messages to interact with a resource by using only the name
of such a resource. Nevertheless, this cannot be given for
granted (at least in the short and medium term). Therefore,
a function is needed which is able to locate a resource and
provide information on how to reach it. This is the function
of the DNS in traditional IP networks and of the ONS in the
EPC platforms as we will discuss in the next section.
III. T HE FIRST GENERATION OF THE I OT: THE TAGGED
THINGS
In this section we focus on the First Generation of IoT
solutions. More specifically, we begin in Section III-A by
providing a general overview of motivations and solutions con-
sidered within such a generation. Then we provide more details
about the EPCGlobal Network (Section III-B), machine-to-
machine communications (Section III-C) and the technologies
provided to integrate RIFD systems and wireless sensor net-
works (Section III-D).
A. Overview
Unquestionably,
the Radio-Frequency IDentification (RFID) technology
played the role of founding technology for the Internet
of Things.
The first definition of this paradigm, given by Ashton at
the end of last century, directly referred to RFID [13]. The
remarkable contributions by the Auto-ID Labs [14], a world-
wide network of academic research laboratories, have also put
the concept of Internet of objects into strong relationship with
the idea of networked RFIDs.
Consequently, the earliest steps towards the IoT have been
led by efforts to create an industry-driven global standard
to support the spread use of the Electronic Product CodeTM
(EPC) and of RFID tagging solutions at a world-wide scale
[15]. The idea was to overcome the limitations of the Barcode
approach and achieve a global item identification through
unique worldwide identifiers, represented by the EPC codes
stored in tags directly attached to objects.
The idea that RFID solutions could have been the funda-
ments of the IoT is recurrent in early IoT related research
[16] [17] [18]. Great emphasis has been given to the potential
to provide, through this technology, a cost-effective way to
tag objects and give them an identity. Interesting examples
of relevant applications based on RFID have been given, and
new regulatory approaches to ensure privacy and security in
their fruition have been suggested. Accordingly, IoT was seen
as an emerging global Internet based information architecture
facilitating the exchange of goods and services in global
supply chain networks [18].
While the work on an RFID-based IoT was ongoing, remote
sensing solutions based on Wireless Sensor Networks (WSN),
Telemetry, and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
(SCADA) [19] technologies had already reached a mature
stage. It was, therefore, quite clear that these
technologies for remote sensing would have played the
same key role in the IoT as RFID.
This is confirmed, for example, in [20], wherein Near Field
Communications (NFC) and Wireless Sensor and Actuator
Networks (WSAN) together with RFID are recognized as the

Fig. 2. The EPCglobal Network architecture.
atomic components that will link the real world with the digital
world.
Within the Pervasive Computing and the RFID communi-
ties, the idea of building a global standard infrastructure for
WSN and RFID, based on the framework proposed for EPC,
soon began to take shape [21] [22]. However, despite the few
trials performed, it was immediately evident that integrating
WSNs, as they were, into the EPC framework would have
been a very tough task to accomplish.
At the same time, a complementary approach was be-
ing considered by the Sensor Network community to make
data generated by sensors, SCADA and other telemetry sys-
tems available in the Internet (the most relevant carried out
within the context of the Machine-to-Machine Communication
(M2M) group of ETSI). The great body of research carried
out in this domain, summarized and commented in [23],
has contributed significantly to the understanding of sensor
virtualization techniques. It must be said that none of the
aforementioned attempts succeeded in reaching the critical
mass necessary for a real take off.
It was clear since the beginning that the proposed solutions
could not incorporate the RFID technology in a simple way.
Therefore, only a few research activities tried to integrate
RFID systems and WSNs into a unique comprehensive picture.
B. Technologies for interconnecting RFIDs: the EPCglobal
Network
Objective of the EPCglobal Network is to link information
with objects, equipped with a tag identified by a unique EPC,
and people. This is mainly done by defining and supporting
primitives that allow applications to query specific objects
about their status.
The EPCglobal Network architecture is based on a lay-
ered service oriented architecture (SOA) with an emphasis
on defining the interfaces between the different components
[24]. When defining the interfaces, modularity becomes a key
feature with several technical and economic advantages.
As it can be seen in Figure 2, the EPCglobal Network
includes six components (some physical, some logical):
• RFID tags: these represent the tags attached to the ob-
jects. They are characterized by a unique ID and may
have some processing capabilities.
• RFID readers: these are responsible to query the RFID
tags in their proximity and communicate the information
gathered to some backend server.
• Electronic Product Code: this represents the scheme uti-
lized to assign and interpret the unique tag identifier. 1
• Filtering middleware: this is responsible of receiving the
requests from the applications (opportunely translated by
the EPC Information Service as described later), process-
ing the data from the RFID reader(s), and returning data
to the requesting element (or another system specified
in the request). The data reported in the form of EPC
identifier is captured by a reader, and this has happened.
• Object Name Service (ONS): this is responsible for
transforming an EPC identifier into an URL and vice
versa. Its function is similar to that of Domain Name
Systems in the Internet.
• EPC Information Service (EPCIS): this is responsible for
storing the events (as described above) and responding to
the queries generated by the applications.
Interactions with the above components occur through stan-
dard interfaces as discussed below. According to EPCglobal,
tags with different complexity level and functionalities can be
read by RFID readers: class 1 refers to Identity-tags, which
store an identifying code only; class 2 includes tags with
additional memory storage and, optionally, with sensing capa-
bility, such as Wireless Identification and Sensing Platforms
(WISPs) [25]; class 3 specifies battery-assisted tags which
use an on-board power source to empower sensors but not to
generate the communicate signal; and class 4 tags, which use
batteries to also empower the communicate module. The radio
communication between RFID readers and tags is regulated
by the Air Interface standards, EPC Gen-2 protocol [26],
and ISO 18000-63 [27]. These standards are aligned on the
core functionalities and define modulations, encoding, medium
access schemes, and a set of basic commands for Selection,
Inventory and Access to tags.
To foster widespread adoption of these technologies, spe-
cific protocols define the message structure and the modalities
for applications interacting with RFID readers. To overcome
interoperability problems and to facilitate the development
of applications, communications can happen at different ab-
straction levels. The Application Level Events (ALE) proto-
col [28] specifies a software interface through which client
applications may interact with filtered and consolidated EPC
data. Typically, the Filtering middleware implements the ALE
interface, but also smart RFID readers can provide it. This
1 In this perspective, it is worth mentioning the IEEE 1451 standard
(standard for Networked Smart Transducer Interface), whose major component
is the TEDS (Transducer Electronic Data Sheets). TEDS is a sort of identi-
fication card carried by a person. It stores manufacture-related information
for the transducer(s), such as manufacturer identification, measurement range,
accuracy, and calibration data, similar to the information contained in the
transducer data sheets normally provided by the manufacturer.

Fig. 3. High level architecture for M2M Communications according to ETSI.
interface can be used by applications or the EPCIS. By means
of ALE, an application generates a high-level description of,
for example, the data to be read from or to be written to
tags, the period of time, and the filters to select particular
tags. Alternatively, Low Level Reader Protocol (LLRP) [29]
provides specific parameters and controls to set the command
and timing parameters of the RFID air protocol. Obviously,
the ONS and the EPCIS implement interfaces that can be used
by applications to retrieve the EPC identifier associated to a
logical name (a URI for example) or to query the system about
some events.
An interesting project aiming at creating a microcosm
for the IoT spanning applications, systems, and social is-
sues, that are likely to emerge in a realistic day-to-day set-
ting, has been carried out at the University of Washington.
There, the involved researchers have developed a building-
scale, community-oriented research infrastructure called RFID
Ecosystem (http://rfid.cs.washington.edu).
C. Technologies for machine-to-machine communication
The European Telecommunication Standards Institute
(ETSI) has focused on the definition of a standard for cellular
M2M communications. In fact, cellular network operators
see in the spreading of M2M technologies the opportunities
to include machines in their user basin, so as to increase
their revenues despite the continuous decrease in the per-user
revenues.
The high level architecture envisioned by ETSI is depicted
in Figure 3 and is based on a RESTful service approach [30].
As shown in the picture, two domains can be distinguished:
the Network Domain and the Device & Gateway Domain.
Major components of the Device and Gateway Domain are
the M2M Applications and the M2M Service Capabilities lay-
ers. In some cases, these layers will be executed by the M2M
Device. In other cases, the M2M Devices have not enough
resources to run them and therefore, the above components run
in appropriate gateways (M2M Gateways) acting as a proxy
between the Network Domain and a few M2M Devices. Such
M2M Devices are connected to the M2M Gateway through a
M2M Area Network that can be based on any LAN standard
such as IEEE 802.15.4.
The M2M Service Capabilities layer has the objective to
abstract the resources of the M2M Device and to establish a
secure communication between the application running in the
Network Domain and that running in the M2M Device. The
idea is to allow different applications to run over the same
M2M Device.
The M2M Application layer, instead, defines the application
logic. Instances of the M2M Application layer (as well as of
the M2M Service Capability layer) run in both the Device &
Gateway and the Network Domains.
It is important to note that in the ETSI view, which is
strongly influenced by the perspective of cellular network
operators, M2M Devices or their M2M Gateway must be
equipped with a cellular wireless interface.
In the Network Domain the Access Networks provide
M2M Devices with access to the Core Network: these are
independent, in general, from the M2M technologies, and
include most of the available data access standards. The Core
Network instead offers (at least) IP connectivity, service and
network control functions, interconnection with other networks
and roaming functionality.
D. Technologies to integrate RFIDs and WSNs in the IoT
In this context, two approaches can be considered: (i)
integration at the object level, i.e., any type of objects can be
integrated in the IoT; (ii) Integration at the system level, i.e.,
a unique abstraction of object is defined which can represent
any type of device.
Integration at the object level: This integration is fostered
by technological advances in miniaturization, energy harvest-
ing, and energy efficiency that make it possible to integrate
passive (in terms of energy usage) hardware platforms, like
some RFID tags, with some environmental sensors and mem-
ory banks needed to store data. Relevant examples include the
WISP as well as the proposals in [31] and [32].
Two families of architectures can be distinguished that
support integration at the object level: some solutions consider
the resulting nodes as RFID tags equipped with sensors,
while others consider the resulting nodes as wireless sensor
nodes with a unique ID. In the first case, the EPCglobal
network architecture is the starting point and extensions are
introduced to support the new formats of messages (which
can accommodate the values measured by sensors). However,
solutions based on such an approach cannot integrate the data
generated by traditional sensor networks (already deployed in
the environment) and do not support direct communications
between nodes; i.e., a reader is needed in the proximity of the
node to collect the measured data.
In the second case, instead, nodes can communicate with
each other according to the multi-hop wireless communication
paradigm supported by the WSN solutions. A remarkable
example of such an approach is proposed in [33], where a
Smart Object (wireless node with sensing capabilities and
unique ID) is defined, which is able to directly communicate
with its peers. Differently from RFID tags equipped with

Fig. 4. Possible integration of RFID and WSN at the system level.
Fig. 5. IoT-A architecture.
sensors, Smart Objects are characterized by high communica-
tion and interaction capabilities as well as higher management
autonomy.
Furthermore, in the solution proposed in [33] nodes are clus-
tered and a cluster head is identified. This collects information
generated by other nodes in its cluster and is responsible to
transfer this information towards the network infrastructure.
The use of a cluster head is common to improve efficiency in
the WSN literature [34]–[36].
As a general consideration, solutions that envision the
integration at the object layer are unpractical in that they
cannot integrate objects already deployed in the environment.
Integration at the system level: The basic idea of the
solutions envisioning the integration at the system level is to
introduce a component at the edge of the network infrastruc-
ture which hides the differences and heterogeneities among
nodes.
For example, as shown in Figure 4, the authors of [21]
introduce a sort of gateway between wireless sensor networks
and the EPCglobal network infrastructure to translate events
generated by the wireless sensor network into the appropriate
formats. Major advantage of such a solution is that it does not
require changes in the EPCglobal network infrastructure which
has strong industrial support. Nevertheless, it has two major
drawbacks: it is not tailored to handle information generated
by sensors and it leaves the management of the WSN external
to the management of the rest of the system, which may result
in inefficiencies.
A more holistic approach has been considered within the
IoT-Architecture (IoT-A) project, which was funded by the
European Commission to define an architecture for the IoT
[37].
Central in the IoT-A architecture, shown in Figure 5, is
the clear separation between the physical entities and the
services associated to the IoT devices. For example, a room
in a building is a physical entity whereas the temperature
sensor deployed in that room provides a service associated
to it. In IoT-A physical entities have representations in the
digital world called Virtual Entities (VEs). Virtual Entities
are associated to services offered by the IoT devices pro-
viding information about VEs. Such services are called IoT
Services. Examples of IoT Services are the measure of some
environmental parameter achieved through some sensor or the
positioning of some object achieved thanks to RFID systems.
Processes concerning a single VE are managed by the IoT
Process Management component.
In the IoT-A architecture a very important role is played by
the Service Organization component which is a sort of hub that
orchestrates the processes triggered by the Applications to im-
plement a meaningful business logic. Obviously, all the above
components exploit the service offered by a Communication
component. Finally, there will be a Management and a Security
component which will span all layers of the architecture.
While the holistic approach followed by IoT-A project
delivers an architecture which is able to fully integrate RFID
tags and wireless sensor nodes, the implementation of relevant
modules is still at the prototype stage and most solutions are
still based on the EPCglobal network architecture.
In the view of the RFID and sensor integration, it is worth
citing SARIF [38] and MoCoSo [39] as examples of projects
that, together with the EPC Sensor Network of the Auto-ID
Lab Korea, represents efforts to combine concepts of object
identification, sensor data and the Internet.
IV. T HE SECOND GENERATION OF THE I OT: FULL
INTERCONNECTION OF T HINGS AND THE ( SOCIAL ) W EB
OF T HINGS
In this section we focus on the Second Generation of IoT
solutions. More specifically, we begin in Section III-A by
providing a general overview of motivations and solutions
considered within such a generation. Then we provide more
details about the solutions proposed to integrate constrained
devices into IP networks (Section IV-B), the Web of Things
technologies (Section IV-C), and the earliest attempts to ex-
ploit social networking in the IoT (Section IV-D).
A. Overview
The second generation is characterized by a continu-
ous reduction in the interest around tag-centric solutions.
In fact, in the second stage of the IoT evolution, the major
focus was on giving the simple objects the capabilities to
be directly connected to the Internet like any other host.
Undoubtedly, the driving force in this direction has been
the consensus gathered around the work conducted by Work-
ing Groups of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
finalized to the deployment of IoT by leveraging on the IP
protocol. This latter is light, already connects a huge number
of communicating devices, and can run on tiny and battery
operated embedded devices. Therefore, it can support IoT
through a wise adaptation of its basic functionalities and
the incorporation of the reference standard for Personal Area
Networks (short range networks with a radius of a few meters)
into its architecture; this was exactly the task of the cited
working groups. The encouraging results in this context have
soon inspired several interesting attempts of integrating RFID
devices into the IP-based IoT vision of the IETF [40] [41],
[42], [43], [44], [45].
During the same years the new approach of designing
applications in the Internet as web applications (i.e. able
to run in a web browser, because created in a browser-
supported programming language) was rapidly emerging. This
also brought IoT into a sort of generational leap to enter the
Web of Things era [46], [47]. According to this paradigm Web
standards are reused to connect and integrate everyday-life
objects, which contain an embedded device or computer, into
the Web.
In parallel with the depicted activities, also social network-
ing concepts began to penetrate several ICT technological
domains, which span from delay-tolerant to peer-to-peer net-
working, from content searching to content recommendation.
IoT was not immune to this phenomenon. Several research
efforts appeared in the literature intended for exploiting social
concepts in the IoT domain [48]. These were just the first
signs of a new approach to design social IoT solutions that
will emerge in its full disruptive nature during the subsequent
generation of IoT.
B. Technologies for integrating constrained devices into IP
networks
Towards the creation of a full IoT, Internet technologies
and protocols are expected to be extended to seamlessly
and efficiently integrate objects (mostly moving) into the
broad internetworking community. Such extensions have been
studied for more than a decade, by following two main
axioms: i) Things are wirelessly connected to the rest of the
world and ii) IP will continue to be the core protocol of
the Internet. Accordingly, major amendments to the running
Internet architectures have been proposed, which are mostly
finalized to enable Things to use the IP protocol and related
facilities exactly the same as it happened for other hosts.
In this framework, in 2005 the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF) started the activities around the IPv6 over Low
power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPAN [49])
working group with the major objective of an adaptation of
IPv6 and the incorporation of IEEE 802.15.4, i.e. the reference
standard for Low Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (LR-
WPAN, short range networks with a radius of a few meters),
into the IP architecture. Accordingly, 6LoWPAN specifies
a lightweight IPv6 version which can be run by resource
constrained devices. One of the addressed issues is related to
the size of the packet headers; indeed, appropriate strategies
have been defined for their compression to the purpose of
making the IP header (mostly IPv6) conveyable into low rate
LR-WPANs, characterized by short frames whose payload can
almost be completely filled by the combination of IPv6 and
TCP headers.
Another topic addressed is related to the bootstrap phase,
during which objects need to acquire their network addresses.
This may happen in two ways: either statelessly by combining
a EUI-64 unique identifier with an IPv6 address prefix or
through a dynamic address assignment mechanism like in
DHCPv6. Network discovery protocols have been also defined
to support neighbour nodes to discover each other, manage
the other presence, determine link-layer addresses, discover
neighbour routers, and maintain information about the active
neighbours.
The actual integration of 6LoWPAN networks into the Inter-
net requires the functions of a gateway translating 6LoWPAN
packets into standard IPv4 (or IPv6) packets. By deploying
6LoWPAN it is possible to consider a node of a WSN as a
node of the Internet. 6LoWPAN also provides the functionality
to transform each device into a web server. Additionally,
sensor virtualization techniques allow for creating abstractions
of sensors which could be queried without the need of
knowing the specific features of the sensor node. Since its
introduction, several 6LoWPAN protocol stacks have been pro-
posed. Contiki is one of the major efforts (http://www.contiki-
os.org), which is anopen sourceoperating systemfor networked,
memory-constrained systems with a particular focus on low-
power wirelessInternet of Things devices.
C. Web of Things technologies
Making low power sensing devices capable of communi-
cating in an IP network is not sufficient, as explained in
[50]. Integration of wireless sensor nodes into the IoT requires
the support of HTTP-based services so that sensor nodes can
become devices of the World Wide Web. Indeed, HTTP-based
applications are the leading traffic sources of the Internet [51].
Thus, the HTTP-based interaction model is extremely popular
and most software developers have developed a thorough
knowhow in web technologies and programming.
It would therefore be desirable, from the point of view
of software developers, to deal with all devices connected
to the Internet by exploiting web services. To satisfy
such a compelling request, technologies have been intro-
duced in the market that embed Web server functionalities
even in the tiniest communication devices. Examples in-
clude the ttpd (http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/), Busy-
box (http://www.busybox.net), Boa (http://www.boa.org), and
lighttpd (http://www.lighttpd.net).
The introduction of the Web of Things concept is a natural
result of the above trend. In the Web of Things, IoT devices
are considered as resources of the World Wide Web [46], [47].
Devices are modelled as web services, which are uniquely
identified by a Universal Resource Identifier (URI) such as
web pages in the Internet.
For example [46], the Sun SPOT platform is a Java-
programmable embedded system equipped with a few sensors
(light, temperature, and accelerometer) and actuators besides
the internal components such as the radio transceiver and the

Fig. 6. Architecture envisioned by CoRE.
battery. Each of the above elements can be modelled as a
Web resource and assigned a unique URI. Interactions with
such a resource is then executed using the RESTful approach
which exploits the classical HTTP methods. Therefore, the
GET method is used to obtain the value measured by a given
sensor or the setting of some components, whereas the SET
method will be used for configuration purposes.
The format of the messages exchanged in the Web of Things
must be simple and interpretable by humans. Accordingly,
most solution propose to use HTML, i.e. the same language
used to build web pages, or, more recently, JSON [52].
However, implementing web technologies for device com-
munications may be inefficient in terms of both complexity
and generated traffic, which are issues addressed by the
Constrained RESTful Environment (CoRE) working group of
the IETF [53]. The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)
protocol is the result of the relevant standardization activities.
It is designed to provide a HTTP-like application protocol that
can be easily translated into HTTP and is characterized by
simplicity, low overhead, and support of multicast communica-
tions; thus, it results optimal for resource-constrained devices.
It provides a request/response interaction model between ap-
plication endpoints, and supports built-in service and resource
discovery.
In order to obtain low overhead, CoAP is usually executed
over UDP (differently from HTTP that runs on top of TCP).
According to CoRE, a Gateway is needed to interconnect
CoAP/UDP/6LoWPAN devices with the rest of the Internet.
The above Gateway is responsible for translating the message
formats from the one specified in CoAP/UDP/6LoWPAN to
the one used in the Internet, and vice versa, as it is shown in
Figure 6.
WoT solutions have pushed also the RFID research com-
munity to approach the same issue and to propose solutions
that use RESTful services in RFID platforms. As an example,
the authors of [54] propose to seamlessly integrate an EPC-
global network into the Web. In this way, through the HTTP
protocol, tagged objects can be directly searched for, indexed,
bookmarked, exchanged and feeds can be created by end-users
for their future Internet/Web of Things or Mobile prototypes
Fig. 7. Architecture of the Web of Things.
and products. Further relevant research activities which focus
on the same issue are reported in [55] [56] [57].
A further step towards the integration of RFID technology
and platforms in IoT systems is represented by the achieve-
ments of studies (still ongoing) focusing on inclusion of
the RFID technology in CoAP [53]. The RESTful paradigm
implemented by CoAP could ensure the seamless and effective
integration of RFID resources in the Web, by using specific
proxy functionalities, like in [58]. The approach proposed
in [40] is a major breakthrough towards RFID applications
no longer considered as stand-alone solutions. In fact, the
proposal is the access to a common set of RFID resources
through standardized IETF IoT protocols, similarly to the way
resources of other smart things are accessed. The ultimate aim
is to facilitate and foster the deployment of interoperable RFID
applications in the IoT domain.
Devices which do not offer web server functionalities can
be connected to the Web of Things by exploiting appropriate
proxies, as shown in Figure 7. In this case, the communication
between such proxies, called Smart Gateways in [46], and the
devices can be based on ZigBee, Bluetooth or any standard (as
well as proprietary) technology. The Smart Gateway offers a
RESTful API for the sake of devices energy usage. Another
feature of the Smart Gateway is represented by the Syndicate
module which offers an API for interacting with a collection
of devices (instead of single devices). This is useful in sev-
eral application scenarios and can be used to support object
localization [59].
D. Social Networking technologies
Significant efforts have been put to exploit social networking
concepts in the IoT domain [48]to facilitate the integration
of objects in the existing IoT services. The major motivation
is the improvement of the potentialities of the owners to
share data generated by their smart objects with people they
know and trust (e.g., relatives, friends, colleagues, and fellow
researchers), leveraging the existing human Social Networks
Services (SNS) platforms.
Table IV lists the different possible objectives in using social
technologies in the IoT arena during the second generation. As
previously said, the major value, in general, is represented by
 TABLE IV
P OSSIBLE SCENARIOS OF INTEGRATING OBJECTS DATA INTO SOCIAL NETWORKS WITH RELEVANT TYPE OF COMMUNICATION AND PAPERS .
the fact that data sensed by things is made available to the
humans through their major social communication platforms.
However, this major objective can be further classified accord-
ing to the specific intended use of the data produced by the
objects.
Some implementations are aimed at enabling the owners to
have an easy way to access her own objects data though the ob-
ject capability of posting messages on the owner social board
with limited visibility. In this way, users are continuously
connected to and updated about their social things while also
connected to their friends. This is the case of the socialFarm
experimented in [60], in which farmers check the status of the
animals, crops and greenhouses by making relevant sensors
capable of publishing their data on Facebook.
Other implementations are instead specifically focused on
making this information available to the community of either
current friends or potential friends, i.e. unknown people but
with high level of homophily discovered though the social
things. One of the first proposals along this line is in [61].
The main idea proposed in that article is that a user who
wishes to share data sensed by her own objects can do this by
posting such data on Facebook and allowing selected people
to view them. A similar approach is proposed in the CenceMe
application [62], which focuses on combining information
on the presence of individuals obtained through off-the-shelf
sensor-enabled mobile phones, with the user profile in social
networking platforms such as Facebook and MySpace.
Slightly different from the previous scenario are those of
benchmarking and crowdsourcing. According to the former,
data gathered from the IoT systems is used to benchmark
the activity of humans in a given domain with respect to
the average behaviour of communities of interest. This is the
case, for instance, of the SocialElectricity prototype, which is
a Facebook application that allows people to compare their
electricity footprint with their friends in a wide-scale. [60].
Some works have proposed the use of the human social
networking platforms to manage things. This is the case of
the Paraimpu project, where the humans can connect sens-
ing devices to either actuating devices or web services by
accessing her own social networking account [63]. A more
complete framework in this sense is the one presented in [64],
where the authors design a social networking service as the
converging point for people, web services, and devices and the
SN is considered as a meaningful opportunity to finally bring
the Semantic Web and the IoT to users. Another interesting
solution is the Toyota Friend Network, which has been con-
ceived as one of the earliest platforms in which data generated
by objects, in this case automobiles, are made available in a
social network of humans for marketing purposes.
In all the mentioned scenarios, objects interact with humans
through their SNS. In parallel there have been studies that
augmented the objects with social capabilities to improve their
aptitude in exchanging data with the external world without
the use of human SNS. Indeed, one of the first ideas of
pseudo-socialization between objects can be found in [65],
which proposes the Smart-Its Friends procedure that allows
users to have a very easy-to-use interface to impose temporary
relationships / connections among smart wireless on the basis
of the devices context. Other approaches had the objective
of facilitating human social communications. Finally, some
researchers focused on tools for the analysis of IoT data [66].
The tools to compose and build personalized and social
applications that process data from different sources are in
continuous evolution. Among these tools are: Ninja Blocks
[67], IFTTT [68] and the already mentioned Paraimpu [63].
Ninja Blocks controls devices that can sense their environment
and can act by controlling lights, power sockets, and other
actuators. The system provides a tool to drive the composition
of actions and sensing tasks with common social web sites
such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram. IFTTT is aweb-based
service that allows users to create chains of simple conditional
statements involving any type of objects and through many so-
cial network sites. Accordingly, when some events monitored
by objects make some statements becoming true, other objects
are triggered to perform specific actions.
A further remarkable project to mention is under develop-
ment at the Ericsson Research laboratories, where researchers
of the Usability Laboratory are implementing their vision
of Social Web of Things [9]. Accordingly, objects become
capable of more autonomy and the interactions between ob-
jects of the IoT are presented in analogy to the interactions
people usually experience in Facebook or Twitter or other
social networks. This helps people to master the complexity
introduced by the IoT networking paradigm.
V. T HE THIRD GENERATION OF THE I OT: AGE OF SOCIAL
OBJECTS , CLOUD COMPUTING , AND F UTURE I NTERNET
In this section we focus on the Third Generation of IoT
solutions. More specifically, in Section V-A we provide an
overview of the motivation and solutions considered within
this generation. In the following sections we then present the
major characteristics of Social Internet of Things solutions
(Section V-B), the use of semantic technologies and ICN
paradigm in the IoT domain (Sections V-C and V-D), the
integration of IoT and cloud computing solutions (Section
V-E), and the evolved RFID solutions in the IoT (Section V-F).
A. Overview
The Internet world is rapidly evolving under the pressure
of a new wave, which is changing the way of building Inter-
net services and enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on-demand
access to them: cloud computing. At the same time, a new
generation of social objects is raising and is pushing towards
new disruptive paradigms for social networks of things. Last,
the Internet, as we have been knowing it, is about to undergo
profound transformations which put content and services at
the very center of the network operations.
All these aspects are causing a further generational leap
which is taking the IoT in what is often referred to as
the Future Internet which will exploit cloud computing
technologies and will be people-, content-, and service-
centric.
The reasons for an extension of cloud computing technolo-
gies and solutions to the IoT domain are various. Things
generate great amounts of data that need to be stored. Being
local device memory usually limited and costly, the best
solution is to send data to the cloud, where functionalities
such as encryption, authentication, duplication, annotation [69]
can be implemented easily. Also the things need for on-
demand use of IT resources (e. g., computer, storage, and
network) in a scalable and cost efficient way matches the cloud
computing paradigm very well. Besides, IoT devices are highly
heterogeneous in terms of interfaces, achievable performance,
and capabilities. The cloud may help in managing this hetero-
geneity by providing a common IoT application development
layer wherein the different hardware devices are virtualized.
At the same time, services from different providers can be
merged (mashup process) in the cloud to provide complex
services [70].
As already mentioned, during the third stage disruptive
novel approaches to exploiting social networking concepts and
technologies in the IoT domain are fast arising. The driving
idea is to allow objects to autonomously establish social
relationships and create their own social network separated
from the one of the humans. The motivation is that a social-
oriented approach is expected to boost the deployment of
effective solutions to discover, select, and compose services
and data provided by distributed objects. It allows objects to
create a network, which manifests interesting properties in
terms of navigability, trustworthiness in data exchange and,
scalability in a community of billions of devices.
At the network layer, the Information Centric Networking
(ICN) paradigm, recently proposed to replace the host-centric
networking paradigm of the Internet with a solution centred
around the exchanged data units, is gaining ground [71]. It
represents a solution to the difficulties in matching the strin-
gent performance requirements of IoT systems (scalability,
robustness, energy efficiency, to mention some) by relying
on IP-based solutions. ICN features such as the effective
content naming schemes, the associated data retrieval and data
sharing approaches, the native mobility support, the in-network
caching, and the content-based security are very appealing to
IoT designers. Therefore, the strong commitment of several
research groups towards the application of ICN principles in
IoT contexts opens new opportunities [72].
As a further point, it is worth highlighting the central role
played by knowledge representation solutions in this stage of
the IoT evolution. Currently, IoT systems and applications
cannot be effective without a complete knowledge about
their components, characteristics and features, which must be,
somehow, formalized and disseminated. To this end, ontology
can be used to introduce a formal, explicit specification of a
shared conceptualization so as to represent knowledge within
a domain as a set of concepts related to each other. Ontology
is then used by semantic engines for different purposes, such
as: search, composition, and translation.
To conclude the description of this new era of the IoT, it is
also worth pointing out what happened to its funding technol-
ogy, i.e. RFID. Actually the interest on it has not completely
disappeared, but surely its centrality in third generation IoT
solutions is severely reduced.
B. Social Internet of Things
A keen attention to the social potential of the IoT building
blocks characterizes this generation. In fact, one finds papers,
such as [73], which describe architectures where objects are
clearly identified as potentially able to participate in communi-
ties of objects, create groups of interest, and take collaborative
actions. This kind of researches, however, theorize the Social
Internet of Things but do not indicate how to build the
envisioned social network of objects and how to implement the
needed architecture and protocols. This is provided by [74],
where the authors propose mechanisms that can be used by
objects to build friendship relationships. Besides, they suggest
an architectural model for the resulting social IoT with the
major building blocks to create and manage the objects social
network. By relying on this architecture, [75] analyses the
problem of evaluating the trustworthiness of each node in the
network and propose a method to allow objects mimicking the
behavior of the humans when evaluating the trustworthiness
of friends. Motivated by the considerable amount of work in
this field, a recent review of related researches appeared in
the literature [76]. Herein, the use of the social networking
technologies are seen as means to increase the pervasiveness
and ubiquity of the computing systems as (social) interactions
among objects in our living places are necessary to improve
the ICT system performance.
C. Semantic in the Internet of Things
One of the most notable efforts in this area is the Se-
mantic Sensor Network Ontology (SSN) [77], which is not
application-dependent and is frequently adopted in different
IoT domains to describe the sensor and context properties.
SSN is natively able to model the most common context
properties and the set of properties can also be extended
unlimitedly. An important characteristic of SSN is that sensors
are not constrained to physical sensing devices; rather a sensor
is anything that can estimate or calculate the value of a
phenomenon. Therefore, either a device or a computational
process or combination of these can play the role of a sensor,
while a sensing device is a device that implements sensing
and belongs to the sensor class [78].
The main drawback of SSN lies in the limitations of the
adopted semantic web approach, which is unable to describe
and perform reasoning over the system dynamics. In the IoT,
this precludes any object representation that can evolve over
time (e.g., having their access policy, availability, geo-location,
etc. changing over time). The highlighted issue is clearly iden-
tified in the recent literature. Proposals are appearing, which
propose to combine semantic web technologies with temporal
and spatial reasoning in order to accurately reflect the behavior
of the considered IoT systems. The contribution in [79] is
noteworthy in that it also demonstrate that the effectiveness of
proposed solutions can be increased by adopting distributed
models.
D. The Information Centric Networking paradigm in the IoT
The “prehistory” of ICN approaches for the IoT is probably
represented by the ideas proposed by Ivan Stojmenovic and
Stephan Olariu in their work [80], which dates back to 2005,
when the idea of IoT had not received yet the attention it is
receiving now. Although the authors actually review a number
of emerging topics pertaining to a data-centric view of wireless
sensor networks (such as data-driven routing for example),
their work already includes some interesting ideas that have
been later recovered to handle data in ICN-based solutions for
the IoT. Scenarios for information centric wireless sensor and
actuator networks are also the subject of later works, such as
[81], [82], [83], and [84].
More recently, several research activities have been devoted
to the integration of the ICN concepts specifically into the
IoT. Research in this area is still at an early stage, although
the advantages and opportunities that ICN offers and the
related challenges in a perspective of ICN-IoT integration have
already emerged. Also, solutions to the problems of service
discovery and naming for IoT have already been proposed as
part of the main platforms of ICN developed.
Recent IETF Drafts [85], [86] address the issue of building
a unified IoT platform based on the Information Centric Net-
work architecture. The authors clearly highlight the limitations
of IP in serving as an internetworking layer for the different
intranets of things developed without any form of coordination.
They also illustrate the potential of the main features of ICN
to achieve seamless mobility support, scalability, and efficient
content and service delivery in an Internet of Things.
Most of the work concerning the integration of ICN in
the IoT has the Content-Centric Networking (CCN) [11]
architectures at its very basis. CCN provides a core network for
the future Internet characterized by in-network memory and
composed of Super Routers (SRs) with large content stores,
high computing capabilities, and relatively reliable commu-
nication performance. Devices with constrained resources,
typical of the IoT, greatly differ from the SRs in the core
networks. Therefore, a content-centric internetworking scheme
and relevant specific strategies to adapt to the needs of weak
devices, playing the role of producers and consumers of IoT
data and applications, are studied in [87]. Similarly, the work
in [88] combines CCN with the concept of IoT and investigates
different ways to make use of the hierarchical CCN content
naming, in-network caching, and other information-centric
networking characteristics in a sensor environment.
Differently, with reference to the Named Data Networking
(NDN) architecture, a high-level architecture for IoT systems
has been described in [89]. On top of the Thing layer, that
accounts for the multitude of devices of the IoT ecosystem,
NDN acts as a networking layer, which hides to applications
the complexity and diversity of the underlying things by
adapting its modules to their features. Besides, in [90], the
authors propose an NDN-based framework for the support of
multi-source data retrieval (e.g., environmental monitoring),
which is a typical IoT traffic pattern not natively supported by
NDN.
An overview of possible naming schemes for the IoT is also
described in [91] as part of a study conducted by referring
to the MobilityFirst architecture 2 . This report is interesting
in that it lists the different naming scheme applicable to IoT
and compares them with naming schemes available in ICN
solutions.
Differently, in [92] the authors propose a service discov-
ery architecture for IoT which enables multi-ownership and
flexible management of information that is associated with
an object during its entire supply chain (clearly they refer to
objects tagged by RFID technology). The authors claim that a
prototype will be implemented, based on the information cen-
tric Publish-Subscribe Internet (PSI) architectures, originally
created by the FP7 project PSIRP3 .
E. The IoT moves to the Cloud
The need to migrate to the cloud typical features of IoT
is rooted in the specific nature of the objects that populate
it. Due to the energy-constrained nature of wireless sensor
devices, several solutions in the relevant literature envision the
alternation of duty-periods [93] and periods in which the RF
interface of these devices is switched off. Similarly, RFID tags
spend most of their time outside the radio coverage of an RFID
reader. It can be concluded that IoT things are unreachable
during most of their lifetime. Oppositely, IoT applications
usually require things to be always reachable.
Hence, the need has been identified for a digital counterpart
of any IoT devices always on and running in some Internet
servers [94] and to design solutions in which applications
interact with such digital representatives of physical entities.
According to the current technological trends in the ICT
community, the straightforward next step is to move these
entities into the cloud. Therefore, solutions have been proposed
that envision a Cloud of Things [95], [96], [97].
2 http://mobilityfirst.winlab.rutgers.edu/
3 http://www.psirp.org/

Fig. 8. Architecture for the Cloud of Things (taken from [95]).
The reference architecture for a Cloud of Things is shown
in Figure 8 [95]. IntraNode is the bottom layer of the protocol
stack, which deals with the virtualization of the resources
provided by devices. At this layer, the Sensing and Actuation
as a Service (SAaaS) module runs all functions to virtualize
the services offered by a sensor or an actuator node.
The IntraCloud/InterNode layer is responsible for the in-
teractions between the virtualizations of different nodes run
by the same cloud. At this layer, a key role is played by the
SAaaS Provider which offers the APIs to manage and use the
services offered by the virtualizations of the nodes running in
the same cloud.
The InterCloud/Platform as a Service (PaaS) layer handles
the interactions between entities running in different clouds
and executes the Thing as a Service (TaaS) module, which
supports the meshup between heterogeneous resources in
different clouds. Through the APIs offered by this layer it is
possible to virtualize the resources of physical objects running
in different clouds.
Finally, the Software as a Service (SaaS) gives the po-
tentiality to run instances of IoT software used by different
applications.
The great interest in the development of cloud based IoT
solutions is also witnessed by the worldwide funded researches
for this purpose. Among the others, the EU is currently fund-
ing ClouT (http://clout-project.eu), a major project aimed at
defining APIs and reference infrastructures for Cloud IoT and
at developing relevant tools. This is an EU-Japan collaboration
project leveraging the Cloud Computing as an enabler to
bridge the Internet of Things with Internet of People via
Internet of Services, to establish an efficient communication
and collaboration platform exploiting all possible information
sources to make the cities smarter.
Interestingly, several real IoT platforms are already devel-
oped on the cloud.This is the case of Xively (xively.com),
which makes use of the LogMeIn cloud platform. Similarly,
Oracle is taking a significant position in providing IoT PaaS
(Platform as a Service) services from its leading market
position in database management. Nimbits (www.nimbits.com)
is already providing cloud services to record and process
time and geo stamped sensor data on the cloud. All the used
software is open source and can be freely used to develop the
desired applications. The access to the cloud services relies on
RESTful API web interfaces.
F. Evolved RFID-based solutions in IoT
Still, in this generation, the process of integration between
IoT concepts and solutions based on RFID technology con-
tinued still following two parallel paths of integration at the
system- and device level. A sample solution of system level
integration is available in [98], where the authors focus on
the EPC Network and explain how a wider adoption of its
standards and tools will go through the inclusion of virtu-
alization, cloud computing, and Web related concepts. The
continuous momentum towards a tighter integration of RFID
into IoT platforms is also testified by the researches in [99],
[100] and [101]. Authors of [99] propose a system architecture
based on EPC-RFID technologies for what they call smart
awareness system. It can be seen as a specific application
of a smart IoT, whose architecture foresees intelligent agent,
awareness servers, and a middleware system. Instead, the
objective of [100] is to develop cognitive robots based on
RFID technology within the Internet of Things and giving a
social perspective to the interactions of things. Last, the work
in [101] presents a software framework architecture for mobile
devices that aims at facilitating the development process of
embedded RFID applications and the integration process of
business applications and EPC Network instances.
At the same time, we are witnessing the design of novel
devices and HW platforms integrating the RFID technology to
cope with the needs of IoT applications in several everyday-
life scenarios. [102] and [103] address the mentioned design
challenge in environments where e-health application are made
available. In [102] a personal device called Movital, i.e. mobile
solution for vital sign monitoring is introduced. It combines
reference technologies for the IoT, such as a module for
contactless identification (RFID and NFC) with a module for
6LoWPAN networking. [103], instead, gives a survey on the
state-of-the-art of RFID for application to body centric systems
and for environmental sensing. Passive sensors based on RFID
are introduced for environmental sensing, as well as wearable
and implantable RFID tags with capabilities of monitoring
vital signs.
VI. E NABLING T ECHNOLOGIES FOR N EXT G ENERATION
I OT
The current generation of IoT is definitely not the culmina-
tion of the evolutionary process depicted, thanks to emerging
technological trends that will keep on shaping the IoT of
the future. In fact, in several technological areas, solutions
are being specifically designed to fit the peculiarities of IoT
devices and applications. These solutions, in our opinion, will
boost the IoT diffusion and provide new impetus to the IoT
evolution.
 What is happening in the Cloud Computing area is a
remarkable example. Cyber counterparts of objects virtualized
in the Cloud offers to IoT important advantages that many
research and industrial players are currently trying to exploit:
supporting the discovery and the mash up of services involv-
ing etherogeneous devices, fostering the creation of complex
applications, improving the objects energy management ef-
ficiency, as well as addressing heterogeneity and scalability
issues. Notwithstanding, it is manifest that cyber counterparts
of physical things running in remote servers can cause long
delays, due to the distance between physical objects and their
virtual counterparts, and large consumption of communication
resources. This problem has to be quickly addressed by
bringing closer the IoT objects (sensors, actuators, etc.) to the
cyber counterpart devoted to its management. Next generation
solutions shall thus move the cyber counterparts of the things
to the extreme edge of the network.
At the same time, what is needed is to implement a kind
of personal networks interconnecting all (physical and virtual)
IoT devices belonging to a given user in the same broadcast
domain. This is an unavoidable way to simplify the discovery
of relevant nodes/services, and to isolate personal IoT devices
from the rest of the world, which will allow for achieving a
high degree of privacy and security.
The mentioned activities are witnessing a great interest from
big actors, such as Cisco, actively promoting the Fog Comput-
ing paradigm [104], mainly with a focus on latency as required
to support interactive and locally-relevant IoT applications.
Similarly, across Europe, several funded projects are paving
the way to this further evolution in the IoT platforms for things
and data management.
Software Defined Networking (SDN) [105] is a further
technology originally conceived to foster network programma-
bility, by decoupling the control and data planes, which can
play a relevant role in facing the main hurdle to the take-
off of IoT networks represented by the poor flexibility and
adaptability of the network infrastructure. Early efforts to
bring SDN in IoT can be found in [106], where the usage
of heterogeneous wireless networks are orchestrated by the
centralized control plane. The next challenge is to include
in this picture IoT nodes inherently able to sense the real
world, take actions but also to store, manipulate and forward
data, through in-network processing, cross-layering, security
and privacy issues covered by design through SDN.
Recently, also cellular networks are being considered as
enabling internetworking solutions for IoT devices, as wit-
nessed by the novel features introduced by the Third Gener-
ation Partnership Project (3GPP) [107] to support IoT (also
named machine-type communications MTC in this context)
characterized by intrinsic battery-constrained capabilities and
challenging traffic patterns.
Still, a significant amount of research is necessary to im-
prove the access procedures of LTE/LTE-A systems to prevent
IoT traffic load from adversely affecting Human-to-Human
(H2H) traffic. The research community is hardly working on
this issue, as witnessed by the research achievements and
standardized solutions [108], [109]. Besides, it is our view,
widely shared by the scientific community [110], [111], that
the next-to-come fifth generation (5G) wireless systems will
play a key role in fulfilling the IoT requirements. In fact, these
represent a revolution in the wireless ICT scenario thanks to
the innovative network features they will provide [112], among
which are: native support of MTC, small-cell deployments,
interoperability, optimized access/core segments also through
network virtualization techniques.
In this evolutionary scenario, the device-to-device (D2D)
paradigm, according to which devices communicate directly
with each other without routing the data paths through a
network infrastructure, will contribute to the IoT evolution
in future 5G scenarios [113]. Nonetheless, when considering
the possibility of D2D-based interconnection of IoT devices
in cellular environment, severe challenges still need to be
faced, such as efficient device discovery in heterogeneous
environment, optimized link selection for highly dynamic
multi-tenant networks, security issues, and so on [113].
VII. D EFINING THE I NTERNET OF THINGS OF YEAR 2020!
From the picture given in previous sections, it clearly
appears that the term Internet of Things (or IoT) has been
associated to very different concepts, technologies, and solu-
tions during its first appearance in the scientific community.
The oddity of a term so abused and associated to many
different meanings in such a short timeframe suggests that,
maybe, there is a basic misunderstanding in its use. Such
misunderstanding has been amplified by the fact that there are
significant overlappings between the IoT and other important
research areas such as smart objects, cyber physical systems,
and ambient intelligence, for example.
Then, we believe it is worth trying to shed light on what
IoT actually is. The approach we choose is to start from
highlighting the substantial differences between IoT and terms
and technologies often confused with it, rather than merely
proposing a further definition that might add further chaos.
The task is not simple, because at first glance it is clearly
evident that each definition of IoT is a result of two biasing
elements:
1) The historical period, with all the relevant evolutionary
history of ICT technologies adopted by IoT, in which
the definition is conceived. The rapid evolution of ICT
technologies observed in these last few years has in-
evitably influenced the definition of a term that aspires
to identify something related both to connectivity (as
the word Internet implies) and to computing devices of
various kind (hence the presence of the word Things).
2) The different points of view of the IoT stakeholders
which have proposed the definition [114]. Differences,
sometimes substantial, in the IoT visions raised from
the fact that stakeholders, business alliances, research
and standardization bodies started approaching the issue
from either an Internet oriented or a Things oriented
perspective, depending on their specific interests, fi-
nalities and backgrounds. Besides, the attention to the
representation and storing of the exchanged information
became brought directly to a third, Semantic oriented,
perspective.
 The definitions available from the literature or originated by
the main research projects [115] are wide-ranging and vary
from some that are more minimalist, i.e., expressed by simple
formulas (such as Services + Data + Networks + Sensors =
Internet of Things, given by Nick Wainwright, HP Labs and
Chair of the UK Future Internet Strategy Group) or simple
concepts, to those so complex to make an excess of technology
converge into the IoT. The problem with the former kind of
definitions is twofold. These either oversimplify the meaning
of IoT, by reducing the scope to a few technologies and
solutions, or just represent mere repetitions, in more structured
ways, of nothing than the concept of “generic network that
connects generic objects to provide generic services,” which
could be true (we are talking about an Internet of Things), but
does not contribute to the understanding of the phenomenon.
The latter approach suffers from a main drawback: if one
brings into the Internet of Things many concepts derived
from different architectures and technologies, such as ubiq-
uitous/pervasive computing, Internet Protocol (IP), Machine-
to-Machine and embedded devices, Internet of People, then
eventually this makes IoT synonymous with everything and,
therefore, denies to IoT the specific connotation it deserves.
Fortunately, there are common features that occur in many
of the definitions given for IoT:
• A widely accepted feature is the presence of a global
network infrastructure or network connectivity, which
allows the interoperability of the elements of an IoT, their
seamless integration and a unique addressing scheme.
This infrastructure shall be a whatever global infrastruc-
ture (not necessarily IP-based) allowing to overcome the
idea of separate Intranet of Things [116].
• Everyday objects, not only ICT devices, are the main
players of the IoT. These have to be readable, recog-
nizable, locatable, addressable, and/or controllable. As
a consequence, it is widely accepted that there is a
need for solutions that allow for linking physical and
virtual objects. The meaning is that sensors and actuators
shall be embedded into physical objects to enable them
to operate through their virtual representations within a
digital overlay information system that is built over the
physical world. The interesting definition4 of IoT as an
“intersection of people (meatspace), systems (cyberspace)
and physical world (atomspace)” goes in this direction as
well.
• Autonomy and autonomicity are two recurrent features
which are claimed to characterize the objects that popu-
late the IoT. This has not to surprise, as it clearly emerges
from the literature [117] that system complexity can be
controlled through the achievement of self-governance
(autonomy) and self-management (autonomicity).
• Particular attention has to be paid to the design of
effective (better if “intelligent”) interfaces both between
humans and things and between things.
• Heterogeneity of the technologies involved is another
feature often emphasized. This also requires the design of
4 The definition has been given by Rick Bullotta in a Linkedin IoT group
discussion in April 2010.
appropriate solutions that enable the coexistence of these
technologies within the interconnection platform chosen
for the implementation of IoT (via ad-hoc gateways or
other solutions).
• Services need to be associated to the objects. These
services may be complex or elementary and are built upon
the information (sensing, identification, multimedia, etc.)
associated to each object [118].
Reasonably, if we assume that all these elements must be
present in a platform so that it can be classified as an Internet
of Things, then, paradoxically, very few of the solutions
available from various experiences focusing on IoT can be
considered true IoT solutions. To support the above claim in
Table V we provide which IoT features can be found and
which cannot be found in relevant technological frameworks
that are currently presented as IoT solutions.
Accordingly, there is the clear impression that, often, tech-
nological solutions, which have been already available in the
scientific community and in the market for years, are enhanced
with some minor features and re-proposed under the IoT hat;
this would make IoT a mere rebranding for marketing purposes
of already existing technologies.
It is our convincement that IoT deserves a higher dignity
than this. It can rather be seen as a conceptual framework
with a disruptive potential, which is fast gaining ground and
is carrying along with it a new enthusiasm and a wider
attention on the enhancement of already pre-existing enabling
technologies and systems. We can analyse this framework from
three different perspectives.
From a technological point of view, definitely IoT is not a
new technology that has recently appeared on the ICT scenario
and promises to get rid of all the competing technologies by
2020 when the target of billions (the collective imagination is
constantly pushing up on a monthly basis this number, as if all
had been hit by a sort of “IoT rush”) of interconnected objects
will participate to the IoT world. Contrarily, it is inclusive in
the sense that it encompasses existing technologies (and those
to come) with their own peculiarities, compliantly with the
basic features listed above.
From the point of view of the approach to service design,
IoT integrates several technologies to convey information from
sources that are not only people (through their traditional
devices: laptop, desktop, cell-phones, and similar) but also
real and virtualized objects that are part of the environment
in which the service is delivered to users. A further aspect
is that such data should not only be available to a particular
application, but should become a sort of common informative
base, so that different applications can share freely and on a
global scale the sources of that information (i.e. the Things, in
the IoT acronym) properly organized in the form of a generic
network (i.e., the Internet, in the IoT acronym). In this view,
IoT becomes the potential service-oriented architectural model
of the Future Internet.
From the point of view of its finalization, IoT is a new way
of addressing issues with remarkable social impact, relevant
to new ways of educating (IoT for education), new ways of
conceiving homes and cities on a human scale and responsive
to the human needs (IoT for smart home and smart city),
 Technology IoT features Missing features
RFID pla)orms Pervasiveness; o4en integrated with Effec?ve object virtualiza?on; autonomy
sensors/actuators and autonomicity; interac?on between
objects
Pervasive Pervasiveness, autonomy and Global network infrastructure; interfaces
compu?ng autonomicity; heterogeneity of for thing to thing interac?ons
pla)orms technologies; associa?on of services
with objects
Cyber-physical Pervasiveness; autonomy and Global network infrastructure
systems autonomicity;
interfaces between humans and
things as well as between things;
heterogeneity of technologies;
associa?on of services with objects
Sensor networks Autonomy and autonomicity; Global network infrastructure;
associa?on between services and pervasiveness; heterogeneity of the
physical resources technologies;
M2M systems Connec?vity and global network Pervasiveness; autonomy and
infrastructure; Interfaces between autonomicity
humans and things as well as
between things; heterogeneity of
the technologies
TABLE V
C URRENT TECHNOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS : EXISTING AND MISSING I OT FEATURES .

new ways of addressing energy management issues (IoT for
energy), new approaches to handling people health and well-
being (IoT for e-health). The novelty is that not only human
beings, using objects enhanced by pervasive technologies in
innovative way, are involved in the process. Rather people and
objects interact with each-other, as peers. Such an inclusion of
everyday objects (or better their virtual representations) in the
process allows to create applications with a higher penetration
rate into everyday life.
If one does not accept the definition of IoT as a new
“conceptual framework” that includes these three points of
views, which might seem a little too inclusive, then, for intel-
lectual honesty, the risk is having to define IoT a “big hoax”
because the greatest part of the self-styled IoT technological
solutions, which nowadays are inflating the ICT market, would
discover to be nothing more than solutions belonging to the
old domains of pervasive computing, wireless sensor networks,
M2M, RFID based tracking, and social sharing of devices.
It is indisputable that today the attention on the use of these
technologies under the new name of IoT has grown at an
incredible pace, never observed before, and has brought great
results. In this view, “the Internet of Things panacea” is wel-
come; but unfortunately, at least for now, it is hardly possible
to speak about any new real emerging IoT technology in the
current ICT scene. Rather, we are persuaded that the best defi-
nition that can be given, in our humble opinion, for the Internet
of Things as it appears today and is sketched in Figure 9 is:
a conceptual framework that leverages on the
availability of heterogeneous devices and
interconnection solutions, as well as augmented
physical objects providing a shared information base on
global scale, to support the design of applications
involving at the same virtual level both people and
representations of objects.
In accordance with the above definition, we envision that
in the next future IoT platforms will evolve towards the
architecture shown in Figure 10, as explained in the following.
Appropriate software drivers will create abstractions of the
IoT physical resources. Note that drivers can run either in the
IoT devices or in some server. Such abstractions will hide
the specific hardware/software features of the IoT resources.
The abstractions of the IoT resources will be used by the IoT
Operating System which is organized in three layers:
• Southbound API: This is a common layer of modern Net-
work Operating Systems, e.g., [119], and is responsible
of creating internal representations of the IoT resources
and their services which are used by the Core layer. One
of the most important operations executed by the South-
bound API layers are the mapping between a unique,
platform-independent identifier of a specific IoT resource
and the platform-dependent address of such a resource.
Another fundamental operation of the Southbound API
layer is the implementation of the specific communica-
tion/interoperation protocol of the physical resource.
• Core layer: This is responsible of the most critical
operations executed by the IoT Operating System. In
the Core layer the Social IoT will play a key role as
it allows to create an overlay network spanning differ-
ent and even heterogeneous IoT platforms [74]. Other
important operations performed by the Core layer are
related to the management of the resources and include
Scheduling, the management of Security and Trust, and
the Resource/Service Discovery. Note that Security and
Trust Management as well as Resource/Service Discovery
will strongly rely on-the SIoT.
• Northbound API: Finally, we have the Northbound API,
which is responsible of creating an abstraction of the
services offered by the physical resources. A good
starting point for the Northbound API is the work
carried out within the Open Connectivity Foundation
Fig. 9. A high level representation of the IoT conceptual framework.

IoT Applica;ons App. 1 App. 2 App. 3 App. N

Northbound

Core layer

Management func;ons

Resource
Security/
Scheduling Search/ …
IoT Opera;ng System Trust
Discovery


Social IoT

Southbound API

ID

Drivers
(Abstrac;ons of IoT
resources)

IoT physical resources

(devices & tagged objects)

Fig. 10. A general architecture for the upcoming Internet of Things.

(https://openconnectivity.org). By leveraging the North- interconnection through web technologies; the third one of
bound API, it will be possible to implement applications social objects, semantic data representation, and cloud of
according to the SAaaS as presented in Section V-E. things.

It is obvious that the IoT will continue to evolve as new

VIII. C ONCLUSIONS
This article has analyzed the Internet of Things phenomenon
from an evolutionary point of view, by emphasizing that the
IoT has undergone several transformations in its characterizing
technologies and principles since its introduction. As a result
of this analysis, three generations of IoT have been identified:
the first one of tagged objects; the second one of things
computing and communication paradigm will arrive at a
mature stage, consider the seminal work in [5], [6] on the
Internet of Nano Things, for example, and therefore we have
provided a definition of the IoT as conceptual framework
which is independent of the specific technologies involved.
Indeed, we believe that at the present time finding an answer to
the question “what IoT is and what it is not” avoids confusions
that could lead to the rejection of such a paradigm, which
instead has the potentials to impact significantly on most of
our current societal challenges.
R EFERENCES
[1] S. Jeschke, “The internet of things in production technology: Hetero-
geneous agent systems for decentralized production paradigms,” in 6.
Expertenforum. Agenten im Umfeld von Industrie 4.0, May 2014.
[2] [Online]. Available: http://postscapes.com/internet-of-things-history
[3] M. Weiser, “The computer for the twenty-first century,” Scientific
American, pp. 66–75, 1991.
[4] B. Sterling, Shaping Things. MIT Press, 2005.
[5] I. F. Akyildiz and J. M. Jornet, “The internet of nano-things,” IEEE
Wireless Communications, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 58–63, December 2010.
[6] J. M. Jornet and I. F. Akyildiz, “The internet of multimedia nano-
things,” Nano Communication Networks, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 242–251,
2012.
[7] European Commission, “Horizon 2020 work programme 2014 2015,
european commission decision c,” July 2013.
[8] Policy Modelling and Governance Tools for Sustainable Urban Devel-
opment, “State-of-the-art and future challenges,” October 2013.
[9] J. Formo, A. Fasbender, M. Grdman, and T. Matsumura, “Social web
of objects,” Patent US 20 110 161 478 A1, 2011.
[10] A. Ghodsi, T. Koponen, J. Rajahalme, P. Sarolahti, and S. Shenker,
“Naming in content-oriented architectures,” in In Proc. of ACM SIG-
COMM - ICN Workshop, August 2011.
[11] V. Jacobson, D. K. Smetters, J. D. Thornton, M. F. Plass, N. H. Briggs,
and R. L. Braynard, “Networking named content,” in Proc. of ACM
CoNEXT, December 2009.
[12] T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding, and L. Masinter, “Uniform resource
identifier (uri): Generic syntax,” IETF RFC 3986, January 2005.
[13] K. Ashton, “presentation at procter & gamble in 1999, reported in
internet of things thing. in the real world things matter more than
ideas,” RFID Journal, June 2009.
[14] “Auto-id labs.” [Online]. Available: http://www.autoidlabs.org/
[15] The EPCglobal Architecture Framework, EPCglobal Final Version 1.3,
March 2009.
[16] E. Welbourne, L. Battle, G. Cole, K. Gould, K. Rector, S. Raymer,
M. Balazinska, and G. Borriello, “Building the internet of things using
rfid: the rfid ecosystem experience,” IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 13,
no. 3, pp. 48–55, march 2009.
[17] A. Belpaire, “Internet of things “already a reality today”, interview in
eurescom mess@ge,” The Magazine for Telecom Insiders, vol. 2, 2009.
[18] R. H. Weber, “Internet of things - new security and privacy challenges,”
Computer law & security review, vol. 26, pp. 23–30, 2010.
[19] B. Galloway and G. P. Hancke, “Introduction to industrial control
networks,” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 15, no. 2,
pp. 860–880, May 2013.
[20] M. Presser and A. Gluhak, “The internet of things: Connecting the real
world with the digital world, eurescom mess@ge,” The Magazine for
Telecom Insiders, vol. 2, 2009.
[21] J. Sung, T. Sanchez-Lopez, and D. Kim, “The epc sensor network
for rfid and wsn integration infrastructure,” in Proc. of Fifth IEEE In-
ternational Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications
Workshops (PerCom 2007), March 2007.
[22] W. Wang, J. Sung, and D. Kim, “Complex event processing in epc
sensor network middleware for both rfid and wsn,” in Proc. of the
11-th IEEE International Symposium on Object Oriented Real-Time
Distributed Computing (ISORC), May 2008.
[23] H. Liu, M. Bolic, A. Nayak, and I. Stojmenovic, “Taxonomy and
challenges of the integration of rfid and wireless sensor networks,”
IEEE Network, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 26–32, December 2008.
[24] “Epcglobal inc., network frame architecture.” [Online]. Available:
http://www.epcglobalinc.org/standards
[25] J. R. Smith, A. P. Sample, P. S. Powledge, S. Roy, and A. Mamishev,
“A wirelessly-powered platform for sensing and computation,” in Proc.
of UbiComp 2006, September 2006.
[26] “EPC radio-frequency identity protocols class-1 generation-2 uhf rfid
protocol for communications at 860 mhz - 960 mhz, version 2.0.0,”
Specification for RFID Air Interface, November 2013.
[27] “ISO/IEC 18000-63 - Information technology - Radio frequency iden-
tification for item management - Part 63: Parameters for air interface
communications at 860 MHz to 960 MHz Type C,” 2013.
[28] “Application level events (ale), version 1.1.1, epcglobal specification,”
March 2009.
[29] “Low level reader protocol (LLRP), Version 1.0.1, EPCglobal specifi-
cation,” August 2007.
[30] “ETSI. machine-to-machine communications (M2M): Functional archi-
tecture. etsi ts 102 690,” 2013.
[31] A. N. Parks, A. P. Sample, Y. Zhao, and J. R. Smith, “A wireless
sensing platform utilizing ambient rf energy,” in Proc. of IEEE Topical
Meeting on Wireless Sensors and Sensor Networks, January 2013.
[32] B. Kellog, A. Parks, S. Gollakota, J. R. Smith, and D. Wetherall, “Wi-fi
backscatter: Internet connectivity for rf-powered devices,” in Proc. of
ACM SigComm, August 2014.
[33] T. S. Lopez, D. Ranasinghe, M. Harrison, and D. McFarlane, “Adding
sense to the internet of things: An architecture framework for smart
object systems,” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 16, no. 3,
pp. 291–308, March 2012.
[34] W. Heinzelman, A. Chandrakasan, , and H. Balakrishnan, “Energy-
efficient communication protocol for wireless sensor networks,” in
Proc. of HICSS 2000, January 2000.
[35] S. Bandyopadhyay and E. J. Coyle, “An energy efficient hierarchical
clustering algorithm for wireless sensor networks,” in In Proc. of IEEE
Infocom 2003, March-April 2003.
[36] A. A. Abbasi and M. Younis, “A survey on clustering algorithms for
wireless sensor networks,” Computer Communications, vol. 30, no. 14-
15, pp. 2826–2841, October 2007.
[37] F. Carrez and et al., “Deliverable d1.5 final architectural reference
model for the iot v3.0,” IoT-A, Tech. Rep., 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://www.iot-a.eu
[38] Y. Shim, T. Kwon, and Y. Choi, “Sarif: A novel framework for
integrating wireless sensors and rfid networks,” IEEE Wireless Com-
munications, vol. 14, pp. 50–56, 2007.
[39] T. S. Lpez, D. Kim, G. H. Canepa, and K. Koumadi, “Integrating
wireless sensors and rfid tags into energy-efficient and dynamic context
networks,” Computer Journal, vol. 52, pp. 240–267, 2009.
[40] I. Farris, A. Iera, A. Molinaro, and S. Pizzi, “A coap-compliant solution
for efficient inclusion of rfid in the internet of things,” in In Proc. of
IEEE Globecom, December 2014.
[41] S. Lee, M. K. Shin, and H. J. Kim, “EPC vs. IPv6 mapping mecha-
nism,” in Proc. of the The 9th International Conference on Advanced
Communication Technology, February 2007.
[42] S. Dominikus, M. Aigner, and S. Kraxberger, “Passive rfid technology
for the internet of things,” in Proc. of ICITST 2010, November 2010.
[43] S. E. H. Jensen and R. H. Jacobsen, “Integrating rfid with ip host
identities,” in Book: Radio Frequency Identification from System to
Applications, 2013.
[44] A. J. Jara, S. Varakliotis, A. F. Skarmeta, and P. Kirstein, “Extending
the internet of things to the future internet through ipv6 support,”
Mobile Information Systems, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 3–17, January 2014.
[45] M.-C. Chung, G. M. Lee, N. Crespi, and C.-C. Tseng, “Rfid object
tracking with ip compatibility for the internet of things,” in Proc. of
IEEE International Conference on Green Computing and Communi-
cations, Conference on Internet of Things, and Conference on Cyber,
Physical and Social Computing, November 2012.
[46] D. Guinard, V. Trifa, and E. Wilde, “Architecting a mashable open
world wide web of things,” ETH, Tech. Rep., 2010.
[47] D. Guinard, V. Trifa, F. Mattern, and E. Wilde, From the Internet of
Things to the Web of Things: Resource Oriented Architecture and Best
Practice. in D. Uckelmann, M. Harrison, F. Michahelles, “Architecting
the Internet of Things”, 2011.
[48] L. Atzori, A. Iera, and G. Morabito, “From “smart objects” to “social
objects”: The next evolutionary step of the internet of things,” IEEE
Communications Magazine, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 97–105, January 2014.
[49] N. Kushalnagar, G. Montenegro, and C. Schumacher, “Ipv6 over
low-power wireless personal area networks (6lowpans): Overview,
assumptions, problem statement, and goals,” IETF RFC 4919, August
2007.
[50] I. Ishaq, D. Carels, G. K. Teklemariam, J. Hoebeke, F. V. den Abeele,
E. D. Poorter, I. Moerman, and P. Demeester, “Ietf standardization in
the field of the internet of things,” Journal of Sensor and Actuator
Networks, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 235–287, June 2013.
[51] Sandvine Intelligent Broadband Networks, “Global internet phenomena
report,” 2013.
[52] D. Crockford, “The application/json media type fro javascript object
notation (json),” IETF RFC 4627, July 2006.
[53] Z. Shelby, K. Hartke, C. Bormann, and B. Frank, “The constrained
application protocol (coap),” RFC 7252, June 2014.
[54] D.Guinard, M. Mueller, and J.Pasquier-Rocha, “Giving rfid a rest:
Building a web-enabled epcis,” in Proc. of Internet of Things Con-
ference, November-December 2010.
[55] F. Paganelli, S. Turchi, L. Bianchi, L. Ciofi, M. C. Pettenati, F. Pirri,
and D. Giuli, “An information-centric and rest-based approach for
epc information services,” Journal of Communications Software and
Systems, vol. 9, no. 1, March 2013.
[56] A. J. Jara, P. Moreno-Sanchez, A. F. Skarmeta, S. Varakliotis, and
P. Kirstein, “Ipv6 addressing proxy: Mapping native addressing from
legacy technologies and devices to the internet of things (ipv6),”
Sensors, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 6687–6712, May 2013.
[57] M. Mller, “RESTful EPCIS: Design and Implementation of a Web-
enabled Electronic Product Code Information Service (EPCIS),” Mas-
ter’s thesis, University of Fribourg, 2009.
[58] A. Castellani, S. Loreto, A. Rahman, T. Fossati, and E. Dijk, “Best
practices for http-coap mapping implementation,” 2013. [Online].
Available: draft-castellanicore-http-mapping-07
[59] S. D’Oro, L. Galluccio, G. Morabito, and S. Palazzo, “Exploiting object
group localization in the internet of things: a performance analysis,”
To appear in IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 2014.
[60] A. Kamilaris, D. Papadiomidous, and A. Pitsillides, “Lessons learned
from online social networking of physical things,” in International
Conference on Broadband and Wireless Computing, Communication
and Applications, October 2011.
[61] T. Schmid and M. B. Srivastava, “Exploiting social networks for sensor
data sharing with senseshare,” CENS 5th Annual Research Review,
November 2007.
[62] E. Miluzzo, N. D. Lane, K. Fodor, R. A. Peterson, H. Lu, M. Musolesi,
Shane, B. Eisenman, X. Zheng, and A. T. Campbell, “Sensing meets
mobile social networks: The design, implementation and evaluation
of the cenceme application,” in Proc. of 6th ACM Conference on
Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, April 2008.
[63] A. Pintus, D. Carboni, and A. Piras, “Paraimpu: a platform for a social
web of things,” in Proc. of the 21st international conference companion
on World Wide Web, April 2012.
[64] V. Beltran, A. M. Ortiz, D. Hussein, and N. Crespi, “A semantic service
creation platform for social iot,” in In Proc. of IEEE World Forum on
Internet of Things (WF-IoT), March 2014.
[65] L. E. Holmquist, F. Mattern, B. Schiele, P. Alahutha, M. Beigl, and
H. Gallersen, “Smart-its friends: A technique for users to easily estab-
lish connections between smart artefacts,” in Proc. of ACM UbiComp,
September-October 2001.
[66] A. Zelenkauskaite, N. Bessis, S. Sotiriadis, and E. Asimakopoulou,
“Interconnectedness of complex systems of internet of things through
social network analysis for disaster management,” in Proc. of the 4th
International Conference on Social networking, September 2012.
[67] “Ninja blocks - the api for atoms,” 2012.
[68] “Ifttt / put the internet to work for you.”
[69] J. Zhou, T. Leppnen, E. Harjula, M. Ylianttila, T. Ojala, C. Yu, H. Jin,
and L. T. Yang, “Cloudthings: a common architecture for integrating the
internet of things with cloud computing,” in Proc. of IEEE International
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, June
2013.
[70] J. Gubbi, R. Buyya, S. Marusic, and M. Palaniswami, “Internet of
things (iot): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions,”
Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 29, no. 7, p. 16451660,
September 2013.
[71] B. Ahlgren, C. Dannewitz, C. Imbrenda, D. Kutscher, and B. Ohlman,
“A survey of information-centric networking,” IEEE Communications
Magazine, vol. 50, no. 7, p. 2636, July 2012.
[72] M. Amedeo, C. Campolo, J. Quevedo, D. Corujo, A. Molinaro, A. Iera,
R. Aguiar, and A. Vasilakos, “Information-centric networking for the
internet of things: Challenges and opportunities,” IEEE Network, vol.
in press, 2015.
[73] A. C. Boucouvalas, E. A. Kosmatos, and N. D. Tselikas, “Integrating
rfids and smart objects into a unified internet of things architecture,”
Advances in Internet of Things, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 5–12, April 2011.
[74] L. Atzori, A. Iera, G. Morabito, and M. Nitti, “The social internet of
things (siot): when social networks meet the internet of things: Con-
cept, architecture and network characterization,” Computer Networks,
vol. 56, no. 16, pp. 3594–3608, November 2012.
[75] M. Nitti, R. Girau, and L. Atzori, “Trustworthiness management in the
social internet of things,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data
Engineering, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1253 – 1266, May 2014.
[76] A. Ortiz, D. Hussein, S. Park, S. Han, and N. Crespi, “The cluster
between internet of things and social networks: Review and research
challenges,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 206–
215, June 2014.
[77] Semantic Sensor Network XG, “Final report: W3c
incubator group report,” 2011. [Online]. Available:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/XGR-ssn-20110628/
[78] C. Perera, A. Zaslavsky, C. H. Liu, M. Compton, P. Christen, and
D. Georgakopoulos, “Sensor search techniques for sensing as a service
architecture for the internet of things,” IEEE Sensors Journal, vol. 14,
no. 2, February 2014.
[79] S. De, B. Christophe, and K. Moessner, “Semantic enablers for dynamic
digital-physical object associations in a federated node architecture for
the internet of things,” Elsevier Ad Hoc Networks, vol. 18, pp. 102–120,
2014.
[80] I. Stojimenovic and S. Olariu, “Data-centric protocols for wireless
sensor networks,” in Handbook of Sensor Networks: Algorithms and
Architectures, 2005.
[81] N. Dinh and Y. Kim, “Icn wireless sensor and actor network baseline
scenarios,” ICNRG Internet Draft, January 2013.
[82] ——, “Potential of information-centric wireless sensor and actor net-
working,” in Proc. of COMMANTEL 2013, January 2013.
[83] T.-X. Do and Y. Kim, “Information-centric wireless sensor and actor
network in the industrial network,” in Proc. of ICTC, October 2013.
[84] D. Kutscher and S. Farrell, “Towards an information-centric internet
with more things,” IETF Internet Draft, February 2011.
[85] Y. Zhang, D. Raychadhuri, L. Grieco, R. Ravindran, and G. Wang, “Icn
based architecture for iot,” ICNRG Internet-Draft, July 2014.
[86] Y. Zhang, D. Raychadhuri, L. Grieco, E. Baccelli, J. Burke, R. Ravin-
dran, and G. Wang, “Icn based architecture for iot requirements and
challenges,” ICNRG Internet-Draft, July 2014.
[87] Y. Song, H. Ma, and L. Liu, “Content-centric internetworking for
resource-constrained devices in the internet of things,” in Proc. of IEEE
International Conference on Communications, June 2013.
[88] O. Waltari, “Content-Centric Networking in the Internet of Things,”
Master’s thesis, University of Helsinki, 2013.
[89] M. Amadeo, C. Campolo, A. Iera, and A. Molinaro, “Named data net-
working for iot: an architectural perspective,” in In Proc. of European
Conference on Networks and Communications, June 2014.
[90] M. Amadeo, C. Campolo, and A. Molinaro, “Multi-source data retrieval
in iot via named data networking,” in In Proc. of ACM Information-
Centric Networking Conference, September 2014.
[91] Y. Li, “Naming in the internet of things,” 2013. [Online]. Available:
http://www.cse.wustl.edu/ jain/cse570-13/index.html
[92] G. Marias, N. Fotiou, and G. C. Polyzos, “Efficient information lookup
for the internet of things,” in Proc. of IEEE WoWMoM, June 2012.
[93] P. Santi and J. Simon, “Silence is golden with high probability: main-
taining a connected backbone in wireless sensor networks,” Wireless
Sensor Networks, vol. 2920, pp. 106–121, 2004.
[94] M. Zorzi, A. Gluhak, S. Lange, and A. Bassi, “From todays INTRAnet
of things to a future INTERnet of things: a wireless- and mobility-
based view,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 44–51,
December 2010.
[95] S. Distefano, G. Merlino, and A. Puliafito, “Enabling the cloud of
things,” in Proc. of IMIS 2012, July 2012.
[96] S. Karnouskos, “Smart houses in the smart grid and the search for
value-added services in the cloud of things era,” in Proc. of IEEE ICIT
2013, February 2013.
[97] K. Tei and L. Gurgen, “Clout: Cloud of things for empowering the
citizen cloud in smart cities,” in Proc. of IEEE WF-IoT, March 2014.
[98] D. Guinard, C. Floerkemeier, and S. Sarma, “Cloud computing, rest and
mashups to simplify rfid application development and deployment,” in
Proc. of ACM WoT 2011, June 2011.
[99] X. Shang, R. Zhang, D. Chen, and Y. Chen, “Agent-based epc-
rfid network for smart awareness system,” Advances in Information
Sciences and Service Sciences, vol. 3, no. 6, July 2011.
[100] C. Turcu and C. Turcu, “The social internet of things and the rfid-based
robots,” in Proc. of ICUMT 2012, October 2012.
[101] L. A. Amaral, F. P. Hessel, E. A. Bezerra, J. C. Corra, O. B. Longhi, and
T. F. Dias, “ecloudrfid a mobile software framework architecture for
pervasive rfid-based applications,” Journal of Network and Computer
Applications, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 972–979, May 2011.
[102] A. J. Jara, M. A. Zamora, and A. F. Skarmeta, “Drug identification and
interaction checker based on iot to minimize adverse drug reactions and
improve drug compliance,” Personal Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 18,
no. 1, pp. 5–17, January 2014.
[103] S. Amendola, R. Lodato, S. Manzari, C. Occhiuzzi, and G. Marrocco,
“Rfid technology for iot-based personal healthcare in smart spaces,”
IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 1, no. 2, April 2014.
[104] F. Bonomi, R. Milito, J. Zhu, and S. Addepalli, “Fog computing and
its role in the internet of things,” in In Proc. of the First Workshop on
Mobile Computing, August 2012.
[105] D. Kreutz, F. M. V. Ramos, P. E. Verssimo, C. E. Rothenberg,
S. Azodolmolky, and S. Uhlig, “Software-defined networking: A com-
prehensive survey,” Proceedings of IEEE, vol. 103, no. 1, pp. 14–76,
January 2015.
[106] A. C. Anadiotis, L. Galluccio, S. Milardo, G. Morabito, and S. Palazzo,
“Towards a network operating system for the internet of things,” in
Proc. of IEEE World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), December
2015.
[107] G. T. 22.368, “Service requirements for machine-type communications
(mtc), v13.11.0,” December 2014.
[108] ——, “Evolved universal terrestrial radio access (e-utra): Radio re-
source control (rrc) v10.5.0,” March 2012.
[109] Z. 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 71, “Mtc simulation results with specific
solutions, document r2-104662,” 2010.
[110] M. Agiwal, A. Roy, and N. Saxena, “Next generation 5g wireless
networks: a comprehensive survey,” IEEE Communication Survey and
Tutorials, vol. 18, no. 3, 2016.
[111] A. Gupta and R. K. Jha, “A survey of 5g network: Architecture and
emerging technologies,” IEEE Access, 2015.
[112] F. Boccardi, R. W. Heath, A. Lozano, T. L. Marzetta, and P. Popovski,
“Next generation 5g wireless networks: a comprehensive survey,” IEEE
Communication Magazine, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 74–80, February 2014.
[113] L. Militano, G. Araniti, M. Condoluci, I. Farris, and A. Iera, “Device-
to-device communications for 5g internet of things,” EAI Endorsed
Transactions on Internet of Things, vol. 1, no. 1, 2015.
[114] L. Atzori, A. Iera, and G. Morabito, “The internet of things: A survey,”
Computer Networks, vol. 54, no. 15, pp. 2787–2805, October 2010.
[115] “Internet of things definitions.” [Online]. Available:
http://postscapes.com/internet-of-things-definition
[116] G. Venkat, “NoT IoT,” June 2014. [Online]. Avail-
able: https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140620064438-
52931539-not-iot
[117] R. R. Sterritt and M. Hinchey, “Autonomicity - an antidote for
complexity?” in Proc. of IEEE Computational Systems Bioinformatics
Conference, August 2005.
[118] P. Buxmann, T. Hess, and R. Ruggaber, “Internet of services,” Business
& Information Systems Engineering, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 341–342,
September 2009.
[119] ON.Lab, “Open network operating system (onos),” April 2016.
[Online]. Available: http://onosproject.org

View publication stats