2015 National Iot Strategies
2015 National Iot Strategies
2015 National Iot Strategies
1
technological developments such as the Internet, global positioning
systems, and supercomputers.2 Smart policies can foster the growth of the
Internet of Things, too. Indeed, there is an even more compelling case for
countries to craft comprehensive strategies for the Internet of Things,
because, as this report details, there are a number of market failures that
if left unaddressed can slow the technology’s progress at the national level.
Moreover, because many opportunities are strongly tied to areas of public-
sector activity (such as health, environment, transportation, defense, and
city management), comprehensive national strategies can ensure
governments take full advantage of the Internet of Things to improve their
own performance.
For the global public sector specifically, the Internet of Things could
generate $4.6 trillion by 2022 by increasing employee productivity, making
military defense systems more effective, reducing costs, improving citizens’
experience with public services, and increasing government revenue.8 First
responders can use the Internet of Things to save lives. For example,
firefighters can use smart clothing to monitor environmental conditions
and more safely respond to emergencies.9 Cities can use the Internet of
Things to operate more intelligently and better serve residents, such as by
monitoring flows in water and sewage treatment plants in real time to
reduce power consumption and costs; by installing parking sensors to help
2
people with disabilities quickly find accessible parking spaces; or by
tracking snowplows in real time to better respond to residents’ snow
removal requests and identify where communities are being
underserved.10
Ultimately, the Internet of Things is a platform for innovation that has the
potential to be as disruptive and beneficial as the Internet itself has been.
While industry forecasters and technologists can imagine its potential
applications and estimate its impact, there is simply no way to predict all of
or even most of the most of the opportunities that the Internet of Things
will create. But, from the many connected devices and services that have
already begun to reshape factories, hospitals, cities, and homes, there is
no doubt that the Internet of Things will be one of the defining technologies
of the first half of the twenty-first century.
MARKET FAILURES
If left solely to market forces, the development of the Internet of Things will
fail to reach its full potential. These market failures include:
3
can analyze billions of data points is more valuable to society, or to an
individual company, than one that can tap only millions of data points. This
phenomenon occurs for many networked technologies, since the value of a
network rises as the number of users grows.11
There are also externalities from increased scale. For many connected
technologies, a greater number of users will bring down prices due to
economies of scale in production, but individual buyers will receive only a
tiny portion of this benefit.
“Chicken-and-Egg” Dynamics
The success of some IoT applications depends on the success of other
technologies and vice versa. For example, some successful IoT application
rollouts will depend on widespread adoption of smart phones and
broadband Internet service. At the same time, more use of the Internet of
Things will spur more broadband and smart phone adoption. Similarly,
some vehicle applications that rely on the Internet of Things would have
more value if all infrastructures were IoT-enabled—from traffic lights to toll
booths to railroad crossings. Another example concerns near field
communication (NFC) technology.13 NFC technology allows electronic
devices to share data with each other when they are in close proximity and
can power applications such as from smartphone “wallets.” Though NFC
technology has existed for some time, consumers have had little reason to
demand it in new smartphones because they have had scant opportunities
to use it; and in the absence of demand from a large base of customers,
stores have had little reason to invest in NFC payment systems.14 However,
countries like Japan and South Korea have successfully induced a wide
variety of market players to adopt the technology, from retailers to banks to
public transit authorities.15 As a result, the Asia Pacific region has captured
the overwhelming majority of value of the global NFC payment market,
which is expected to reach $21.8 billion by 2020.16
4
incrementally than it would with government support to resolve chicken-
and-egg dilemmas and encourage mutual adoption of these technologies
until market forces can take over and drive full deployment.
Competitiveness Externalities
The Internet of Things offers a valuable opportunity for countries to gain a
competitive advantage in the global marketplace. Those that are home to
companies well-positioned to produce billions of new connected devices,
develop software to run them, and apply analytics to generate value from
the data they generate will have a competitive advantage over other
countries. Similarly, given the efficiency and productivity gains the
technology can offer the private sector, countries that readily adopt and
implement the Internet of Things will gain a competitive edge over those
that do not.
5
imported goods at resulting lower prices.19 Conversely, companies in a
country slower to adopt this technology, through no fault of their own, will
find themselves at a competitive disadvantage as a result of comparatively
sluggish supply chains.
Interoperability
The private sector can and should lead the development and adoption of
standards for the Internet of Things. However, standards coordination is
important in public-sector applications. In the past, the lack of national
coordination has led to incompatible systems and lagging adoption. During
the last two decades, for example, some U.S. states have implemented
radio-frequency identification systems to allow drivers to easily pay highway
and bridge tolls, but they have deployed these systems independently of
one another, leading to a patchwork of incompatible systems from state to
state.20 Earlier federal efforts to support interoperability and widespread
deployment would have made these toll payment systems more useful to
drivers.
Public Goods
Certain aspects of the Internet of Things require public goods that the
private sector cannot or will not adequately provide. National strategies
should ensure the public sector provides these necessary public goods,
which include:
6
Human Capital
The value of the Internet of Things, and thus the willingness of the public
and private sector to develop and implement the technology, hinges upon
the data it generates. But no country will be able to fully capture this value
without a workforce equipped with the necessary skills. By 2018, the
United States will face a shortage of up to 190,000 workers well-educated
in data science and 1.5 million managers and analysts able to use data to
make better decisions.24 Similarly, a survey of 497 businesses in the
China, France, Germany, India, the United Kingdom, and the United States
revealed that this shortage of skilled data workers is a universal concern,
with only one-third of companies reporting they have the human capital
necessary to effectively use new data.25 The public sector will likely feel the
impact of this skills shortage more severely than the private sector,
because businesses will be able to offer more competitive salaries as data
skills become even more in demand, while governments will struggle to
attract comparable talent.
Radio Spectrum
The Internet of Things will consist of billions of connected devices
communicating with one another, and this influx of new connected devices
will create demands for spectrum frequency space that many national
spectrum licensing regimes will likely be unable to support. If too many
transmitting devices compete for spectrum, they will be unable to share
data with each other or operate effectively.
7
provision of unlicensed spectrum for connected devices.27 And in
September 2015, the Ministry of Economic Affairs in the Netherlands
published a report examining the impact of the Internet of Things on radio
spectrum, which recommended that the government closely monitor how
new connected devices could contribute to bottlenecks in both licensed
and unlicensed spectrum and investigate how it could provide additional
spectrum to support critical IoT applications.28
INNOVATION-FRIENDLY REGULATION
Excessive or poorly-designed regulations can significantly slow the growth
of the Internet of Things. Yet some policymakers have suggested that they
want to develop new rules and regulations specifically for the Internet of
Things, particularly as it relates to privacy.33 For example, the U.S. Federal
Trade Commission has expressed support for requiring the practice of data
minimization for data generated by the Internet of Things—limiting the
collection and retention of data so it can only fulfill specific, predefined
purposes.34 Applying such rules to the Internet of Things would be
damaging as there may be one primary reason to collect data, but
innumerable other ways to use the same data beneficially beyond its initial
purpose. And, with so many new opportunities to collect data from billions
of new connected devices, the value of the data at stake is proportionately
large. Furthermore, mandating data minimization practices can preclude
opportunities for de-identification, which can protect sensitive information
without unnecessarily sacrificing its value.35
8
of Things, because many connected devices will have limited, if any, user
interfaces.36 Outdated notification requirements will prove particularly
frustrating given that the vast majority of applications on the Internet of
Things pose no real threat to consumer welfare and most data collection
would likely be routine and insignificant. Any costs incurred by adhering to
these regulations would be passed on to consumers and ultimately serve
to make consumers less likely to adopt connected devices.
Some nations also want to restrict how data can flow across borders. India
requires gateways and application servers that support the Internet of
Things to be located inside the country if they service Indian customers.
The rationale is to protect national security, even though such localization
requirements have no impact on security whatsoever.37 Such requirements
limit the ability of international device manufacturers and service providers
to analyze data collected from the Internet of Things around the world,
thereby reducing the technology’s potential value.38
A national strategy for the Internet of Things can forestall such problems by
sending a clear message to legislators and regulators that this technology
is important and that over-regulation or poorly-designed regulation would
limit its growth. Moreover, a national strategy can encourage legislators
and regulators to focus on regulations that would expand, rather than limit
use of the Internet of Things. For example, regulations designed to free up
energy consumption data from smart meters, which are traditionally locked
down by utility companies, can empower consumers to reduce their energy
use and spur the development of new analytics services.40 And in the
United States, the E-LABEL Act of 2014 allowed manufacturers of certain
connected devices to provide regulatory labeling information in an
9
electronic format through device displays, rather than on physical labels.41
This simple change reduces overhead costs for device manufacturers and
provides consumers with a greater amount of useful information.42
EQUITY
The Internet of Things can be a valuable tool to help meet the needs of
underserved populations, but without appropriate public policies such as
ensuring that smart city technologies serve all cities and neighborhoods
rather than just affluent ones, adoption will be uneven. Failure to do so will
limit the value of such systems as a whole because of the network effects
that widespread deployments generate. For example, smart city technology
that police departments use to reduce crime would be substantially less
effective if they could only analyze data from certain neighborhoods.
CHINA
In March 2010, the Chinese central government committed $117.2 million
to boost national competitiveness by opening a national center devoted to
Internet of Things R&D.46 Since then, the government has launched several
IoT initiatives. In 2011, China’s Ministry of Industry and Information
Technology issued a Five-Year Plan for the Development of the Internet of
Things, outlining how the government intends to support the technology,
10
such as by setting standards and demonstrating real-world applications.
This plan called for creating an Internet of Things “Special Fund” to support
R&D with investments totaling $774 million for the period of 2011 to
2015.47 In August 2013, China’s State Council issued guidance to support
smart city pilot programs, with a particular focus on smart utilities and
transportation, and the Chinese Development Bank agreed to establish
financing programs for smart city pilots.48 Also in 2013, China established
an inter-agency council to guide national policy on the Internet of Things
and issued guidance to support the technology, including fostering industry
development, workforce training, and R&D targets.49
GERMANY
The Internet of Things is a main focus of Germany’s “Industry 4.0” plan to
modernize its manufacturing sector.50 Germany has devoted $221 million
to support industry, academic, and government research and development
efforts to advance “smart factory” technologies ranging from sensor-
embedded systems to artificial intelligence platforms that can help operate
Internet-connected machinery.51
INDIA
India’s National Telecom M2M (Machine-to-Machine) Roadmap, published
in May 2015, established a policy framework to support digitization efforts
and grow the Internet of Things.52 The roadmap outlines opportunities the
Internet of Things can offer for a wide variety of public- and private-sector
applications, and details ongoing and planned government efforts to
facilitate growth and adoption.53 These efforts include providing
government-backed venture capital funding, creating incubators and test
bed facilities to support the growth of the Internet of Things, carrying out
smart grid pilot programs, and working with educational institutions to
provide the workforce with data skills.54 The roadmap also outlines the
government’s ambitious plan to develop 100 smart cities, which it will
finance with a $7.4 billion investment over the next five years.55 India’s
smart city plan also calls on state and municipal governments to match
national funding for smart cities.56
11
JAPAN
In June 2013, Japan declared it would strive to make the country the
“world’s most advanced IT nation,” and announced a series of measures to
harness the Internet of Things to develop solutions in the areas of
healthcare, disaster resilience, public safety, and infrastructure planning,
as well as encourage sensor technology R&D.58 And in July 2015, the
Japanese government announced plans to establish a council of public-
and private-sector organizations to support the development and
implementation of specific Internet of Things technologies by the end of
2018, including information processing technologies that can analyze the
large amounts of data from connected devices, and systems for safely
disabling Internet-connected autonomous devices such as self-driving cars
in the event of a safety or security risk.59
SINGAPORE
In May 2005, Singapore unveiled its Intelligent Nation 2015 10-year plan
to support the growth of the information and communications technology
industry. This plan focuses in part on supporting the development and
deployment of sensor networks and developing the communication
infrastructure necessary to support ubiquitous connectivity.60 In November
2014, Singapore also launched its Smart Nation initiative to secure
economic and social benefits through greater adoption and cohesive use of
technology, particularly the Internet of Things.61 Singapore has allocated
$1.6 billion in for the Smart Nation initiative for 2015, and while not all of
aspects of the initiative are related to the Internet of Things, the funding
will focus prominently on large-scale deployments of smart city
applications.62 And in August 2015, a group of government agencies began
work on guidance to define standards for the Internet of Things, such as
sensor network standards and domain-specific standards, to support the
Smart Nation initiative and private-sector deployment of the technology.63
SOUTH KOREA
South Korea has $5 billion in planned investments in the Internet of Things
through 2020 to support industries ranging from wearables to smart
cars.64 In October 2014, the South Korean Ministry of Science, Information
Communications Technology, and Future Planning released a roadmap for
the Internet of Things to guide government actions to develop cybersecurity
standards and best practices.65 South Korea has also built the Songdo
International Business District, the world’s first purpose-built smart city,
with the help of government funding.66
12
UNITED STATES
The White House in September 2015 launched its Smart Cities Initiative,
which encapsulates the majority of the U.S. government’s efforts to support
the Internet of Things and outlines $160 million in new and ongoing R&D
funding that covers more applications than just smart cities.67 The Smart
Cities Initiative includes support for a range of programs including the
National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Global City Teams
Challenge, which encourages the development of smart city applications,
Internet-connected vehicle pilots, and the establishment of Internet of
Things research test beds.68 The federal government’s Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development Program also released
its Smart Cities and Connected Communities Framework—a short guide to
coordinate federal agency investment and collaboration for smart city
technology.69 In October 2015, the White House released its Strategy for
American Innovation, which highlights the value of the Internet of Things
for applications ranging from environmental monitoring to supply chain
management.70 And in December 2015, the Department of Transportation
launched the Smart City Challenge, which will award $40 million in March
2016 to a mid-sized city to implement connected technologies to reduce
congestion, improve transportation safety, protect the environment, and
support economic growth.71
Country Funding
13
Funding
Agency Action
14
Regulatory Action
Trade Policy
Ensuring that companies can freely exchange data across local and
national borders;
Promoting access to the best and most cost effective connected
devices and services, such as by eliminating policies that restrict
the ability of international device manufacturers to enter domestic
markets; and
Supporting voluntary, industry-led standards and fighting against
nation-specific standards.
CONCLUSION
A national strategy for the Internet of Things, if designed and implemented
correctly, would maximize the opportunity for the Internet of Things to
deliver substantial social and economic benefits. No country will
successfully capture these benefits by leaving development of the Internet
of Things solely up to the market, just as no government actions could
capture all of the potential benefits without a robust private sector that can
innovate unencumbered by overly restrictive regulations. As countries
increasingly recognize the potential of the Internet of Things, they should
develop comprehensive national strategies that proactively promote
development and adoption of the technology while limiting regulatory
barriers that restrict its growth.
15
REFERENCES
1. Daniel Castro and Joshua New, “10 Policy Principles for Unlocking the
Potential of the Internet of Things,” Center for Data Innovation, December
4, 2015, http://www2.datainnovation.org/2014-iot-policy-principles.pdf;
Joshua New, “The Internet of Things Could Stop Our Waterways from
Dying,” Center for Data Innovation,” June 8, 2015,
http://www.datainnovation.org/2015/06/the-internet-of-things-could-
stop-our-waterways-from-dying/; Daniel Castro and Jordan Misra, “The
Internet of Things,” Center for Data innovation, November 2013,
http://www2.datainnovation.org/2013-internet-of-things.pdf.
3. Daniel Castro and Jordan Misra, “The Internet of Things,” Center for Data
innovation, November 2013, http://www2.datainnovation.org/2013-
internet-of-things.pdf.
4. “Gartner Says the Internet of Things Installed Base Will Grow to 26 Billion
Units By 2020,” Gartner, December 12, 2013,
http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2636073, and “Broadband by the
Numbers,” National Cable & Telecommunications Association,
https://www.ncta.com/broadband-by-the-numbers.
6. Daniel Castro, “Data is the Key to the Factory of the Future,” Center for
Data Innovation, October 2, 2014,
http://www.datainnovation.org/2014/10/data-is-the-key-to-the-factory-of-
the-future/; Daniel Castro and Joshua New, “10 Policy Principles for
Unlocking the Potential of the Internet of Things,” Center for Data
Innovation, December 4, 2015, http://www2.datainnovation.org/2014-
iot-policy-principles.pdf; Joshua New, “5 Q’s for Steve Hershberger, CEO of
SteadyServ Technologies,” Center for Data Innovation, April 13, 2015,
http://www.datainnovation.org/2015/04/5-qs-for-steve-hershberger-ceo-
of-steadyserv-technologies/.
7. “Energy Savings from the Nest Learning Thermostat: Energy Bill Analysis
Results,” Nest Labs, February 2015,
https://nest.com/downloads/press/documents/energy-savings-white-
paper.pdf, and Parmy Olson, “Apple’s iPhone Just Stepped Closer to
Shaping Your Health Care Costs,” Forbes, October 1, 2015,
16
http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2014/10/01/apple-iphone-
healthkit-humana-insurance-partnership/.
9. Casey Grant et al., “Research Roadmap for Smart Fire Fighting,” National
Institute of Standards and Technology, May 2015,
http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.1191.pdf.
12. “Energy Savings from the Nest Learning Thermostat: Energy Bill Analysis
Results,” Nest Labs, February 2015,
https://nest.com/downloads/press/documents/energy-savings-white-
paper.pdf
13. Robert Atkinson and Stephen Ezell, Innovation Economics: The Race for
Global Advantage, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012).
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
17
17. Tim Weitzel, Economics of Standards in Information Networks, (Physica-
Verlag Heidelberg, 2004),
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ae37CAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover
#v=onepage&q&f=false.
20. Eric Jaffe, “You May Never Need to Pay Cash at a Toolbooth Again,”
CityLab, August 12, 2013, http://www.citylab.com/tech/2013/08/you-
may-never-need-pay-cash-tollbooth-again/6497/.
21. Ryan Daws, “Britain wants HyperCat to Reign the Internet of Things,”
TelecomsTech, August 21, 2014,
http://www.telecomstechnews.com/news/2014/aug/21/britain-wants-
hypercat-reign-internet-things/.
23. Stephen Ezell and Robert Atkinson, “The Middle Kingdom Galapagos
Island Syndrome: The Cul-De-Sac of Chinese Technology Standards,”
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, December 2014,
http://www2.itif.org/2014-galapagos-chinese-ict.pdf.
24. James Manyika et al., “Big Data: The Next Frontier for Innovation,
Competition, and Productivity,” McKinsey Global Institute, May 2011,
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/big_data_the_n
ext_frontier_for_innovation.
25. “Data Science Revealed: A Data-Driven Glimpse into the Burgeoning New
Field,” EMC, 2011, http://www.emc.com/collateral/about/news/emc-
data-science-study-wp.pdf.
18
26. Jack Schofield, “Most Mobile Data Will Soon Be Offloaded to Wi-Fi
Networks, Says Juniper Research,” ZDNet, June 12, 2013,
http://www.zdnet.com/article/most-mobile-data-will-soon-be-offloaded-to-
wi-fi-networks-says-juniper-research/.
31. Brad Plumer, “The Coming R&D Crash,” Washington Post, February 26,
2013,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/02/26/the-
coming-rd-crash/, and “Metrology and Standards,” The Innovation Policy
Platform, 2013,
https://www.innovationpolicyplatform.org/content/metrology-and-
standards.
33. Julie Brill, “Keynote Address for EuroForum European Data Protection
Days,” Federal Trade Commission, May 4, 2015,
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/64074
1/2015-05-04_euroforum_iot_brill_final.pdf.
19
34. “Internet of Things: Privacy & Security in a Connected World,” Federal
Trade Commission, January 2015,
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-
commission-staff-report-november-2013-workshop-entitled-internet-
things-privacy/150127iotrpt.pdf.
35. Ann Cavoukian and Daniel Castro, “Big Data and Innovation, Setting the
Record Straight: De-identification Does Work,” Information Technology
and Innovation Foundation, June 16, 2014, http://www2.itif.org/2014-
big-data-deidentification.pdf.
36. For example, California’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 requires
companies that collect personal data from users of their website to clearly
display their privacy policies, and the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC)
Behavioral Advertising Principles suggests website operators notify users
about their data collection practices. “California Online Privacy protection
Act of 2003,” Cooley Godward LLP, June 2004,
https://cooley.com/files/ALERT-Cal_OPPA.pdf, and Leuan Jolly, “Data
Protection in United States: Overview,” Practical Law, July 1, 2015,
http://us.practicallaw.com/6-502-0467#a904003.
39. Daniel Castro and Alan McQuinn, “The Privacy Panic Cycle: A Guide to
Public Fears About New Technologies,” Information Technology and
Innovation Foundation, September 2015, http://www2.itif.org/2015-
privacy-panic.pdf.
20
43. Daniel Castro, “The Rise of Data Poverty in America,” Center for Data
Innovation, September 10, 2014, http://www2.datainnovation.org/2014-
data-poverty.pdf.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. “Shangai Launches First Internet of Things Center,” China Daily, March 2,
2010, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-
03/02/content_9527480.htm.
48. Ken Yaron et al., “Comparative Study of Smart Cities in Europe and
China,” EU-China Policy Dialogues Support Facility II, March 2014,
http://euchina-ict.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2015/01/Smart_City_report_draft-White-Paper-_-
March-2014.pdf.
49. “How China is Scaling the Internet of Things,” The GSM Association, July
2015, http://www.gsma.com/newsroom/wp-content/uploads/16531-
China-IoT-Report-LR.pdf.
51. Ibid, and Sara Zaske, “Germany’s Vision for Industrie 4.0: The Revolution
Will Be Digitised,” ZDNET, February 23, 2015,
http://www.zdnet.com/article/germanys-vision-for-industrie-4-0-the-
revolution-will-be-digitised/.
53. Ibid.
54. Ibid.
21
55. “Mission Statement & Guidelines,” Ministry of Urban Development, June
2015, http://smartcities.gov.in/writereaddata/SmartCityGuidelines.pdf.
56. Ibid.
57. Joshua New, “What India Gets Right, and Wrong, About the Internet of
Things, Center for Data Innovation, June 16, 2015,
http://www.datainnovation.org/2015/06/what-india-gets-right-and-
wrong-about-the-internet-of-things/.
58. “Declaration to Be the World’s Most Advanced IT Nation,” Kantei, June 14,
2013, http://japan.kantei.go.jp/policy/it/2013/0614_declaration.pdf.
61. Rachel Au-Yong, “Vision of a Smart Nation is to Make Life Better: PM Lee,”
Straits Times, November 25, 2014,
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/vision-of-a-smart-nation-is-to-
make-life-better-pm-lee.
22
Standards-Outline-to-Support-Smart-Nation-Initiative-Unveiled-
20150812.aspx.
64. Cho Mu-hyun, “South Korea to Invest $5b by 2020 in IoT and Smart Cars,”
ZDNet, March 25, 2015, http://www.zdnet.com/article/south-korea-to-
invest-5b-by-2020-in-iot-and-smart-cars/.
65. James Lim, “South Korea Plans to Enforce Security of Internet of Things,”
Bloomberg BNA, November 2014, http://www.bna.com/south-korea-
plans-n17179911433/.
66. “Korea’s Global Commitment to Green Growth,” World Ban, May 3, 2012,
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/05/09/Korea-s-
Global-Commitment-to-Green-Growth.
68. Ibid.
72. For example, the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Lighthouse Projects
consist of groups of cities developing smart city applications that have
high market potential and are easy to replicate. “FAQ – Frequently Asked
Questions WP 2015 for Horizon2020 call SCC 1 – 2015,” European
commission, 2015,
https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/doc/call/h2020/h20
20-scc-2015/1645153-faq_2015_v11_en.pdf.
73. Daniel Castro, “The Rise of Data Poverty in America,” Center for Data
Innovation, September 10, 2014, http://www2.datainnovation.org/2014-
data-poverty.pdf.
23
74. Daniel Castro and Joshua New, “Accelerating Data Innovation: A
Legislative Agenda for Congress,” Center for Data Innovation, May 11,
2015, http://www2.datainnovation.org/2015-data-innovation-agenda.pdf.
75. Daniel Castro and Joshua New, “10 Policy Principles for Unlocking the
Potential of the Internet of Things,” Center for Data Innovation, December
4, 2015, http://www2.datainnovation.org/2014-iot-policy-principles.pdf.
76. Ibid.
77. Ibid.
24
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Joshua New is a policy analyst at the Center for Data Innovation. He
has a background in government affairs, policy, and communication.
Prior to joining the Center for Data Innovation, Joshua graduated
from American University with degrees in C.L.E.G. (Communication,
Legal Institutions, Economics, and Government) and Public
Communication. His research focuses on methods of promoting
innovative and emerging technologies as a means of improving the
economy and quality of life.
Daniel Castro is the director of the Center for Data Innovation and
vice president of the Information Technology and Innovation
Foundation. Mr. Castro writes and speaks on a variety of issues
related to information technology and internet policy, including data,
privacy, security, intellectual property, internet governance, e-
government, and accessibility for people with disabilities. He has a
B.S. in Foreign Service from Georgetown University and an M.S. in
Information Security Technology and Management from Carnegie
Mellon University.
contact: [email protected]
datainnovation.org
25