> The future holds more use cases. Remote surgery, autonomous vehicles etc etc.
Do you really think it would be a good idea to perform something as critical as remote surgery over the internet, where every script kiddy with a botnet might literally be able to kill you by DoSing the hospital?
When the option is between that and a couple of days (or even hours) trek to the nearest hospital, for life threatening conditions then it may well be a lower risk option in some cases.
We shouldn't be afraid of new technologies because they have a risk associated with them. We just need to place that risk in context against the risks of existing solutions that we already live with.
False dichotomy. Dedicated lines such as telephones exist. We could also build new technologies like you suggest, that are separate from the IP internet.
In places where it does exist, this wont be the case for long. Telephone lines are facing obsolescence and at first you're going to see them stop being used, and then you're likely to stop seeing structures being built with them.
And in places where it does not already exist, such as lesser developed parts of the world, the only connection available would be a wireless one, where neither a dedicated connection nor transport to a qualified hospital is an option.
Facing obsolescence, yet here we are discussing how much we need exactly that technology that we're going to abandon. And will spend enormous resources trying to band-aid it on top of an infrastructure that was not designed to support it.
I agree with you. I just don't understand why we let technology develop on this curious path tangential to our actual needs.
Do you really think it would be a good idea to perform something as critical as remote surgery over the internet, where every script kiddy with a botnet might literally be able to kill you by DoSing the hospital?