The Rise of Wearable Tech

Shipments of Wearable Technology Devices will Reach 64 Million in 2017

As reported by GIS User: According to a new research report from the analyst firm Berg Insight, sales of smart glasses, smart watches and wearable fitness trackers reached 8.3 million units worldwide in 2012, up from 3.1 million devices in the previous year. Growing at a compound annual growth rate of 50.6 percent, total shipments of wearable technology devices are expected to reach 64.0 million units in 2017. Today wearable fitness and activity trackers constitute the vast majority of the shipments. By the end of the forecast period, smart watches are predicted to incorporate much of the functionality of these and will then be the largest wearable device segment.

“A perfect storm of innovation within low power wireless connectivity, sensor technology (such as GPS), big data, cloud services, voice user interfaces and mobile computing power is coming together and paves the way for connected wearable technology” said Johan Svanberg, Senior Analyst, Berg Insight. The first generation of products appeal to specific markets and certain use cases, but refinement in design, technology and connectivity will broaden application areas and speed up market adoption. Initially, the wrist is the most attractive location for wearable devices, which is shown by the success of the Pebble smart watch and the popularity of wristband activity trackers such as the Nike Fuelband and the Fitbit Flex. “However, today’s devices need to evolve into something more than single purpose fitness trackers or external smartphone notification centers in order to be truly successful” continues Mr. Svanberg. Berg Insight predicts that wearable technology will shift from being smartphone accessories into becoming proper stand-alone computing devices. Furthermore, closeness to the body and always aware capabilities will enable them to be more than merely miniaturized smartphones.

Google, Sony and Samsung have already launched products and other major players such as Apple and LG are expected to soon enter the market. Wide market availability of wearable devices also raises privacy concerns. “It is still uncertain where lines should be drawn, but as in the case with most new technology, individual users and solution providers have the responsibility not to misuse the capabilities enabled by wearable tech” concludes Mr. Svanberg.

Scientists to use GPS to Track Bumblebees

As reported by KWG: Imagine a GPS unit small and light enough to fit on the back of a bumblebee. Researchers down at Oregon State University plan to build one.

Researchers often use sensors to track species like birds or fish. The OSU scientists hope to use that same technology on a much tinier scale to track local bumblebee populations.

Entomology professor Sujaya Rao is leading the effort.

Rao wants to track the bees to find out why worldwide the key pollinator is in decline.

Without bee pollination, Rao says about a third of the food we eat wouldn't even be around.
So Rao teamed up with engineers at the University and together they are now working to develop a mini wireless tracking device that could be glued to the back of the insect.

“We can then figure out ways to build their populations, to sustain their populations, to make sure they will be here even though the landscape is always changing,” Rao said.

The $500,000 research project is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Rao says it will likely take another two years before the miniature wireless sensors are built, but she's confident her research will help revolutionize how we study bees in the future.

GPS vs. Reality: Believe Your Eyes

As reported by Consumer Affairs: There’s an old joke where a wife catches her husband in bed with another woman (or vice-versa) and the cheating spouse has the chutzpah to deny everything: “What? There’s nobody else in bed with me right now! You did not just see a naked stranger jump out from under the covers, throw on some clothes and run out of here. 

I've never cheated on you! Who’re you gonna believe — me, or your own lying eyes?”

But for the twenty-first century, maybe we should update that joke to apply to GPS systems: “When you look out your car window, you see a deserted beach next to a vast ocean. But I, your GPS, say it’s actually a well-traveled multi-lane highway. Who’re you gonna believe — me, or your own lying eyes?”

Unfortunately, too many drivers in such situations choose to believe the GPS. This happened most recently in Douglas County, Oregon, on Sept. 28, when the sheriff’s department got a call from an elderly couple whose RV got stuck in the mud on a deserted, unpaved logging road. Their GPS had suggested they leave the Interstate and take a shortcut through the wilderness.

Of course, elderly drivers aren’t the only ones prone to being fooled by their GPS systems. In 2011, a young woman in Washington State drove her SUV into a lake after she and her GPS mistook a boat launch for a road.  Other stories from that year include the man in New Jersey who blamed his GPS after he drove his car off the road and into a house, and the Pennsylvania woman who blamed hers for the head-on crash she caused while driving north in a southbound lane.

Indeed, bad-GPS-direction stories are becoming downright commonplace. Just last week, an Alaskan airport had to put up barricades after clueless iPhone users fooled by a flaw in Apple Maps data kept driving onto one of its runways.

Therefore, even though we are not psychic, we still feel pretty confident in predicting “Sometime in the next month, more ‘drivers get lost following bad GPS advice’ stories will appear in the news.” To make sure these headlines aren't about you, remember: if the road signs say one thing and the GPS says something else, ignore the GPS Navigation device and trust in the testimony of your own lying eyes.

Firefighting Crews Should Have GPS Help

As reported by the Yuma Sun: When firefighters are working on wildfires, one would assume that those crews are equipped with the best, latest technology to keep them safe.

However, the investigation into the deaths of the 19 firefighters near Yarnell in June has shown that isn't always the case.

Investigators have said one way to keep firefighters safe in the future is with GPS tracking technology.

“Real-time information on the location of crews and the location of the fire, if those two things had been known, this accident could have been prevented,” said Bill Grabbert, a retired wildland firefighter, fire management officer and author, said in a recent Associated Press article.

Given the prevalence of GPS technology now, especially in smartphones, it’s unfathomable that it isn't being used to keep firefighters safe.

Officials have said that proper procedures were followed in Yarnell. But the report notes that when the hotshot crew died, an air-tanker was circling overhead. The command center thought the crew had decided to stay put, and the air-tanker was confused about their location, the AP reported.

GPS technology isn't perfect. According to GPS.gov, which is the U.S. government’s official website about the Global Positioning System, high quality GPS systems, combined with augmentation systems, can pinpoint real-time positions to within centimeters.

But, there are factors that can impact that accuracy, such as atmospheric conditions and the quality of the receiver.

However, wouldn't that technology be worth every penny? The payoff would be two-fold – better accuracy in firefighting, and, most important, protecting the lives of wildland firefighters.

For the families of the 19 Granite Mountain Hotshots, there isn't anything that can be done to bring back their loved ones. And because of 30 minutes of radio silence prior to their deaths, many questions will be left unanswered.

But from their tragedy, officials can make changes to help protect other wildland crews in the future.

The next step should be equipping wildland firefighting teams with the best technology to keep them as safe as possible.

Insurance Privacy Collision: Data On How You Drive Can Reveal Where You Drive

As reported by ComputerWorld: If you haven’t heard of them before, use-based insurance (or so-called “Pay as You Drive” or PAYD) programs are all the rage in the auto insurance industry. They make a lot of sense: rather than penalize good drivers for the crummy driving of others (by averaging overall accident stats across a region), leverage on-board technology within the insured vehicle to monitor the miles traveled, speed, braking and other vital statistics to pinpoint good and bad drivers.

The technology allows infrequent, safe drivers to pay much lower premiums, while drivers who rack up tens of thousands of miles a month, or career around the roads at breakneck speeds to pay premiums that are appropriate given the amount of driving and their behavior behind the wheel. Insurers either install their own hardware in the automobile (like Progressive Insurance’s Snapshot program), or work with companies like OnStar that already have tracking and telematics hardware installed.

Most insurance companies who offer these programs are careful to say that they don’t record GPS data that tracks the movements of policy holders, or track their whereabouts. But researchers at the University of Denver show in newly published research that drivers’ movements are easily derived from the data insurance companies do collect, including vehicle speed, turns, time traveled and information such as traffic stops. The researchers found that “a number of trips can be geographically matched to their destination using simple driving features.”

A team of researchers at the University of Denver’s Department of Computer Science consisting of Rinku Dewri, Prasad Annadata, Wisam Eltarjaman and Ramakrishna Thurimella found that driving metrics, like other sensor data, can be highly revealing about individual behavior when collected in bulk. Their study used a commercial tracking device that was capable of collecting the time, driving speed and distance traveled. They then observed automobiles in the Denver area over a period of 15 days, comprising 30 trips ranging from 1 mile to 25 miles. 

With knowledge just of the origin of a trip, they found, they could accurately predict the destination of the journey absent any GPS data. They accomplished this using a strategy they called “stop-point matching,” on the theory that the pattern of stop points from a known origin will be more or less unique for any location, unless the layout of streets is very regular (such as Manhattan’s grid layout.)

The study could raise important data privacy questions for the (many) “pay as you drive” programs now being piloted, or offered to drivers – not to mention other programs that seek to match remote sensors and real-time monitoring with products and services. The data points collected by these remote sensing devices are what the researchers call “quasi-identifiers” – attributes that are “non-identifying by themselves, but can be used to unique identify individuals when used in combination with other data.”

Their findings align with other research, including a study by scientists at MIT and the Université Catholique de Louvain in Belgium, which found that mobile device data from just four, randomly chosen “spatio-temporal points” (for example, mobile device pings to carrier antennas) was enough to uniquely identify 95% of the individuals studied based on their pattern of movement alone.

The research doesn't suggest that PAYD programs should be banned – but it does put the onus on insurance companies to disclose the potential privacy implications of data collection to their customers.


“Privacy advocates have presumed the existence of location privacy threats in non-tracking telematics data collection practices; our work shows that the threats are real,” the authors say. 

“Enough information should be conveyed to consumers so that an informed decision can be made.”

Robotic Boat Hits 1000-Mile Mark in Transatlantic Crossing

As reported by IEEE Spectrum: “Scout,” a 4-meter-long autonomous boat built by a group of young DIYers, is attempting to cross the Atlantic Ocean. It is traveling from Rhode Island, where it launched on 24 August, to Spain, where all being well it will arrive in a few months’ time.

Scout has now gone about 1000 miles (1600 kilometers) of its planned 3700-mile (5900 kilometer) journey. Should it complete this voyage successfully, its passage will arguably belong in the history books.

I say “arguably,” because it won’t be the first time a robotic vessel has crossed the Atlantic: Scarlet Knight, a sea-going robot fielded by researchers at Rutgers University, did that in 2009. But Scout stands to beat out Scarlet in my mind, for several reasons.

You see, Scout would be the first robotic surface vessel to make this crossing. Scarlet was what is known as an oceanographic glider, which porpoises up and down, spending most of the time at significant depth.

Okay, maybe the distinction between a surface vessel and an oceanographic glider is too fine for the typical landlubbing roboticist to care about. But there are other reasons to disqualify Scarlet from the record book of autonomous Atlantic Ocean crossings. For one, Scarlet was launched from a ship about 50 miles offshore of New Jersey. And it was recovered by another ship far offshore from Spain. So it didn’t really make a continent-to-continent voyage at all.

If this sounds like a trivial point, then you’ve probably not done much blue-water sailing. Out in the middle of the ocean, there’s not much to hit. Close to shore, however, you’re in the shipping lanes, fishing boats are zigzagging around deploying nets or hauling them in, and recreational traffic increases enormously. If you’re sailing into a busy port, it can feel like you’re dodging giants in the final hours. So the fact that Scarlet didn’t have to endure the most risky parts of a transatlantic journey is significant.

If that’s not good enough for you, consider this: Scarlet could be remotely controlled. Indeed, soon after Scarlet put to sea, it became clear that there was a problem, one that was corrected by uploading some new parameters by radio. (Spectrum’s coverage of Scarlet describes this episode.) Now how autonomous is that?

Also, Scarlet required a pit stop. Off the Azores, technicians from Rutgers caught up with Scarlet to scrape barnacles off its hull. They did that in the water rather bringing it aboard ship. So technically, the glider’s journey was uninterrupted. Technically.

Scout is shooting for a transatlantic record under a different set of rules. It was carried off the beach and into the water by two guys on their backs—and only far enough out so that it’s keel would clear the bottom. Scout sends telemetry updates three times an hour using an Iridium transmitter, but no new instructions or parameters can be sent to it. It must navigate autonomously.

Completely autonomous operation means pesky little problems like that one that dogged Scarlet initially can’t be fixed after the fact, making the enterprise that much more difficult. The Scout team, too, realized their boat had a problem soon after it set off—a software glitch caused it to ignore many of the offshore waypoints that had been programmed in (the bug was in code intended to prevent the boat from backtracking should currents push it east of a given waypoint). But Scout got off okay and is still cruising toward Spain. The team is pretty sure that it is headed for a waypoint that lies about 150 miles west of its final destination, Sanlúcar de Barrameda.

Although the construction of Scout’s hull is somewhat high tech—carbon fiber sandwiching Divinycell foam—the rest of the boat is comparatively simple. Solar panels mounted on the top of the hull charge a lithium-iron-phosphate battery, which in turn powers an ordinary trolling motor attached to the bottom of the hull. (In good DIY style, the motor was purchased at Dick’s Sporting Goods.) Under ideal conditions, the battery will gain sufficient charge during the day to power the boat’s motor throughout the following night. Under less than ideal conditions, the motor shuts down when battery voltage gets too low, and the boat just drifts until it can get charged up again.

Scout is plenty seaworthy even when it’s not under power, and there’s nobody to feed or entertain, so drifting with the waves for a few days is no big deal. Even raging storms shouldn’t be a problem: An angled upper deck and a hefty amount of lead on the bottom of the keel ensure that the boat will quickly right itself if it gets flipped over.

Scout’s builders also included a couple of simple fail-safe features. One is that the onboard computer (an Arduino, of course!) gets automatically reset every few hours. This should protect it from freezing up should there be a memory leak or other subtle problem with its code.

The other clever measure they took was to program the boat to stop and back up a little ways every five hours. Their thinking was that this maneuver could help to clear the keel and motor of any flotsam it might have picked up. They say that they tested this technique and that it works pretty well.

I hope so. In my estimation, Scout’s greatest challenge will come from encounters with marine garbage, in particular stray bits of fishing line, which could easily foul the prop. Sargassum, a common floating seaweed, could also cause trouble.

That Scout has made it more that a quarter of the way across is encouraging, though. As a great admirer of ambitious DIY endeavors, I will continue to monitor its progress across the increasingly rough North Atlantic over the next few months and cheer the little boat onward through wind and waves from the comfort of my warm and dry office.