The complete English version of the interview has now been posted on fortykey (which by the way has a very interesting collection of essays). An excerpt:
Rhys: The â€˜Internet of Thingsâ€™ is a truly startling concept. I seem to remember that you once described it as â€œinconceivable before the 21st Centuryâ€. I find the prospect of everything in the world being linked together as alarming rather than uplifting, a threat to liberty. Are my concerns naive?
Bruce: I would agree that the privacy risks are always the first issues to strike thoughtful people. As people become more engaged with the many startling possibilities of the Internet of Things, they understand that those first concerns are primitive. They are not wrong, just simplistic.
Itâ€™s like learning about the railroad, and immediately thinking that it means that foreign spies will come to your town on the railroad. That is true. Yes, foreign spies really are a threat to your liberty, and they will use railroads. But railroads are alarming for many good reasons other than mere foreign spies.
The worst concern about a railroad is this: if a rival town gets the railroad, and your town doesnâ€™t get that railroad, then your town dies. You will live a dead town. Posed in the rhetorical terms of the Internet of Things, this would mean a frightening â€œInternet of Things Gap.â€ This would be something like yesterdayâ€™s famous â€œdigital divide.â€ When no one has it, then it might be bad to have it. When others really have it and you donâ€™t, that deprivation is terrifying, unjust, evil. This would crush all your intelligent and skeptical reservations because it would reframe the debate in a way you could not counter.
The Internet of Things is indeed startling. It is also dangerous. But thatâ€™s just theory. To to have no real Internet is worse. To have no Internet while others do have it can be lethal. The Regione of Piemonte understood that problem, and thatâ€™s why I am able to type this to you on some very nice state-supported broadband.