Comments on: Pervasive Computing Gets a Look-See in Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes

By: Tom Fuller

Tom Fuller — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:05:04 +0000

Er, um, well… hmmm.

By: Ian Brown

Ian Brown — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:43:01 +0000

Indeed; but the Data Protection Act protects personal data linked to individuals, not building configurations

By: Tom Fuller

Tom Fuller — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:51:40 +0000

Hi Ian,

I forgot to respond to the first part of your question–I can think of a lot of things I would show a fire inspector that I’d be reluctant to show other people. Additions and improvements, ramps for Mum and Dad, the wiring for the new TV room, the networking nightmare that is the kids’ rooms, etc.

By: Tom Fuller

Tom Fuller — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:16:35 +0000

Well, I certainly hope that’s next–right next to continuously reporting meters, etc. It’s actually also a step towards wearable computing, which I sort of lump in as a sub-category with pervasive and mobile computing for reporting purposes. They’ll all blend in together soon enough, IMO. PDAs are getting small enough to clip on to a coat–do they become wearable devices at that point? Alarm devices could easily send info over a network–I’m sure somewhere, some do, especially in commercial environments. Are they pervasive computing devices at that point? The point is that the network keeps extending outwards into the real world in a fascinating variety of ways.

By: Ian Brown

Ian Brown — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:24:22 +0000

What personal information is stored in the system that would be subject to the Data Protection Act?

This is a good use of handheld devices, but “pervasive” computing would imply there were a whole range of sensors embedded in the buildings under inspection that would continuously report fire safety status to the Fire & Rescue service!