Protecting the Wireless Device

Two approaches can be taken to mitigate the risk of loss or theft, depending on your concern. Are you concerned about someone gaining access to the information or services provided by the device? Are you concerned that you may not have access to the information or resources if you misplace or lose the device? Let's examine loss and theft separately.

Limiting the Vulnerability to Loss

The device could be made smaller so that it is easier to keep on one's person. However, a smaller device is easier to misplace. A wearable device is easier to keep track of and less likely to be misplaced than a device not worn by the user.

The device could have a holster or carrying case. For example, belt holsters are common with cell phones and PDAs. These holsters are fine for men, but women do not usually want to wear these devices. Women are forced to carry the device in their purse, backpack, or bag.

Extending the preceding case, a wearable interface is better than a wearable device. The interface would be smaller, less intrusive, and possibly more widely accepted by both male and female users. An example would be a heads-up PDA display of the screen on the user's glasses or sunglasses; the input portion could be worn like a watch. The main device could be kept in a purse or worn on a holster. When the device is moved outside communications range of the remote interface devices, an alarm would sound to alert the user.

A second suggestion is a voice-activated phone. Only the microphone and the earpiece would be worn. The microphone could look like a lapel pin. The earpiece could look like earrings or be small enough to fit within the ear canal, similar to digital hearing aids. Being voice activated, there would be no need for a keypad.

The device could be equipped with some type of proximity sensors. These sensors would come in pairs, one sensor worn like a ring or bracelet and the other within the device. If the two became separated beyond the range of the sensors, one or both would alarm to notify the user of the separation and the device's location.

The device could be made to be the access mechanism for applications and data stored on a server somewhere. The device itself would simply be the interface and, as such, would be inexpensive. Its loss would be inconsequential.

Limiting the Vulnerability to Theft

The protections described for loss apply as well to theft. However, with the exception of the last protection, they are aimed at notifying the user of the theft and not at deterring the theft. In general, theft occurs when the thief perceives value in having the device from selling or using the device or by using the information contained on the device. With this in mind, you should consider the following protections or mitigations.

The device could be made inexpensive and readily available. Charge for service rather than for the device. If the device's value drops below a certain threshold, taking it will not be worth a thief's effort.

The device could be configured as tiny wearable components that would be difficult for a thief to obtain.

The device could require an external authentication mechanism, such as a SmartCard or proximity device, to enable it. For the device to be useful, a thief would have to take the device and the enabling token. The enabling device, being smaller, could be better protected on one's person when not in use.

The device could be made so that it is useful only to the owner. Employing a form of biometric authentication to access the device would do this. One scenario would be to have the device personalized when it is purchased. This would be a one-time, nonreversible activity that would link the device and user; only the user could access the device. Biometric authentication, such as a fingerprint, retinal scans, a voiceprint, or even DNA analysis, would eliminate the threat of random theft. Other issues could be associated with this solution, such as user acceptance and processing power limitations.