This may be a philosophical rant, but we need to make clear the basic idea that computers don't need to talk to other computers, and have no natural volition or responsibility when doing so. Humans need computers, and no device in this new hyperconnected world should exist that is not tied to a responsible party through a crypto/thumb print/retinal scan/blood sample.
Networks will turn into extremely dangerous and difficult to control places if the proper authentication system is not set up first. And this needs to come from the people (ie bitcoin-like protocol), not a centralized system that breaks privacy and ethical laws. One (IPv5 2^36 addresses hah) Internet, a crypto subnet per person, your devices are linked to you. If no explicit authorization, no communication. Once again, devices and networks shouldn't be treated like people, just like corporations shouldn't be treated like people. A device can have multiple owners, but they cannot connect on their own. We can build this new kind of internet from the ground up.
Not trying to highjack your thread, but the thread title is super funny to me because I work in the connectivity QA industry. The acronyms IOP and IOT are both used sometimes interchangeably as shorthand for "interoperability", so I was confused :D
The opposite actually, authentication must be governed by human interaction. We need to eliminate the "oh, we didn't know this toaster was going to query your fridge for the brand of bagels currently stored and send the data to your cable provider so it plays a commercial for more bagels once you're about to run out." You can allow it do that, and that's fine, but you must accept all responsibility for the transaction. Just like you accept responsibility for the cash you pull out of your wallet. And nobody else should be in control of the cash that is yours. Is this a time-consuming process? Yes. Do we need to guard our personal data from the groups that would use it to exploit our weaknesses and keep us addicted to that which makes them money - and gives them the visceral thrill of being in control of others? Yes.
It's quite possible the acronym was used for this very reason!
Oh no I meant you don't want them to but are figuring under the current way of going that they might go that way or just plain get worse than they all ready are. Sorry it was worded vaguely. I agree with you though, the systems should always be working for us not themselves or another person.
I am actually running my android set up like this, having it either not allow random interactions or if it wants them, prompting me first to allow it.