Anthony F.

Hillen

Wireless Sensor Networks

Technology Overview

The individual nodes that constitute a wireless sensor network are generally small

in size and use power-efficient batteries to extend their operational longevity. Depending

on its function, each node has a sensor board that facilitates the detection and

measurement of heat, vibrations, air-pressure and magnetic fields (among other things).

The “motes” developed at UC Berkeley are a typical example of such devices. Motes

have a range of about 100 feet and feature a 7Mhz processor, 4Kb of RAM, 128Kb of

programmable memory space, and utilize a ChipCon CC1000 radio for communication.

Due to their deployment simplicity and low cost of about $200 per unit, motes can be

distributed in spatially dense configurations within a given area. Motes make use of Tiny

OS, an operating system designed from scratch to be as power-efficient as possible.

Using less than half the capacity of an AA battery, Tiny OS can effectively run

applications for months at a time. (Hellerstein, Hong, Madden, 2003)

Motes within a given geographic location use networking software to self-

assemble into ad-hoc networks, allowing data to be transferred to and from any node in

its network, or if necessary, to a proxy (but unauthorized, non-peer/client) in close

proximity (like a random cell-phone or laptop), thereby serving as a conduit to a wider

network (like the internet).

The nodes in wireless sensor networks can be employed to capture data about

their geographic environment while seamlessly and instantly communicating that

information with surrounding nodes, impervious to temporal or spatial limitation.

Wireless sensor networks circumvent the hindrances of collecting information from

-1-
 Anthony F. Hillen

geographic locations otherwise inaccessible by human beings; from the nether ocean to

enemy occupied territory. (Kumar, 2003)

Sensor networks are amenable to both civilian and military deployment. In

civilian scenarios, sensors used to monitor traffic, pollution, or infrastructure can be

positioned by hand. In terms of the most basic military applications, such networks can

be used to detect, classify, and track targets in a given territory (other applications will be

discussed later). Civilian use of wireless sensor networks range from environmental

purposes such as pollution and ecosystem analysis to law-enforcement activity like traffic

monitoring and criminal surveillance. In their military context, discommodious or threat-

rich environments can be accurately and safely reconnoitered, determining sensor

placement a priori is unnecessary as random and widespread sensor deployment can be

achieved via aircraft. (Clouqueur, Veradej, Ramanathan, Saluja, 2003)

Development Status

Sensor technology has made substantial advancements thanks to innovative new

research efforts. Some recent developments have been academic in nature, like tracking

and monitoring animal migrations, bird habitats, or vineyards, while private-sector

developments have included efficiency improvements like “condition-based” equipment

maintenance. There are numerous examples of how wireless sensor networks are

currently being used, for instance, biologists at UC Berkeley interested in studying how

trees affect the temperature and humidity in their surrounding canopy use a network of

trunk-attached motes to monitor the microclimates around the redwood trees in their

botanical garden. (Hellerstein, Hong, Madden, 2003)

-2-
 Anthony F. Hillen

One of the most promising research endeavors currently underway is the

development of a flexible and interference-resistant communication technology. Instead

of being restricted to transmitting and receiving information on a pre-assigned block of

spectrum, these radio devices would utilize “opportunistic spectrum access”. Such

systems would facilitate faster and more efficient communication since static allotment

would be complemented by instantaneous and opportunistic spectrum access. Sensor

nodes utilizing such technology would access unused spectrum, detect, authorize and

network surrounding nodes in a manner that reduces inter-node communication

interference. (DARPA “neXt Generation” program)

A second area of research worthy of mentioning employs “mobile swarm” sensor

networks to facilitate asset management and multimedia streaming. Mobile swarms are

clusters of sensor nodes located in close physical proximity to each other and possess

similar mobility patterns. For example, a group of tanks or UAVs could constitute a

swarm, presumably equipped with qualitatively superior sensors like hi-res cameras, and

longer range radios with higher channel bandwidths than conventional motes. Sensor

nodes attached to the swarm members can gather information about that individual

member, like location or operating status, but it can also relay data captured by its “host”

to other nodes in the swarm, other mobile swarms, or to a command center through a

backbone network or satellite. (Gerla, Xu)

There are three primary motivations supporting research and development in the

field of wireless sensor networks: academic interest, corporate profit, civil value, and of

course, military application. These strong and mutually supportive driving forces suggest

a promising future for the technology. Although motes currently cost about $200 per unit,

-3-
 Anthony F. Hillen

prices have been dropping steadily and are expected to continue falling. Some projections

suggest that the price will fall to around $10 a piece within the next few years and that the

units themselves will shrink in size to about 2 cubic mm. It is safe to assume that the

smaller and cheaper these sensors get, the more widely used they will become. Moore’s

law indicates that in about ten years, devices as small as a mote will have processing and

memory capabilities similar to a contemporary network server. (Hellerstein, Hong,

Madden, 2003)

Several challenges faced by sensor technology are worthy of closer scrutiny.

Software development, for instance, has been particularly troublesome. This is primarily

due to the sensor’s hardware limitations. Modern sensors like motes suffer from a dearth

in processing speed, memory, radio bandwidth, and energy capacity. The problems with

processing speed and memory are likely to be resolved in the near future. However, the

shortage in bandwidth is due to insufficient energy, and because the energy density of

commercial batteries has not changed much in the last ten years, it is unlikely that the

challenges posed by battery capacity and radio bandwidth will be overcome anytime

soon. Other problems involve developing a way of programming groups of sensors to

undertake a variety of different tasks and creating reliable security protocols to ensure

network integrity and guard against intrusion and denial-of-service threats. (Hellerstein,

Hong, Madden, 2003)

Although most challenges are developmental, the technology’s inherent potential

to violate widely held standards of personal privacy implies that there are also social and

legal obstacles to many of its civil applications. Critics are quick to point out the ways

such technology can be misused, from tracking ones every movement to remotely

-4-
 Anthony F. Hillen

accessing personal information. It is not difficult to imagine scenarios whereby one need

merely walk by the wrong person in a grocery store to share one’s home address, credit

card number, or other identity information. These are valid concerns that warrant

significant discussion and policy-formulation prior to any civil application.

Security Implications

In contrast to civilian applications, the military applications of wireless sensor

networks must be fully understood, embraced, and implemented without delay. Until

now, the United States’ military use of sensor technology has been limited to basic and

relatively crude detectors that utilize sensor technology, the Unattended Ground Sensor

(UGS) system and the AN/GSQ-187 Remote Battlefield Sensor System (REMBASS) are

typical examples of such devices. Although technically “wireless” by definition (in the

sense that they do not require external cables to function), these devices do not utilize the

technology discussed in this report, nor do they form ad-hoc networks of any kind. These

systems are capable of detecting vehicle and personnel activity, but would be incapable

of providing potentially critical battlefield information in the form of real-time

audio/video data.

Wireless sensor networks can also provide a strategic advantage in urban and

close-quarter combat situations. For instance, an orbiting UAV could automatically detect

friendly forces in the area and transmit aerial reconnaissance data directly to a heads-up

display build into the helmets of troops on the ground. If a ground unit required a

topographical map of an area, it could transmit the request to a nearby tank or UAV

which would then acquire the information from a satellite or databank at a command

center.

-5-
 Anthony F. Hillen

Military integration of this technology will require simultaneous training and

tactical adaptation. The ability of its operators to function effectively in an information-

rich environment will ultimately depend on the quality of their training. US combat

statistics from the first Gulf War indicate that an abundance of battlefield information

actually degrades combat performance. Its recipients could not process all the

information at every level of command so units in critical need of information had to sift

through too much irrelevant data to locate the specific details they required. The

confusion caused by information overload illustrates the importance of implementing

training and tactical reform measures whenever new technology is introduced. (Davis,

2007)

It should be noted that military use of wireless sensor networks need not be

limited to information awareness purposes. While not the most creative of individuals, I

can think of a few applications omitted from existing literature on the subject. First,

integrating wireless sensor networking technology with anti-tank, anti-ship, or anti-

personnel mines could facilitate a strategic self-repositioning function. Should an existing

mine be detonated, the remaining mines/nodes in the network would detect the

detonation’s location and adjust themselves accordingly, either filling in any gaps in the

mine field or congregating in the area of activity. Another application might involve

attaching wireless sensor nodes to handheld weapons. Potential benefits could include

user-authentication, battlefield restriction (they become unusable when taken out of an

AO), or perhaps “talking” with other weapons in the unit and automatically

communicating the need for reinforcements or ammunition re-supply based on usage or

environment data.

-6-
 Anthony F. Hillen

Regardless of application, wireless sensor networks portend significant defense

and security implications, necessitating a response in the form of policy formulation. Any

military seeking to become or remain a formidable force should carefully consider the

strategic opportunities wireless sensor networking technology can provide. Given the cost

of military conflict, in terms of both monetary expense and potential casualties, a prudent

strategist must pay close attention to technologies that could result in an advantage of any

sort. Military history suggests that success is not achieved by those who first acquire a

new technology, but by those who accept it and learn to wield it effectively.

-7-
 Anthony F. Hillen

References
T. Clouqueur, P. Veradej, P. Ramanathan, K. Saluja, “Sensor Deployment Strategy for
Detection of Targets Traversing a Region,” Mobile Networks and Applications,
2003.

D. Davis “Synthetic Battlespace Test-bed for the Analysis of New Intelligence Sensors,
Platforms and Techniques: A National Intelligence Simulation Center,”
University of Southern California, 2007.

M. Gerla, K. Xu, “Multimedia Streaming in Large-Scale Sensor Networks with Mobile

Swarms,” UCLA Computer Science Department.

J. Hellerstein, W. Hong, S. Madden, “The Sensor Spectrum: Technology, Trends, and

Requirements,” SIGMOD Record, December 2003.

V. Kumar, “Sensor: The Atomic Computing Particle,” SIGMOD Record, December

2003.

XG Working Group, “The XG Vision: Request for Comments,” DARPA, Version 2.0

-8-