Living with IoT’s safety compromise
There is no clear definition of the Internet of Things (IoT). Still, a general idea is given by Weill and Souissi, who describe it as: “the extension of the current Internet to all objects able to communicate, directly or indirectly, with electronic devices that are themselves connected to the Internet.” These devices have profoundly impacted the global economy over the past two decades, with an estimated worldwide spending of $800 billion on the Internet of Things in 2023 alone. Aside from its financial significance, new such devices have subtly (yet notably) moulded personal lives and enterprises through improved convenience, assistance, and, most importantly, safety. However, they also pose numerous ethical questions regarding reliance, reliability, and digital vulnerability.
IoT safety in healthcare
The introduction of IoT devices on such a large scale, particularly in healthcare, has shown how they have affected the way we interact with the digital world: digitally-provided safety is becoming the norm. Instantaneous sensor response times on many IoT devices provide real-time communication and alerts when no human input is needed, allowing for users or even emergency services to be autonomously notified under specific abnormalities. For example, the Apple Watch can detect if the user has been involved in a car crash or a hard fall, where emergency services are called if the alert sent out is not responded to, and can also record vitals such as blood oxygen levels and heart rate.
Here, we see advancements in safety through improved efficiency; in nonurgent medical situations, such IoT devices would allow users to skip any unnecessary tests that the device can do outside of clinics, allowing the users to achieve a faster route to more tailored diagnoses. In urgency, constant monitoring of trauma and cardiovascular health would increase the speed of intervention should an emergency arise, allowing for users to be taken to a hospital faster than many situations requiring entirely human input (perhaps due to ignorance of symptoms or unconsciousness).
However, as interdisciplinary IoT use becomes the norm, so does our reliance on it. This poses a significant issue regarding IoT’s future in healthcare. With regard to smartwatches (such as the Apple Watch), it is worth questioning the reliability of such devices and the repercussions if something goes wrong. An undetected software fault paired with user reliance could lead to consequences ranging from a loss of trust in IoT (which could stop the user from accessing the smartwatch’s beneficial features) to a rise in hospital admission times in an emergency due to symptom ignorance.
Digital Vulnerability
Reliance on IoT devices may also cause users to disregard the increased digital vulnerability caused by them. In particular, IoT hacking has been discovered to threaten safety in the medical field. Numerous people with diabetes use wireless insulin pumps in hospitals and home healthcare systems to deliver insulin to their circulatory systems. Still, many of these devices lack sufficient security mechanisms to counter a malicious attack. In 2011, diabetic researcher Jay Radcliffe revealed in a conference that he hacked into his wireless insulin pump, discussing the potential damage hackers could unleash. It was shown that with specific prerequisite information, attackers could cause a significant insulin overdose, resulting in hypoglycemia, and sensitive patient information could also be stolen.
Thus, the ethics of IoT cybersecurity must be reviewed. On the one hand, Jay Radcliffe’s conference presentation stated that despite the discernible flaws in the insulin pump’s software, multiple precise constraints would be needed to pull off a successful insulin overdose attack. For example, the attacker would need the device’s serial number, which cannot be obtained wirelessly; thus, some physical access would be required. This demonstrates that the onus may be on the user, rather than the IoT device, to protect the insulin pump and avoid remote insulin attacks. Thus, while the insulin pump’s software isn’t impenetrable, it may still be safe enough.
On the other hand, a study by Eduard Marin discovered that upon hacking an insulin pump, there were ‘no defenses against replay and message injection attacks were present, and sensitive patient health-related information was disclosed unencrypted in the wireless communication.’ Thus, we can see that IoT devices are vulnerable to data breaches. While this doesn’t affect the user’s safety as directly as an insulin attack would, failure to protect data adequately can lead to privacy violations, potentially affecting the user’s well-being and mental health.
What can we do?
Mitigation of reliance, unreliability, and vulnerability must be discussed. Fellow Digital Society member Maeve Quigg argues that as we embrace IoT, there is an ‘importance [in] striking a balance between the convenience afforded by IoT and the necessity of human decision-making in effectively navigating modern challenges.’ Therefore, outside of technological manufacturing improvements, it is our duty as digital citizens to reflect on our role in such mitigation.
To diminish unreliability, one viable solution is to have necessary IoT devices routinely inspected by a specialist, getting them fixed or replaced should a fault occur. This would ensure that devices of particular significance, such as those used in the medical field, are less likely to cause unwanted repercussions. However, this solution has financial limitations, as those with less money would struggle to pay for the device’s upkeep.
A more widely available mitigation strategy, this time acting as a solution to the problem of reliance, would be to educate ourselves on the dangers of overreliance on these IoT devices, perhaps taught briefly in schools or spread via various forms of media: such technology should be seen as an aid rather than a conclusive diagnostic tool. Companies producing these devices could further encourage this by producing noticeable disclaimers alongside their products. Education on the digital weaknesses of IoT devices would also act as a solution for vulnerability, as it would allow users to be more aware of any dangers posed to their safety while teaching them how to prevent appropriate cyberattacks adequately.
Conclusion
In conclusion, integrating Internet of Things (IoT) devices into healthcare has led to significant safety and efficiency advancements, providing real-time communication and monitoring. However, reliance on IoT raises ethical concerns and vulnerabilities. Reliability issues and hacking threats threaten user safety and privacy, emphasising the need to balance convenience with human decision-making. Thus, mitigation strategies like routine inspections and cybersecurity education are crucial for maximising benefits while minimising harm. Ongoing attention to ethical considerations is essential as IoT technology evolves.
Reflection
Reflections are essential in academia. A 2014 study by Jan Martin and Sara Smith states that ‘the process of reflection can … develop greater self-awareness and recognition of learning opportunities,’ with Ruth Helyer agreeing that ‘it is impossible for individuals to keep developing themselves without skills of reflection.’ This final section aims to accurately reflect my academic growth within the Digital Society module, using Gibbs’ reflective cycle to provide a familiar and effective structure while reviewing my strengths and weaknesses throughout the course.
Description
I have completed three assessments throughout the course: DigiSoc1, DigiSoc2, and DigiSoc3. Each assessment focused on different aspects of digital society and required me to critically analyse various topics related to digital culture challenges and technology’s impacts.
Feelings
As a mathematics student, I initially felt daunted by the written nature of the assessments. However, as I delved deeper into the course materials and reviewed fellow Digital Society members’ work, I gained confidence in my ability to analyse and discuss digital society issues. The feedback on DigiSoc1 and DigiSoc2 was encouraging and helped me recognise and build my strengths in analysing and presenting arguments effectively.
Evaluation
Despite receiving successful grades in the first two assessments, I still have made significant progress in understanding digital society and its implications. In DigiSoc1, I demonstrated a strong understanding of how individuals like Elon Musk influence financial markets through social media. However, I recognise the need to further examine the underlying reasons behind these impacts, which would improve the depth of my analysis. In DigiSoc2, while my arguments were well-supported in this assignment, I acknowledge the importance of providing more evidence to validate the feasibility of my proposals.
Analysis
I would argue that the leading reason for the first assessment’s success is the number of articles I read, which allowed me to reference numerous sources to understand the broader picture. However, I found it difficult to delve deeper than I could have in the restrictive word limit given, which I would have been able to fix with concise writing. I used the feedback from the first assessment to improve the second assignment, which contributed to the increased marks; I improved the credibility of my references, used uncopyrighted images, and improved the critical analysis depth. I aimed to use the feedback in both assessments to maintain high marks for DigiSoc3.
Conclusion/Action Plan
This course was thought-provoking and academically stimulating, changing my initial views on digital society and its implications. For example, before taking this module, I had only considered AI’s impact on the future. After reading Digital Society’s ‘AI, ethics and us’ material and completing my DigiSoc2 assessment on AI plagiarism, I am now aware of the effect AI has already had on society and the ethical challenges it currently poses in familiar sectors.
The most significant improvement I have made throughout this module is my writing skills, having not been thoroughly tested in this field before this course (due to the non-literary nature of mathematics). Writing skills are universally necessary and will benefit my future endeavours in academia, professional settings, and personal life. Going forward, I aim to develop these writing skills with conciseness and more purposeful structure. This would make it possible to include more information without omitting essential content. Furthermore, a more purposeful structure would improve clarity and enhance the reader’s engagement.
