IoT — upcoming challenges for digital ethics
by Luca van der Heide
The ThingsCon report The State of Responsible IoT is an annual collection of essays by experts from the ThingsCon community. With the Riot Report 2018 we want to investigate the current state of responsible IoT. In this report we explore observations, questions, concerns and hopes from practitioners and researchers alike. The authors share the challenges and opportunities they perceive right now for the development of an IoT that serves us all, based on their experiences in the field. The report presents a variety of differing opinions and experiences across the technological, regional, social, philosophical domains the IoT touches upon. You can read all essays as a Medium publication and learn more at thingscon.com.
Technologies related to and today grouped under the name “Internet of Things” have many times been associated with words like “pervasive” and “invasive”. Not particularly appealing words, that suggest a hostile quality of the technology, almost as if we expect it to revolt and take over. If you think about the idea of innovation, that entails the introducing of new ideas as well as new technologies, you may confidently say that it is a very fundamental aspect of this idea to replace the old with the new — meaning that the less innovative cannot stand in the way of the more innovative. One may argue that this feeling of inevitability does not necessarily apply to every technology, as it is true that many innovations remain, to this day, optional. But can the same be said of a technology which has been called pervasive and even ubiquitous? These words certainly recall the idea of inevitability. And if nowadays these words are thought of as a little obsolete, then the name “Internet of Things” itself contains one of the most inevitable aspects of modern life: of course, the Internet.
The fact that these words, “pervasive” and “invasive”, are heard so often in this context tells us that there is some degree of uneasiness connected to the omnipresence of this technology in our lives. An uneasiness that cannot but increase when the already inevitable Internet is about to take bold steps out of the digital world and into the realm of things; something that seems to add an extra dimension to the wide range of privacy and autonomy issues that the immense quantity of data produced by the Internet have already brought forward. Certainly if digital ethics is struggling so much to keep the pace with this ever-expanding world right now, making sure that a newer, more pervasive version of the technology develops responsibly and in a more or less controlled way feels like a rather daunting task.
From the point of view of digital ethics, the challenges we can expect to be facing are all somehow related to this concern of maintaining the human in control of the system or, more precisely, to safeguard the autonomy of individuals in a highly complex, intelligent and autonomous system of objects. So taking into consideration the main peculiarity of the IoT, pervasiveness, we could assume that the most IoT-specific ethical issue is exactly this impossibility to opt out. With this I intend not only a physical impossibility to abstain from engaging with the system, but also and perhaps most importantly a social pressure to conform to certain standards the user might not be willing to conform to. As the technology becomes more and more entangled in our daily lives, we will be required to use it and be familiar with it, whether we want to or not. Failing to do so could mean having less chances than others; with other words, it would create social injustice. Like it happened with Facebook, WhatsApp, or LinkedIn for job opportunities, the person not conforming is left behind or even coerced, to further his personal interests, to participate. Apply this to real, physical environment, and it seems like there won’t be much choice for anyone to simply let innovation do its course, and conform to it.
Apart from being pervasive, one of the major characteristic of the IoT — and one of its major appeals as well — is to be unobtrusive, invisible. That is to say, acting in the background of our attention, relieving the user from wasting precious energy and time. Anyone can see the appeal of it: invisible servants demanding none of your attention and working together with true mechanic precision to deliver you from the nuisances of day-to-day chores. What might make someone feel uneasy, however, is the fact of not being part of this process. The idea of invisibility, for how attractive it is in this context, presupposes some degree of unawareness, and a lack of awareness may be easily linked back to a lack of control. For the simple fact that interaction amongst different agents going about their own agenda always presents the possibility of misunderstanding. And how can we expect every user interacting with invisible IoT systems in public spaces to be aware at all times of every implication and consequence of this interaction?
Now, so far we have seen the IoT is described as pervasive, invisible and autonomous. As I mentioned above, another widespread word in the field is invasive — or intrusive. Given that the same technology is expected to be unobtrusive, the use of these concepts might create some confusion. What is intended when using the word “invasive” is, in the vast majority of cases, an invasion of the private sphere of the individual, a breach of a right to privacy. In the case of pervasive technology, we are mainly interested in a specific kind of privacy that can be called spatial privacy.
IoT systems — as connected to the Internet — will be present both in public and private spaces. And as the Internet will be implemented into physical objects, the issue of protecting our private sphere won’t refer only to protecting our personal information in the digital world, but also in the physical world where we act and live. The massive collection of data now happening largely digitally will happen in real spaces, public or private, by means of systems that are made to remain undetected and to constantly communicate with one another.
With spatial privacy is here intended also a privacy of the relation of the individual in space, that is, his location and movements. It is clear that people moving in and across IoT environments will be exposed to tracking by third parties. And when considering unwanted action being taken by someone or something, we also have to consider how and when would consent be given for such actions that might be unwanted — such as data collection. Users need to be reassured of having some kind of control, because the feeling of having no or limited control would most likely entail reticence in giving consent. That is to say, if users cannot always be aware of what the system is doing at the present moment, they must at least be aware of the motivations and purpose of the system, and be sure that such action is in line with previously given consent and respectful of his right to privacy.
If these fundamental rights are to be preserved, we must take a distance from such unforgiving concepts as intrusiveness, inevitability, impossibility to opt out. What I mean is, there must be some kind of leeway for users to keep exercising their autonomy in the system; if not to be able to opt out of it altogether, at least to be given the possibility to choose one’s degree of involvement. The system should then be adaptable to the user — we might say, user-friendly. The choice whether to engage or not in the interaction should be of the user, primarily. For this reason it is clear there will have to be ways for the system to “show itself” when needed, so as to allow the user to make an informed decision whether or not to engage with the system, and to what extent.
Key steps for this to be possible is to turn “invisible” into “transparent” and “invasive” into “inclusive”. Systems can remain unobtrusive while their intentions being clear and accessible at all times. There has to be an openness regarding the uses of IoT systems and sufficient information has to be provided for users to be aware of what the system is doing while operating “in the background”. That consent will be present and informed should never be assumed; the engagement of the user with the technology needs to be active and fully conscious. At the same time, this information should be of common knowledge, so that users are less likely to feel the threat of misbehaviour or even deceit of the technology. The IoT doesn’t need to be thought of as invading the private space of users; it should rather be designed with the purpose of including the user into its processes. Given appropriately transparent systems, users would also feel more in control and have make more conscious decision on their degree of involvement with the technology. The possibility of someone choosing to have less or a different kind of engagement with the technology than others must therefore be taken into account; and if the development of the IoT is accompanied by values of acceptance and promoted from the start as an inclusive technology, social injustice due to different degrees of involvement can be largely limited or even prevented.
A whole range of adequate safety conditions are to be observed when designing such a complex technology like the IoT. To avoid fear and unwanted consequences, it is paramount for possible misbehaviour of interconnected systems to be predictable and preventable, and for the user to be and feel in control at all times. Even more than that, the introduction and development of the IoT needs to be embedded in the right set of values, always aiming at preserving the autonomy of the individual over that of the system and at banishing concepts like “pervasiveness” and “intrusiveness” in favour of “user-friendliness”, “transparency” and “inclusivity”.
Luca van der Heide is a writer and teacher graduated in Applied Ethics with a focus on contemporary issues in digital ethics. During his MA he has worked for the Rathenau Instituut, contributing to a project for the foundation of an ethics committee for emerging technologies in the Netherlands. Said project was submitted to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and subsequently approved. Working at the Rathenau he had to research in depth current ethical issues in modern technology and specialized on the Internet of Things. He has written his thesis on the problem of moral agency for users and devices in interconnected systems. Luca is currently travelling, writing and teaching English around the world. You can reach him at lucavdheide@gmail.com
ThingsCon is a global community & event platform for IoT practitioners. Our mission is to foster the creation of a human-centric & responsible Internet of Things (IoT). With our events, research, publications and other initiatives — like the Trustable Tech mark for IoT — we aim to provide practitioners with an open environment for reflection & collaborative action. Learn more at thingscon.com
This text is licensed under Creative Commons (attribution/non-commercial/share-alike: CC BY-NC-SA). Images are provided by the author and used with permission. Please reference the author’s or the authors’ name(s).
