Observing Things — Responsibility and the Internet of Things

By Simon Höher

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.

Before we call for a responsible IoT, let’s make sure we know we actually mean by that. While the meaning of IoT appears to be relatively obvious, a precise understanding of responsibility is more elusive. One possible answer is that acting responsibly means to offer a choice in face of multiple options — management decisions at the work place, personal and social preferences at home, administrative or creative decisions in the city. What such a choice might consist of, and what makes it responsible, is the topic of this essay. In search for answers we will turn to cybernetics and Systems Theory, in particular Luhmann’s notion of social systems¹ and Heinz von Foerster’s proposal of the role of recursive computation for the observation of the world at hand.² We will close with an attempt to apply this cybernetic notion of responsibility to our own expectations toward the IoT with the help of Bruno Latour (culture) and our claims to its structure, reviewing Xanadu, a proposal for an alternative network structure from the 1990s (design).

Computing Environments

While the term IoT itself is somewhat bewildering — what else should the internet consist of, if not computers, that is things? — todays’ notion of the IoT links back to the first conjuring of the term “ubiquitous computing”, seminally proposed by Mark Weiser and his colleagues at Xerox PARC in the early 1990s³. Together with the idea of “ambient intelligence”, coined by Eli Zelkha and his team at Philipps, they envisioned a digital network that represents physical things by virtual components with respective virtual addresses — a hybrid network of physical and virtual references. Interestingly, the term of ubiquitous computing already hints at an active performativity of things that now become interconnected and ever intentional. Kevin Ashton’s (proclaimed, but widely accepted) coinage of the term “Internet of Things” in 1999 then brought little new to the table, but offered a catchy description of the concept.

Aside from history and semantics, let’s take a closer look at such a global network of connected things: A computational network where each physical node (thing) is represented by a virtual node and performs the triumvirate of (1) monitoring their surroundings by sensors that encode analog input (sound, heat, light, touch, etc.) into digital data, (2) processing this data by applying specific programs or algorithms, and (3) eventually generating some sort of output that — and this is important — likely functions as an input for the next triumvirate system, not rarely itself.⁴ The re-introductiong of previous output as the input for the next operation makes the IoT a “non-trivial machine” that refers to its current state in order to derive its future processes. We might even refer to it as some sort of decentralized supercomputer itself, or as other have put it, a “world-sized robot”⁵. Interesting for us is the extent to which such a robot appears to be a neutral, or at least predictable machine to its observers (us), and to what extent it seems to be a new, equally purposeful⁶ observer itself. We want to ask what is going on in the IoT — and what does it mean for society?

The Internet of Invisible Things

That the increasing presence of connected technologies has a severe impact on all sorts of social settings, and is equally adopted into their own respective logic, is apparent: examples reach from public management and administrations that translate the IoT into a notion of a connected and “smart city” to businesses and industrial corporations that perpetuate the idea of an “Industry 4.0” in the factory and the “Future of Work” in the office all the way to a new sense of intimacy and privacy in the setting of the family and their now allegedly “smart home”.

The IoT is elusive, as it is always both, physical and virtual

This embrace and translation of ubiquitous computing into specific contexts of specific organizations is as telling to the attentive observer of such systems, as it tends to blur the technology at hand, making it to some extent invisible to the observing organization itself: The IoT is elusive, as it is always both, physical and virtual, and this duality runs the implicit risk of leading us to mistake it for its other half: The physical object for its virtual representation, the virtual element for the actual thing.

It is this opaque invisibility is a quality that Weiser and his colleagues marked the ultimate triumph of any “profound technology” — quite enthusiastically, one might add. However, the implied benefit of ubiquitous computers that “weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it”⁷ holds the risk of being simply overlooked as what it is. A trait that might hold far-ranging implications for the way we should describe them, as they obviously are more than a trivial tool that helps making life manageable, and rather marked by a certain transformative, a non-trivial quality, an enchanted and enchanting effect, that demands to be observed just as suspiciously and wary as its sensors are monitoring its surroundings itself.⁸ But how to do so, if it remains unclear what (or where) the thing really is?

Elusive Control

Once we look at issues like control and neutrality, this becomes obviously problematic, as both terms become crucial: They contradict and enable choice, depending on who controls and who sees clearly. On an economic level, some have pointed out that the sense of ostensible neutrality paired with a pervasive intangibility is indeed often not what it seems to those employing it. In his rather gloomy account of “The Epic Struggle for the Internet of Things”, Bruce Sterling paints a disheartening picture of a technological development that is merely an economic one in disguise.⁹ Depicting IoT as a pervasive instrument of oligopolistic organizations (most notably Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, and Microsoft, short: GAFAM), that “wrangle” for a dominant worldview of ever persistent sales, delivered through the connected devices in the homes, cities, and office buildings of the world, the once sanguine aspirations of Weiser and the likes seem deserted. Rather than a neutral — let alone helpful — technology, the IoT becomes an extended, massive communications channel to cater to the interest of a few giant economic organizations.

That said, we can take a closer upon a highly interesting observation of Sterling, namely the deception of the consumer, in thinking the Internet of Things would be about things (rather than sales). The elusive quality of IoT once more becomes obvious here, although embedded in an economic context, as well as its manipulative element of control. Our question thus becomes: How does IoT manage to hide behind itself — and how does it exert control while doing so?

We should recall here, that a ubiquitously computing environment is, indeed, computing. That means all references and information offered up for referral by ongoing communication are themselves the result (output) of computational processes yielding them. Sterling’s assumed manipulative role of the IoT thus becomes indeed evident, as it can directly influence communication by selecting or repeating information: re-actualizing otherwise forgotten memories, and withholding potential information that might alternatively be referred to. The two sides of this selection then are memory and oblivion — a powerful lever to shift both, a system’s focus of observation and its elusive blind spot. It would stand to reason to describe this quasi-memory function of computing environments as a form of control, as, according to Ashby, control is a sort of memory of past events that constantly scans and adopts to diverging observations in the present, in order to (re-) formulate respective expectations in the future¹⁰.

With memory comes control, and Sterling’s hunch was right, if only not exactly (or rather: exclusively) in the way he laid it out, for this holds true any social system, depending on its respective “code”. To speak with Spencer-Brown¹¹, this code is the initial and concurrent distinction that allows for control in the first place — and it can have many forms: buying | not-buying for economics, familiar | strange for the intimate home, public | private for the city.

As we have seen, the fact that the IoT exerts control by offering and withholding information, is not necessarily something to be worried about. Instead of a depletion of communication and an ensuing entropy of decisions (one might ask: what is there left to administer in a smart city), of intimacy (what is there left to share in an ever-watching intelligent home), or of innovation (what to manage in a predictively optimized business), it is more likely, that those observing systems notice they are observing and observed by technology — and subsequently learn to evolve and adapt, modeling strategies to ensure their own continuity, by building upon the observations of their surroundings. After all, the assumption of a computing environment is nothing new for any social system.

Choice and Truth

If we review IoT this way, we can discern its performative and controlling role in communicative contexts as making certain selection preferences more likely than others, without an explicit opportunity for objection. A computing environment is, in fact, an observer. Just like any observer, by observing and computing, it creates the reality it is observing in the first place — in this case by decoding it into data, by computing it, and by encoding it into some kind of result or output. It is this constructed reality that any other system is then observing on their behalf. And it is through this selective construction of reality, that a computing systems controls how other observers might deal with it, refer to it, act upon its outputs, or address it deliberately.

This notion of control get us closer to a refined understanding of how computing environments might affect present communicative processes in society: by establishing elusive control, computing and presenting (via outputs) a specifically served plate for selection of past and future communications. We might also describe this selection proposition as a forestalled distinction, a de facto pre-selection of potential and perceived truths — as unrecognizable, and thus indisputable observations. We should remember one of the core introductions of cybernetics here, namely the observer and its subsequent annulment of any absolute truth. To the contrary, any unconditional adoption of constrained distinctions would run exactly diametrical to the realization that “everything said is said by an observer”¹² — including any statement, observation, or reasoning for truth. Even if there was a truth, once it enters communication it is thus doomed by its observers.

The result is not loss of reference or orientation, but rather a discovery of the autonomy of the observer, and of its “responsibility” and liability for the truths selected.¹³ Responsibility is both a prerequisite and result of choice — and granting and marking options for choice would be responsible, as it allows others to choose deliberately.

A responsible IoT

For social systems like organizations and even society as a whole this would mean a different form of expectation formulation, a different culture when dealing with the IoT. Reviewing the aforementioned notion of responsibility on these grounds would mean an unconditional need for choice: The display and transparent presentation of information as a demand to connected systems translates into two imperatives that Heinz von Foerster lays out elegantly.¹⁴ Building on the insight that reality is a collectively co-constructed reference, affected by both social and technological systems, by Thou and I, where both sides are mutually constitutive and form a shared reference of identity, he states:

reality = community. What are the consequences of all this in ethics and aesthetics? The ethical imperative: Act always as to increase the number of choices. The aesthetical imperative: If you desire to see, learn how to act.”¹⁵

For us this means the active exploration of and with computing environments that allows for comparison, leeriness, and refusal of observed observations, driven by active learning, critique, comparison and a closer look. Building a responsible IoT would cater to both imperatives by allowing for choice (autonomy) and inspiring to see (decision-making). It maintains the observer’s autonomy by marking itself un-neutral, intransparent, and subjective. It inspires to act, but offering decisions to be made, by expanding the field of view, by re-introducing the new and inviting to act upon it. This implies both an adjusted perspective byits observers (culture) and an adjusted structure of itself (design).

A new perspective

Starting with the former, as a first proposal, we would need an extended notion of the thing at hand for organizations, in order to measure up to its implications for communication. It ought to be treated with reservation and its output handled as a subject for discourse, thereby itself shifting into the role of a disputable offering of potential observations, a matter of debate.

An interesting take of such a debatable thing can be found in Bruno Latour’s notion of the “ding”¹⁶: Building upon a draft for “object-oriented-democracy”, as opposed to a discourse, that is stuck with the fallacy of assuming a “real” and factual ground for decisions, Latour calls for ousting such allegedly objective discourse in favor of a focus on (and acceptance of) a ubiquitous prevalence of subjective interest and prioritization. He calls for a shift from the matter-of-fact toward the matter-of-concern. An organization equipped with this lens would treat things just like it would treat all their observations: as preliminary truths, that either call for trust to be reliable, or are rejected once another, more trustworthy one is found¹⁷. It would be aware of the computational nature of its environment, and treat connected objects accordingly: not as objects but as subjects, not mystically enchanted but technically equipped with the capability of filtering, focusing, and proposing observable information. It would review a thing in reference of itself and other, similar things, and formulate a counter-computational assumption on where presented information is coming from and whether or not to trust it. It would thus account for more implied potentiality and interconnectedness, and recursive selection of relevance to provide “plentiful” options.

On the other hand, the IoT’s equivalence of social culture can be described as structural design. Applying von Foerster’s imperatives to it would call for an equally open, recursive, and traceable processing of information. Traceable to the observing eyes of staff, family members, citizens, and tenants. Interestingly, looking back at the history of the Internet of Things, such an opportunity seems to have once been more palpable: Ted Nelson’s account of a mutually connected internet, with bi-directional links and a clear awareness of what is actual and what is potential marked such a visionary description of treating things for what they were, or rather could be.¹⁸ ¹⁹ In his project Xanadu, he laid out a set of principles that would not only allow for comparison with self and with the other, but along the way, introduces a structural implementation of recursion. It’s an ambitious project with an equally arduous history, that does, however, shed some light on the potential of an alternatively designed Internet of Things.

While judging from to today, the opportunity of a Xanadu-internet seems to have passed for now. It is, however, well up to future research if and in how far such system might shed new light on von Foerster’s call for trust over truth, and a vision of a collectively opened discourse on the things around us. A contemporary opportunity that technology itself holds might be the emergence of the blockchain: By once more re-introducing the implicit relevance of trust on a technical (that is structural) level, a blockchain driven IoT might allow for reliable traceability of information, by incorporating entrained historical data into a decentralized system of shared memory. We should thus expect to find more hints toward a re-claim and granted responsibility in von Foerster’s sense when dealing with computing environments — for observation the IoT is a mutual one.

Simon Höher

Simon Höher is an entrepreneur and strategy consultant who works with public and private organizations alike. With his clients and partners, he explores and maps mutually desirable futures, and develops human-centered strategies to get there. He has a background in Cultural and Political Science and currently studies Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at Witten-Herdecke University. He co-heads CURRENT COLLECTIVE, a research and strategic design agency, and chairs ThingsCon, an initiative to promote a responsible Internet of Things. Earlier he co-founded two companies around digital collaboration and critical design and worked with various organizations in the field of technology and international development throughout Africa and Europe. In his work and studies he explores the interplay of technology, culture and society in a global context, and is particularly interested in the impact and function of collective utopias from a sociological and cybernetic point of view. His research evolves around ethical, political, and economic perspectives on society, as well as concepts of robust systems design and critical innovation. Simon mentors at Seedcamp — and shares his insights and questions as a speaker and coach. He is based in Cologne.

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).

1. Niklas Luhmann, Die Gesellschaft Der Gesellschaft, 1. Aufl. (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1997). ↩︎
2. Heinz von Foerster, On Constructing Reality. p. 211–227. In :*Understanding Understanding. Essay on Cybernetics and Cognition, (New York: Springer, 2003). ↩︎
3. Mark Weiser, “The Computer for the 21st Century,” Scientific American 265, no. 3 (September 1, 1991): 66–75, https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0991-94. ↩︎
4. Dirk Baecker, “Digitalisierung als Kontrollüberschuss von Sinn,” in Digitale Erleuchtung alles wird gut, ed. Zukunftsinstitut (Frankfurt a M.: Zukunftsinstitut, 2016). ↩︎
5. Bruce Schneier, “Click Here to Kill Everyone — With the Internet of Things, We’re Building a World-Size Robot. How Are We Going to Control It?,” New York Magazine, January 27, 2017, http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/01/the-internet-of-things-dangerous-future-bruce-schneier.html. ↩︎
6. Purpose in the sense of higher-level predictability as laid out by Arturo Rosenblueth, Norbert Wiener, and Julian Bigelow, “Behavior, Purpose and Teleology,” Philosophy of Science 10, no. 1 (January 1, 1943): 18–24, https://doi.org/10.1086/286788. ↩︎
7. Weiser, “The Computer for the 21st Century,” 82. ↩︎
8. The metaphor of the enchanted here is not as far-fetched as it might seem: Not only since formerly passive things now seem to proactive act and behave out of themselves, but also as a reference to the mystic connotation of any new technology, that remains inexplicable, but all the more momentous to its observers — withdrawing from control and invoking a sense of elusiveness. Both such traits, control and elusion, can in fact put us on the trail of the IoT. ↩︎
9. Bruce Sterling, The Epic Struggle of the Internet of Things (New York: Strelka Press, 2014). ↩︎
10. W. Ross Ashby, “Requisite Variety and Its Implications for the Control of Complex Systems,” Cybernetica 1, no. 2 (1958): 83–99. ↩︎
11. Brown, G. S. Laws of Form, Julian Press, New York, 1972, p. 2 ↩︎
12. Humberto R. Maturana, “Everything Said Is Said by an Observer,” in Gaia, a Way of Knowing: Polit. Implications of the New Biology, ed. William Irwin Thompson (Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne Press, 1987), 65–82. ↩︎
13. Heinz von Foerster and Bernhard Pörksen, Wahrheit ist die Erfindung eines Lügners: Gespräche für Skeptiker (Heidelberg: Carl-Auer Verlag GmbH, 1998). ↩︎
14. von Foerster, On constructing Reality. ↩︎
15. von Foerster, On Constructing Reality. p, 227 ↩︎
16. Bruno Latour, “From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik or How to Make Things Public,” in Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy, ed. Bruno Latour and Peter Weibel (Cambridge, Mass.; [Karlsruhe, Germany: MIT Press ; ZKM/Center for Art and Media in Karlsruhe, 2005). ↩︎
17. cf Dirk Baecker, Studien zur nächsten Gesellschaft (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2011). ↩︎
18. Theodor H Nelson, Computer Lib ; Dream Machines (Redmond, Wash.: Tempus Books of Microsoft Press, 1987). ↩︎
19. For a reflective take on project XANADU and its potential implications for today’s IoT, see Usman Haque’s contribution to the first edition of the RIOT Report. See: Haque, “How Might We Grow Diverse Internets of Things? Learning from Project Xanadu & the WWW”, 2017, ThingsCon — The State of Responsible IoT, at https://medium.com/the-state-of-responsible-internet-of-things-iot/how-might-we-grow-diverse-internets-of-things-learning-from-project-xanadu-the-www-47a64497750c ↩︎