The Ethical Limits of Blockchain-Enabled Markets for Private IoT Data

Philosophy & Technology - Tập 33 - Trang 411-432 - 2019
Georgy Ishmaev1
1Technical University of Delft, Delft, The Netherlands

Tóm tắt

This paper looks at the development of blockchain technologies that promise to bring new tools for the management of private data, providing enhanced security and privacy to individuals. Particular interest presents solutions aimed at reorganizing data flows in the Internet of Things (IoT) architectures, enabling the secure and decentralized exchange of data between network participants. However, as this paper argues, the promised benefits are counterbalanced by a significant shift towards the propertization of private data, underlying these proposals. Considering the unique capacity of blockchain technology applications to imitate and even replace traditional institutions, this aspect may present certain challenges, both of technical and ethical character. In order to highlight these challenges and associated concerns, this paper identifies the underlying techno-economic factors and normative assumptions defining the development of these solutions amounting to technologically enabled propertization. It is argued that without careful consideration of a wider impact, such blockchain applications could have effects opposite to the intended ones, thus contributing to the erosion of privacy for IoT users.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Acar, G., Englehardt, S., & Narayanan, A. (2018). Four cents to deanonymize: companies reverse hashed email addresses. https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2018/04/09/four-cents-to-deanonymize-companies-reverse-hashed-email-addresses/. Accessed 10 June 2018. Apthorpe, N., Reisman, D., & Feamster, N. (2017). A smart home is no castle: privacy vulnerabilities of encrypted IoT traffic. CoRR, abs/1705.06805. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1705.06805. Accessed January 2018. Barocas, S., & Nissenbaum, H. (2014). Big data’s end run around anonymity and consent. In J. Lane, V. Stodden, S. Bender, & H. Nissenbaum (Eds.), Privacy, big data, and the public good: frameworks for engagement (pp. 44–75). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107590205. Benet, J. (2014). IPFS - content addressed, versioned, P2P file system. CoRR, abs/1407 (Vol. 3561). http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.3561. Accessed May 2018. Brito, J. (2018). What does the EU’s general data protection regulation mean for open blockchain networks? Retrieved April 20, 2018, from https://coincenter.org/link/what-does-the-eu-s-general-data-protection-regulation-mean-for-open-blockchain-networks Brody, P., & Pureswaran, V. (2014). Device democracy: saving the future of the internet of things. IBM, September. Bruynseels, K., & van den Hoven, J. (2015). How to do things with personal big biodata. In D. Mokrosinska & B. Rössler (Eds.), Social dimensions of privacy: interdisciplinary perspectives (p. 122). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buterin, V. (2014). A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform. Ethereum Whitepaper. https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/White-Paper. Accessed April 2018. Buyya, R., Yeo, C. S., & Venugopal, S. (2008). Market-oriented cloud computing: vision, hype, and reality for delivering IT services as computing utilities. IEEE, 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1109/HPCC.2008.172. Christin, D. (2016). Privacy in mobile participatory sensing: current trends and future challenges. Journal of Systems and Software, 116, 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.03.067. Christl, W., & Spiekermann, S. (2016). Networks of control: a report on corporate surveillance, digital tracking, big data & privacy. Wien: Facultas. Colavita, M., & Tanzer, G. (2018). A cryptanalysis of IOTA’s curl hash function. https://www.boazbarak.org/cs127/Projects/iota.pdf. Accessed June 2018. Cramer, R., Damgard, I. B., & Nielsen, J. B. (2015). Secure multiparty computation and secret sharing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107337756. Dierksmeier, C. (2018). Just HODL? On the moral claims of bitcoin and ripple users. Humanistic Management Journal, 3(1), 127–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463-018-0036-z. Dorri, A., Kanhere, S. S., & Jurdak, R. (2016). Blockchain in internet of things: challenges and solutions. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:1608.05187. Durante, M. (2017). The ontological interpretation of informational privacy. In M. Durante (Ed.), Ethics, law and the politics of information (Vol. 18, pp. 117–140). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1150-8_7. Enigma. (2017). Beyond catalyst: enigma’s vision for the future of data. . From https://blog.enigma.co/beyond-catalyst-enigmas-vision-for-the-future-of-data-22fbb5845556?gi=e67e2743f1cd. Accessed Sept 2017. Filippi, P. D., & Hassan, S. (2018). Blockchain technology as a regulatory technology: from code is law to law is code. CoRR, abs/1801.02507. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.02507. Accessed March 2018. Finck, M. (2017). Blockchains and data protection in the European Union. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3080322. Floridi, L. (2006). Four challenges for a theory of informational privacy. Ethics and Information Technology, 8(3), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-006-9121-3. Gasser, U., Gertner, N., Goldsmith, J. L., Landau, S., Nye, J. S., O’Brien, D., … Schneier, B. (2016). Don’t panic: making progress on the “Going Dark” debate. The Berkman Center for Internet & Society Study at Harvard University. https://cyber.harvard.edu/pubrelease/dont-panic/Dont_Panic_Making_Progress_on_Going_Dark_Debate.pdf. Accessed Feb 2018. Greveler, U., Justus, B., & Loehr, D. (2012). Multimedia content identification through smart meter power usage profiles. Computers, Privacy and Data Protection, 1, 10. Haynes, J., Ramirez, M., Hayajneh, T., & Bhuiyan, M. Z. A. (2017). A framework for preventing the exploitation of IoT smart toys for reconnaissance and exfiltration. In G. Wang, M. Atiquzzaman, Z. Yan, & K.-K. R. Choo (Eds.), Security, privacy, and anonymity in computation, communication, and storage (pp. 581–592). Springer International Publishing. High, D. R., Wilkinson, B. W., Mattingly, T., Cantrell, R., O’brien, V., John, J., … Jurich Jr J. (2018). US Patent No. US 20180167200. Retrieved from http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220180167200%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20180167200&RS=DN/20180167200. Accessed July 2018. Höller, J. (Ed.). (2014). From machine-to-machine to the internet of things: Introduction to a new age of intelligence. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press. Ishmaev, G. (2017) Blockchain Technology as an Institution of property. Metaphilosophy, 48(5), 666–686. Ishmaev, G. (2018). Rethinking trust in the internet of things. In R. Leenes, R. van Brakel, S. Gutwirth, & P. de Hert (Eds.), Data Protection and Privacy: The Internet of Bodies (pp. 203–230). Oxford ; Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing. Karlstrøm, H. (2014). Do libertarians dream of electric coins? The material embeddedness of bitcoin. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, 15(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/1600910X.2013.870083. Koutroumpis, P., Leiponen, A., & Thomas, L. D. (2017). The (unfulfilled) potential of data marketplaces. The research Institute of the Finnish Economy. https://www.etla.fi/wp-content/uploads/ETLA-Working-Papers-53.pdf. Accessed April 2018. Laudon, K. C. (1996). Markets and privacy. Communications of the ACM, 39(9), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1145/234215.234476. Lessig, L. (2002). Privacy as property. Social Research, 69(1), 247–269. Lessig, L. (2006). Code (Version 2.0). New York: Basic Books. Levine, B. (2018). Nebula genomics readies a marketplace to sell a precious dataset: You. Martech Today. https://martechtoday.com/nebula-genomics-readies-a-marketplace-to-sell-a-precious-dataset-you-216479. Accessed June 2018. Litman, J. (2000). Information privacy/information property. Stanford Law Review, 52(5), 1283. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229515. Manders-Huits, N., & van den Hoven, J. (2008). Moral identification in identity management systems. In S. Fischer-Hübner, P. Duquenoy, A. Zuccato, & L. Martucci (Eds.), The future of identity in the information society (pp. 77–91). US: Springer. Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. Retrieved from https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. Accessed May 2018. Neisse, R., Steri, G., & Nai-Fovino, I. (2017). A blockchain-based approach for data accountability and provenance tracking (pp. 1–10). New York City: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/3098954.3098958. Novo, O. (2018). Blockchain meets IoT: an architecture for scalable access management in IoT. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 5(2), 1184–1195. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2018.2812239. Pentland, A. (2009). Reality mining of mobile communications: toward a new deal on data. In The global information technology report 2008–2009 (p. 1981). Perera, C., Zaslavsky, A., Christen, P., & Georgakopoulos, D. (2014). Sensing as a service model for smart cities supported by Internet of Things. Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies, 25(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/ett.2704. Perera, C., Wakenshaw, S. Y. L., Baarslag, T., Haddadi, H., Bandara, A. K., Mortier, R., et al. (2017). Valorising the IoT Databox: creating value for everyone. Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies, 28(1), e3125. https://doi.org/10.1002/ett.3125. Poon, J., & Buterin, V. (2017). Plasma: scalable autonomous smart contracts. Working draft. https://plasma.io/plasma.pdf. Accessed Aug 2018. Postma, F. (2018). After Strava, Polar is revealing the homes of soldiers and spies. Retrieved July 15, 2018, from https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/articles/2018/07/08/strava-polar-revealing-homes-soldiers-spies/. Reijers, W., & Coeckelbergh, M. (2018). The Blockchain as a narrative technology: investigating the social ontology and normative configurations of cryptocurrencies. Philosophy & Technology, 31(1), 103–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-016-0239-x. Rössler, B. (2015). Should personal data be a tradable good? On the moral limits of markets in privacy. In B. Rössler & D. Mokrosinska (Eds.), Social dimensions of privacy: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 141–161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rogaway, P. (2015). The moral character of cryptographic work. IACR Cryptology EPrint Archive, 1162. https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/1162. Accessed Jan 2018. Samuelson, P. (2000). Privacy as intellectual property? Stanford Law Review, 52(5), 1125. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229511. Sandel, M. J. (2013). What money can’t buy: the moral limits of markets (1. paperback ed). New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Sehra, A., Smith, P., & Gomes, P. (2017). Economics of initial coin offerings. Allen & Overy. http://www.allenovery.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/ICO-Article-Nivaura-20170822-0951%20%20-%20Final%20Draft.pdf. Accessed Jan 2018. Shafagh, H., Burkhalter, L., Hithnawi, A., & Duquennoy, S. (2017). Towards Blockchain-based auditable storage and sharing of IoT data (pp. 45–50). New York City: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/3140649.3140656. Spiekermann, S., & Novotny, A. (2015). A vision for global privacy bridges: technical and legal measures for international data markets. Computer Law & Security Review, 31(2), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2015.01.009. Streamr. (2017). Unstoppable data for unstoppable apps: DATAcoin by Streamr. Version 1.0. https://s3.amazonaws.com/streamr-public/streamr-datacoin-whitepaper-2017-07-25-v1_0.pdf. Accessed Jan 2018. van den Hoven, J., & Vermaas, P. E. (2007). Nano-technology and privacy: on continuous surveillance outside the panopticon. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 32(3), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/03605310701397040. van Niekerk, M., & van der Veer, R. (2017). Databroker DAO. Global market for local data. v 1.2. https://databrokerdao.com/whitepaper/WHITEPAPER_DataBrokerDAO_en.pdf. Accessed Jan 2018. Wörner, D., & von Bomhard, T. (2014). When your sensor earns money: exchanging data for cash with bitcoin (pp. 295–298). New York City: ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2638728.2638786. Zomet, A., & Shlomo, R. U. (2016). US Patent No. US 20160260135A1. Retrieved from https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a4/2d/3b/f4c35feb228ded/US20160260135A1.pdf. Accessed July 2018. Zyskind, G. (2016). Efficient Secure Computation Enabled by Blockchain Technology (Master Thesis). Massachusets Institute of Technology. https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/105933/964695278-MIT.pdf. Accessed March 2018. Zyskind, G., Nathan, O., & Pentland, A. (2015a). Enigma: decentralized computation platform with guaranteed privacy. CoRR, abs/1506.03471. http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.03471. Accessed Jan 2018. Zyskind, G., Nathan, O., & Pentland, A. “Sandy.” (2015b). Decentralizing privacy: using blockchain to protect personal data (pp. 180–184). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPW.2015.27