10th Meeting of the Internet of Things Expert Group
Internet of Things Expert Group, 10th Meeting of the Internet of Things Expert Group, 2012
|Topics||Data Protection, Miscellaneous, Ethics, Security, Information Security, Technology, Interoperability|
In 2012, the European Commission publishes the output from the work of the group of experts on the Internet of Things: this is the IoT Expert Group Final Meeting Report. Let's summarize the main findings of its work.
- Specific legislation (i) or not (ii) (burdens, soon obsolete…)?
- Privacy by default (i) or harmful situation if users have to give explicit permission for object to function as intended or required (ii)?
- Loss of control: automatic decisions; invisible or unnoticed IoT systems.
- Locking-in: users prisoners of a service provider some service providers may emerge, lowering users’ freedom of choice --> monopoly situation (even if no formal monopoly).
- Standardization is important: technical standards cause an increase of interoperability, and interoperability may help the respect of data protection legislation.
Safety and Security:
- Prescriptive measures can improve security and safety (ii) or will only increase delays and costs?
- Generic approach (i) or different approaches based on the needs of the different industries involved (ii) (“one size doesn’t fit all”)?
- Problems of discrimination in access to IoT technologies? IoT may increase the digital divide.
- Control issues: seamless interactions will lead to a distributed control, and the notion of informed consent may become obsolete.
- Problems of separation between contexts and social spheres, because IoT blurs the boundaries between them.
- Who is responsible and liable when unforeseen events cause harmful effects?
- Ubiquity, invisibility, identification, ambiguous ontology and connectivity are the morally relevant characteristics of the IoT.
- Positive implication of the IoT are better decision-making, utility, wellbeing, health, safety and security.
- Open (i) or closed (ii) platforms?
- Globally unique permanent identifiers (to foster interoperability) (i) or short-lived and one-off identifiers (to foster privacy and security) (ii)?
- Administration of governance through existing Internet platforms (i) or thorough new platforms (ii)?
- New governance bodies (i) or already existing bodies (ii)?
- What is the relationship between Internet in general and IoT? Internet is a part of IoT (i); IoT is an application of Internet (ii); IoT is formed by different applications.
- It’s premature to forge new principles and guidelines.
- For the moment, the current Internet governance is sufficient to the IoT.
- Three key issues are particularly relevant to policy decisions privacy; competitiveness; security.
- They may be helpful in the IoT domain (e.g. to guarantee privacy).
- But they may also introduce delays.
- Moreover, they need to evolve when the circumstances considering which they have been introduced change.
- Technical M2M/IoT standards are still too fragmented: indeed, solutions are mainly developed through a vertical model; we need a common service layer that fosters reuse and interoperability between applications and devices.
- Too many proprietary solutions in the past, a situation that mustn’t be repeated: more interoperability!