Acknowledgment This paper was supported by an award made by Engineering Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), award reference EP/L50533X/1 and British Telecom (BT) research ICase sponsorship. Acknowledgement and thanks is offered to colleagues at The University of Aberdeen and reviewers for their constructive feedback. ; Peer reviewed ; Postprint
This research was supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement No 636427. ; Peer reviewed ; Postprint
Acknowledgements: The research reflected in this paper has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 770115. ; Peer reviewed ; Postprint
Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as connected sensors are increasingly being used in the public sector, often deployed and collecting data in public spaces. A theme commonly seen in the rhetoric surrounding public space IoT initiatives is empowerment, and these deployments are broadly perceived as beneficial by policy makers. However, such technology presents new governance challenges. It is important to ask who is empowered and who benefits, and we must ensure that such technological interventions follow democratic principles and are trusted by citizens. In this paper we investigate how risk, transparency and data governance require careful consideration in this domain, describing work which investigates how these combine to form components of trusted IoT ecosystems. This includes an overview of the landscape of public space IoT deployments, consideration of how they may often be subsumed in idealized smart city focused rhetoric, and discussion of how methodologies such as design fiction in community settings can uncover potential risks and concerns. Our findings suggest that agency, value and intent associated with IoT systems are key components that must be made transparent, particularly when multiple actors and stakeholders are involved. We suggest that good governance requires consideration of these systems in their entirety, throughout the full planning, implementation and evaluation process, and in consultation with multiple stakeholders who are impacted, including the public. To achieve this effectively, we argue for transparency at the device and system level, which may require legislative change.
AbstractInternet of Things (IoT) devices such as connected sensors are increasingly being used in the public sector, often deployed and collecting data in public spaces. A theme commonly seen in the rhetoric surrounding public space IoT initiatives is empowerment, and these deployments are broadly perceived as beneficial by policy makers. However, such technology presents new governance challenges. It is important to ask who is empowered and who benefits, and we must ensure that such technological interventions follow democratic principles and are trusted by citizens. In this paper, we investigate how risk, transparency, and data governance require careful consideration in this domain, describing work which investigates how these combine to form components of trusted IoT ecosystems. This includes an overview of the landscape of public space IoT deployments, consideration of how they may often be subsumed in idealized smart city focused rhetoric, and discussion of how methodologies such as design fiction in community settings can uncover potential risks and concerns. Our findings suggest that agency, value and intent associated with IoT systems are key components that must be made transparent, particularly when multiple actors and stakeholders are involved. We suggest that good governance requires consideration of these systems in their entirety, throughout the full planning, implementation, and evaluation process, and in consultation with multiple stakeholders who are impacted, including the public. To achieve this effectively, we argue for transparency at the device and system level, which may require legislative change.
As Internet of Things (IoT) technologies become embedded in public infrastructure, it is important that we consider how they may introduce new challenges in areas such as privacy and governance. Public technology implementations can be more democratically developed by facilitating citizen participation during the design process, but this can be challenging. This work demonstrates a novel method for participatory research considering the privacy implications of IoT deployments in public spaces, through the use of worldbuilding design fictions. Using three fictional contexts and their associated tangible design fiction objects, we report on findings to inform transparency and governance in public space IoT deployments.
As Internet of Things (IoT) technologies become embedded in public infrastructure, it is important that we consider how they may introduce new challenges in areas such as privacy and governance. Public technology implementations can be more democratically developed by facilitating citizen participation during the design process, but this can be challenging. This work demonstrates a novel method for participatory research considering the privacy implications of IoT deployments in public spaces, through the use of world building design fictions. Using three fictional contexts and their associated tangible design fiction objects, we report on findings to inform transparency and governance in public space IoT deployments.
AbstractA number of governmental and nongovernmental organizations have made significant efforts to encourage the development of artificial intelligence in line with a series of aspirational concepts such as transparency, interpretability, explainability, and accountability. The difficulty at present, however, is that these concepts exist at a fairly abstract level, whereas in order for them to have the tangible effects desired they need to become more concrete and specific. This article undertakes precisely this process of concretisation, mapping how the different concepts interrelate and what in particular they each require in order to move from being high-level aspirations to detailed and enforceable requirements. We argue that the key concept in this process is accountability, since unless an entity can be held accountable for compliance with the other concepts, and indeed more generally, those concepts cannot do the work required of them. There is a variety of taxonomies of accountability in the literature. However, at the core of each account appears to be a sense of "answerability"; a need to explain or to give an account. It is this ability to call an entity to account which provides the impetus for each of the other concepts and helps us to understand what they must each require.
