Suchergebnisse

This proposal is to exhibit the work named Crypto Heater which is part of a design fiction [c.f 1,5,8:30] series intended to explore a near future world in which cryptographic currencies such as Bitcoin [6] have become commonplace. This work opens up space for discussion about the activities of the distributed peer-to-peer network of so-called "miners" that ensure the security of the Bitcoin network and regulate the supply of new currency in the Bitcoin economy. The physical part of the work (the heater itself) is set within a fictional near-future reality. In this reality, Bitcoin has become central to our financial service industry, and "mining" in domestic settings is promoted by the government, as a means of heating our homes and to ensure security of the network. A "story world" is constructed using devices such as promotional materials from the UK Government's Ministry of Crypto Currency; technical specifications; customer testimonials; and the heater itself. The main element of the exhibit is a fully working Crypto Heater prototype. This device is (in the fictional world, and the real world) part of the distributed network of Bitcoin miners. Through computation, it converts electrical energy into cryptographic currency. Uniquely Crypto Heater dissipates the heat energy (a by-product of the computational effort required to be a Bitcoin miner) through a standard household radiator. By offsetting the value of the cryptographic currency produced, against the cost of electricity used, the heater provides subsidized domestic heating.

A spime describes a device that could generate data about itself throughout its entire life-cycle and this 'metahistory' would be saved and remain searchable and mineable. Given growing Internet of Things (IoT) device e-waste and material scarcity issues, the concept of spimes provides a useful approach to addressing the current lack of consideration of sustainability in the IoT. Using Design Fiction, we generated a series of near future artefacts that help concretise a world in which the UK Government sanctions the use of blockchain technologies to sustainably manage spime metahistories. The Government's so called 'Open Traceability Protocol' enables citizens to securely trade data-rich spime objects, use recycling apps to search for replacement spime components, and to access spime devices' provenance information. The paper outlines the design of the artefacts that ask whether increased data transparency would place greater accountably upon designers and producers in relation to the resources they deplete to manufacture connected products, while at the same time making such issues explicit to users of IoT devices. We also discuss how reflecting upon our design process enabled us to develop a theoretical lens – IoT Design Ethics and IoT Data Ownership – through which aspects of IoT unsustainability can be more thoroughly considered. Finally, we argue that viewing this lens alongside two previously developed spime research lenses allows the formation of an overarching multidimensional lens for spimes, which we contend researchers and practitioners can harness in order to begin reframing IoT design culture as a more sustainable paradigm for design practice.

The current (and future) adoption of the IoT has, for some time, stimulated debate about the broader implications for privacy, ethics, trust and security that the IoT. Given the IoT's penchant for generating and utilising various (oftentimes somewhat personal) data, the European Union's (EU) forthcoming General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) will have a significant impact on how the IoT is regulated. As with the term IoT the interpretation of GDPR is generating its own discourses particularly around how wording within the regulation is turned into implementation. The paper begins by critiquing the term Privacy by Design (PbD), and an alternate form which appears in article 25 of the GDPR Data protection by design and default. We note that these two phrases are in fact part of a broader group which inexhaustively includes: Security by Design, Privacy by Default, Security by Default, Data Protection by Design, Data Protection by Default. Our critique does not concern the sentiments or intentions represented by these phrases, or PbD per se, but highlights ambiguities and potentially misleading interpretations that their invocation promotes. After exploring these potential pitfalls, we go on to discuss design-led research that positions Informed by Design as a more fruitful approach to creating IoT devices and services which can more meaningfully respond to concerns about privacy, ethics, trust and security.