IoT – A sustainable way forward – PL 02 2016

From EuroDIG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

9 June 2016 | 17:00-20:00
Programme overview 2016

Session teaser

The Growing Internet of (Your) Things: from sensors to security

Session description

The Internet of Things is rapidly developing, primarily driven by businesses that see opportunities for profit through new business and business models. But other key players also include public administrations and non-profit institutions that see the IoT as an opportunity to address societal challenges in efficient ways that were not available before.

Evolution from machine to machine technology to the growing IoT networks raises challenges at every level that can become barriers to adoption when not addressed. New masses of data are generated by our things and then shared between objects. Smart algorithms can combine this information but also changes the meaning of privacy and security. Ignoring security and standardization threatens the longevity of IoT products.

The IoT has become a real game changer. How do we adapt to this new reality? What is needed most in order to create an environment that fosters positive evolution of the IoT, allowing us as businesses and society to benefit fully? And what role is there for the different stakeholders?


Internet of Things; IoT; ethical; multistakeholder; dignity; fair use; ethical by design; privacy; GDPR


The stage will be set with a short overview of the results of the dialogue on IoT during the 10th IGF in Joao Pessoa, November 2015. Following this, representatives of key stakeholder groups ("multistakeholder panel") will highlight in short statements (<5 minutes) how they feel about where we are, today, and what needs to happen, next, in order to ensure a healthy progress of IoT development and deployment in the world.

Following this, two short keynotes will inform the discussion:

  1. Progressing IoT in a broad societal coalition: European Commission/AIOTI initiative;
  2. Putting privacy and data protection in perspective: European Data Privacy Officer for progressing IoT in a responsible way, in the context of the GDPR and privacy shield.

After this, there will be a moderated discussion in which all participants can take part. The moderators switches between the audience and the "multistakeholder panel" as appropriate. The session will be closed with a preliminary conclusion by the moderators

Further reading


  • Focal Point: ID 4 - Maarten Botterman, Chair of the Dynamic Coalition IoT
  • Key participants
  • Wojciech Wiewiórowski, Assistant EDPS
  • Mario Campolargo, Director for Net Futures, European Commission DG CONNECT
  • Maria Farrell, Senior Consultant, Interconnect Communications
  • Paul Rendek, Director of External Relations, RIPE NCC
  • Robert McDougall, Vodafone Head of Enterprise Public Policy; Chair of the AIOTI Policy Working Group (WG4)
  • Moderator: Maarten Botterman, Independent Strategic Advisor, GNKS Consult
  • Remote moderator: André Melancia, Microsoft Certified Trainer / Developer / DBA
  • Org team
    • ID 61, 64, 65 - Karen McCabe and Justin Caseo, IEEE
    • ID 80 - Stacie Walsh, InterConnect Communications
    • ID 98 – Chris Buckridge, RIPE NCC
    • ID - Lee Hibbard, Peter Kimpian and Sophie KWASNY, Council of Europe
  • Reporter: Avri Doria

Current discussion

See the discussion tab on the upper left side of this page.

Conference call. Schedules and minutes

  • dates for virtual meetings or coordination calls
  • short summary of calls or email exchange
  • be as open and transparent as possible in order to allow others to get involved and contact you
  • use the wiki not only as the place to publish results but also to summarize and publish the discussion process

Mailing list



What if maybe not 10 years from now but 15 years from now, our environments are fully IOT enabled? And they're not only observing us but also doing things for us, and learning how to take care of us. They're learning what is best for us. What would such an environment be like? Do we need a law of ethics for the learning IOT networks for the future?

  • IOT needs to be open and interoperable safe and reliable - easier for developers
  • Law is not enough to protect and is not the main factor. Regulation is important, but most important is an ethical approach from the design phase onwards and the development of technical tools to deal with complexity in protecting privacy.
  • Transformational capacity of IOT recognized by all. But it needs to be trusted.
  • As with all the wonderful things it carries a negative side. Life unobserved is going to disappear. The existing privacy rules are inadequate,
  • We have to consider that IOT is just part of the continuum of the Internet growing and not the disruption some see.
  • It was questioned whether IOT technology and policy are being done in an open, and transparent and inclusive manner?
  • Will IOT have a dehumanizing effect. If so, how can this be mitigated
  • How do we bring the multistakeholder model of participatory democracy to bear on IOT. Many partnerships still ignore civil society. How can civil society be brought into the discussion, brought into the balance?
  • Will people be able to define how they interact with new technology. Can they pick and choose? What choices with people have?
  • IOT is moving out of the experimental stage into production. This creates new responsibilities.
  • How do we avoid the dystopic aspects of a world with IOT?

Video record

See the video record in our youtube channel


Provided by: Caption First, Inc., P.O. Box 3066, Monument, CO 80132, Phone: +001-719-481-9835,

This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Thank you very much, Ross, for this view ahead that seems to be so close in some ways, and so far away in others. Please sit here. For the sake of time, we will continue immediately underpinning all this, and I will keep my comments to a minimum to allow the speakers to contribute.

Mr. Wojciech Wiewiorowski, the assistant EDPS, data are underlying all this, and how can this work in the world where we want to protect this privacy?

>> WOJCIECH WIEWOROWSKI: Well, ladies and gentlemen, I should start my speech really, that’s definitely quite an interesting thing to have a lawyer displace at the beginning of the discussion of the Internet of Things. I know it doesn’t make my situation better and it’s not making my situation better the fact that I’m the Officer of the European Union institution, but let me start from saying the people who right now are involved in the privacy in the field of Internet of Things are absolutely aware of one of the facts that we envisage in the strategy of the European data supervisor last year, the Data Protection goes digital at the moment. It does not mean that the data goes digital, because data went digital 30 years ago. It simply means that the law is not enough to protect the privacy, and it’s not the main factor to protect the privacy at the very time.

I absolutely agree with Commissioner Oettinger about the importance that the general Data Protection regulation has, and also the changes in the e Privacy directive, how important they are to the environment that we create in Europe, that we create in the global scale, but actually what is the most important at the moment is the development of the technical tools in order to protect the privacy. I would love to agree with Ross about his idea, his vision, of the future in 10 years, and I would love to agree with him about the need for the privacy protection and secondary protection for the next few years, because the Internet of Things is something that will be with us.

And moreover, we will love it. That is something that will drive our world better, and will drive our world easier. So we cannot say that we will stop the development of the things because we have some concerns. No, it will develop anyway.

I would love if it develops with the idea that you had in the last slides that you presented, which seems to be the condition of sine qua non for the real trust to this kind of world, because Big Data and Internet of Things, Big Data means big responsibility. The bigger the data is, the bigger is the responsibility.

The more ubiquitous is the computing that you do, the more responsibility, and then accountability, is on the side of these persons, these entities, that are processing the data.

The processing which as I said is good, which we should be using, that we should however ask the questions about. We should ask the questions which are not different than the questions that were asked by our parents and grandparents. Because these are the questions about the very heart of our human being, very heart of our human dignity.

The questions: Who am I? Who knows what I am doing? Who knows about my life? What do I know about the lives of the others? And how can I protect my family? How can I protect my friends? How can I protect myself?

The development is something that definitely will happen. Let me take the motto from my hometown. I come from Gdansk in Poland and in the Coat of Arms of my hometown, there is a motto which says

[ Speaking language other than English ]

That’s a very good sentence for the Internet of Things.

“Without fear, but not too brave,” not too brave, but without fear. This is the way that we should address the things connected with the Internet of Things, because the privacy is one of the fundamental rights of the European Union. It’s something that we definitely are keen to keep in the environment that we live in.

Because we want to have the human dignity in the center of our interest. But how to do it at the times when all these devices you said about will be around but the things like we can expect in the mobile health world, like the artificial pancreas, like the things we will put on our bodies, like the lens that are checking the level of sugar in the blood at the same time, like electronic nappies, my favorite one. I’m a father of 2 years old daughter and I’m really interested in electronic nappies. The nappies that will say me there is something in the nappies.

What it is this thing that is in the nappies? What are the features of this thing? What does it says about the health of my daughter? And the question that I would like to ask is: Is it dangerous for my daughter that this data is collected? I would like to have this question and the immediate answer is: Probably not. Probably it will not change her life that somebody at some stage is collecting this data.

But it’s not necessarily the same true with the lens that are checking the level of the sugar in the blood. Wonderful thing. I do not have the problem with the level of sugar in the blood but I know from the people who have this problem that they have to check 3, 4 times a day what is the level. And now they have the linear information that they can check on the mobile device, on the computer, on the tablet or whatever else, and which gives them the real knowledge about what’s going on with their body.

Well, that’s perfect if this information is accessible for them. It’s quite okay when it’s accessible for the doctor. It’s interesting that this is Google who proposed this device. Although I absolutely understand and absolutely believe that Google is not interested in the personal data, but is interested in the kind of data that can be used later on for some scientific research, not necessarily the ones connected to the very person.

But of course if this data is transmitted to the insurance companies, if it’s transmitted to the employer, then the question starts to arise. Although I have to say that I’m an employer, as well. We have employees in our office. So as an employer, I’m really interested in the data from the Internet of Things about my employees.

Of course, I will use it only for good purposes. Only to make their life in the office more comfortable, to help them to work well for the sake of society. Yeah, that’s true. That’s where I will use this data for.

So the role of the Data Protection authority is not to stop. It’s not to block. It’s not to slow down. But is definitely to ask the questions. And don’t be surprised that this question will be asked by the Data Protection authorities next years, whatever kind of development we will see. We will be asking the questions, because there are at least two points in which we will have a big problem with Internet of Things, and the principles of Data Protection that are right now in the new Data Protection regulation and which were in the past in the dialogue for Data Protection. There’s two principles we’ll have the problem with are definitely the minimization of the data and I know the people from the industry who says that minimization is the biggest crime against humanity that we do at the moment because we will need this data in the future. I don’t agree with them but that’s a question definitely to discuss about.

And the second one is the purpose limitation because the very core of the idea of reuse of the data which is collected in the Internet of Things is the reuse of that for different purposes than the purposes that were in the beginning. And that’s the question that we have to discuss about.

So let me say at the end of this short initial presentation that we are open for the discussion. We will be asking the questions, but definitely the role of the privacy advocates, no matter if you think about the public ones like the data authorities, or the Civil Society, is simply to check: Are we driven by technology? Or are we using technology for the best of our society? Thank you.

[ Applause ]

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Thank you very much, Wojciech. It’s so true what you say. It’s all about looking at these opportunities, not with fear, but with concern. And continue to pay attention to what’s there. Now the other thing is, of course, that we’re doing this in a world which is global. We do this from our own perspectives, many of us think of this from our perspectives of where we live.

The world is bigger than that, and maybe it’s good if the whole world can benefit from these developments as well. That’s why it’s here at EuroDIG, as well. That’s why this is a subject for IGF, where we do talk about what this means for the world at large, where we do talk about aspects like how do we ensure that people can rely on this new world developing?

So with the Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things, we’re working on a good practice paper, and that is to reflect where people come together and how we can find a way forward in ethical IoT and I would like to draw your attention for that later, as well.

But first I would like to ask on the stage, our esteemed panelists who will together form a multistakeholder panel truly representing the values, the core values, of EuroDIG. This is about bringing different stakeholders together, listen to each other, talk with each other and find a way forward together.

So may I invite on stage Mario Campolargo from the Director for Net Futures including IoT. Paul Rendek, Chris Buckridge. If you see the programme his name isn’t changed. Paul is the colleague he works with directly and Paul couldn’t make it. Maria Farrell, who I know for a long time from other circles but who is a journalist, a blogger on these issues.

And last but not least, Robert McDougall from Vodafone, who is also Chairing the policy group from the European initiative, alliance on IOT. With me, mar co agreed to help me with moderation which I appreciate. Marco is from RIPE. André Melancia. If you’re online, if you’re there remote, please make sure that the questions come to us. Just use the #EuroDIG16 or via the stream and we will involve you.

So Mario, I’d like to ask you first, hearing Ross’s perspective on platforms, what’s your perspective on the importance of taking data into account? Europe is working as a platform, too. What issue of you, how are we progressing in the Internet of Things?

>> MARIO CAMPOLARGO: Thank you. First let me thank Ross for presentations, because they really gave a plethora of information, and they put in my view a number of very correct perspectives into the fantastic world of Internet of Things, a little bit opportunities and always like to put first opportunities that this will give to us. And it’s also very interesting for me to be here just at the moment in the context of the digital single market and in particular in the context of the digitization of Europe industry package that we published in April this year, where the IoT aspects are presented as really underlying all this affords to create growth in Europe, to digitize industry, to actually digitize our society and our economy.

So I’m very glad that the introductions already point very much on the same direction. Two or three things just to say. I fully agree with the openness that we need, and being here in EuroDIG, obviously this is important to all the efforts that have been made to maintain the Internet open, the Internet of Things being a new generation, a new wave of Internet innovation, should follow the important principle that kept Internet open.

We in Europe sort of created three pillars that we believe that are important to ensure that Europe, you know, rides on this important wave, and takes the most out Internet of Things, and they can be summarized first in ensuring we have a single market for Internet of Things in Europe, that we create a thriving IoT ecosystem, and last but not least, that we have a human dimension, a human centered, perspective on IoT. And I don’t think that any of these ideas are opposite to what’s been said before.

One or two things, Europe being, struggling to create a digital single market obviously makes a lot of sense that we also emphasize the Internet of Things and the big questions of single market. They are not, what we need is to ensure that IoT device can connect to each other seamlessly and no matter where they are in Europe and obviously the questions that have been already highlighted about Data Protection, questions of liability, and also questions, very much emerging issues like the aspects of ownership, stewardship of the data. How do we use, how do we reuse the data? How can we compile non personal data that has particular interest for industrial economic perspective? Those are very important issues that need to be matured and we’re working on that like the Commissioner mentioned in the context of the free flow of data that is also part of the objectives of the digital single market that we’ll come to announce by the end of the year.

And also we need standardization to ensure that we have interoperability across EU but not just across EU, worldwide like Ross said in his intervention. The second pillar is particularly important for me, open platforms, engagement, open data, engagement of our youth, of our youngsters, of the most well trained youth that we have ever had in Europe to make sense, make sense of the data, of the census, in a way that none of us, not even Google, have thought at the beginning because this is the basic principle of innovation ecosystems is really amazing.

And not just to create or to digitize, to create value, in the current vertical sectors where Europe is important but also to create cutting across value, value that comes precisely from looking into various sectors, because in fact, the data or the information that we collect in one traditional Sector may be as useful in another one, as in the originally thought one.

And in this respect, but I will leave later on Robert to speak, it’s very important to have industry behind us, and I’m very glad that the alliance for IoT innovation that was created one year ago by an announcement of Commissioner Oettinger received such warm support from our industry. And the last pillar is just this human dimension, the human centered dimension. Can we improve the trust on the system? Can we work on certification or trust labels, work to be done?

Work that cannot just be theoretically. That’s why I’m glad in Europe at this moment in time, we are here, we are selecting a series of very large scale pallets, be it in agriculture or in connected cars. Be it with wearables or smart cities and those will be the places where we go from one side to the other, where we involve the providers of technology, of communication, and also the ones that know the requirements in the various sectors to try to test the new business models, the questions of trust, in practice, and try to develop those concepts from a theory to a practice, involving more people, involving the industry, and making reality some of the dreams that have been put forward here today.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Thank you very much, Mario. Very clear. I think it will be good Robert if you say how European industry has embraced this initiative of the Commission, but also looking probably to a more global level of contact in what has been done.


>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Please go ahead.

>> ROBERT McDOUGALL: I’m Robert McDougall. I lead on IoT within the public policy group team. Vodafone is passionate about IoT. You’ve heard already about some of the transformative capabilities of IoT, and that’s a view we certainly share, and we are supporting the rollout of IoT across the EU on an ongoing basis.

But what I want to talk about actually is something we also feel passionately about is that IoT applications are trusted and that we engender trust and confidence from consumers in the use of IoT. That is one reason why Vodafone is one of the founding members of the alliance for Internet of Things innovation, the IoT, which was an Association that was facilitated by the European Commission last year. It now has approximately 500 members across various sectors of the economy so really at the heart of the IoT is that in order to address any barriers that might impact on the takeup of IoT across Europe, industry needs to work together across various sectors of the economy and make cross cutting policy recommendations and Vodafone Chairs the policy Working Group of the IoT.

I want to take a couple of minutes to highlight a couple of pieces of work we did another the end of last year. We published policy recommendations document that focuses on four topics: Privacy, security, liability and also net neutrality. The folks of this panel is really about creating sustainable IoT environment so I wanted to highlight some of our points and some of our recommendations on privacy.

And in considering some of the potential concerns in this area, we looked at the Article 29 Working Party Opinion, which highlighted an IoT environment there are potential concerns around a lack of user control, perhaps there may not be an interface through which a consumer can give meaningful consent, and also potential concerns around repurposing of data. We also set our recommendations very much in the context of the general Data Protection regulation which applies to the IoT in the same way it applies to any other Sector of the economy. We made ten recommendations in privacy, to give you a taste of the couple. We highlighted the importance of privacy engineering. We recommended the scope for the European commission to consider sponsorship of an accredited engineering programme in the EU. We think it’s vital engineers designing IoT applications do so with privacy in mind. We also recommended the use of pseudonymization and anonymization of data by default in applications which can of course this an important point be with best practice. We highlighted a number of best practices about different privacy risk methodologies and how those have been applied. I’ll highlight those points to give you a sense of what we’ve done to consider some of the concerns but also what industry has done to make recommendations to address some of those concerns and those recommendations that apply across different sectors of the economy whether it’s smart city or wearables environment, whether it’s in an agricultural environment. Finally, to highlight this work is very much ongoing next. In fact, there’s a workshop at ETSI in France, which is a basically a joint exercise between the Policy Working Group of the IoT and the standardization Working Group of the IoT, standardization plays a very important part of the IoT’s activities, and we’re looking at how we embed some of these best practice principles within a reference architecture and we have the best practice standardization methodology.

Separately we’re also taking forward our thinking on some of the issues the Commission has highlighted in its recent digitization of industry package, whether it’s considerations around potential for a trusted IoT label, data ownership and free movement of data, so final point is that this work is still very much on going. As I say we have 500 members at the moment and if you’re interested in getting involved details are available on the Commission’s website.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Thank you very much. You see, IoT is a game changer in many ways. It’s already a game changer in a way how Google for instance rethinks how to move towards the future, how to interact, how important it is to make sure to find that balance and to reap the benefits.

If you Google for IoT, use the term in a different way, what you will find is that in this collaboration, companies that 10 years ago never would have worked together find each other to find a common way forward where this works, in the support of the societal benefits that the Commission has been benefiting as well next to the benefits that the market of course offers in the forms of profit that seems to be also a driver. So having said that, Maria, how do people feel about this? Is it because people are becoming aware slowly? And should they do more? Or are they getting up to speed?

>> Maria Farrell: So last night, I was enjoying a lovely drink courtesy of Google on that beautiful balcony looking out over part of the city of Brussels, and as is my want I wasn’t thinking: This is gorgeous. I was thinking: This is one of the last moments we’re going to have in the next five to ten years beyond that where we’ll be able to do this unobserved. Where I will just be having a drink and that’s all I’ll be doing. My clothes won’t be telling the washing machine that I’ve just spilled wine on my dress. I was drinking beer. It was not a problem.

You know, I won’t be wondering about the CCTV running the facial recognition, under a general from the Data Protection regime because of National Security.

I won’t be in the years to come, I’ll be looking back at this sort of golden moment and thinking, those are the times we were unobserved. Those are the times our thoughts were our own, our conversations were our own so when I think of IoT I do think of all these wonderful things but I also think about the lack, or the loss, the coming loss of our privacy. And I also think the Data Protection regime is inadequate in terms of how it deals with that, because when I’m in a public space I’m not expecting to be private. I’m not expecting nobody to see me. But I’m not expecting to create sort of a data exhaust like a fumes of data behind me that basically is saying who I was, that can be interpreted after the fact.

So I think there’s that side to it. But I think also, when I think about the Internet of Things, I think about it in relation to Big Data, I think about it in relation to sensor networks, and a lot of the things that are happening in a way that doing exactly the opposite of what we’ve been hearing about.

So let’s give you an example. Automation. So many of our middle class jobs are going to be hollowed out by automation. It is a fact. A lot of the sales pitch about the Internet of Things is this will save costs. When we talk about saving costs what we mean is about hiring fewer people to do the same work so if I think about the Internet of health, I’m thinking, and I’m the National health system of the U.K., I live in the U.K., the sales pitch is: It will be cheaper for you to keep an eye on elderly people or people who need social care. Why? Because we’re going to fire the care workers, who already earn less than minimum wage.

And so when I think about it, I think about it as part of a sort of set of phenomena that are happening at the moment that are hollowing out our economies, that are squeezing our tax bases until they’re barely the size of a walnut, that are making us less able to do all the things that the Internet of Things thinks we’re going to do. Because when I look about the consumer aspect of it, really the consumer sales pitch about this is: It’s saying you will have better data about people in aggregate and you will have richer profiles of people as individuals. And so, but the pitch is, the end of the sentence is: You will be able to sell them more stuff.

Now, how are we going to do that if none of us have jobs?

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Yes, thank you very much. Clear in what you’re expressing.

[ Applause ]

You’re not the only one having these feelings, and knowing how to deal with it. And our challenge is to find the way forward in that, because elder people in care homes, for instance, getting less care and that’s a bad situation too, and how do we deal with that? Technology won’t be the answer, but maybe a part of the solution.

And that is that balance where we need to look at, and it’s indeed how we’re going to use all this technology that is coming up to us. That’s why we need to debate this. That’s why we need to have this dialogue and understanding of what is developing and how we’re actually going to do it.

It’s just like this mobile phone: It rings. Does it mean you need to answer it? Only if you believe that’s true. And the same goes partly for Internet of Things as well but I appreciate very much that perspective. We are all very aware. We try to develop a world in the end as we all, well, many of us do have children, where we would like our children to live in, too.

And then these faults are crucial, so thank you very much.

Chris, you’re not only part of RIPE NCC, but also part of in a way the global ISTAR, as it’s referred to, those companies that are working on the global level and make the Internet work. I think that is the core. It’s a very global approach what I’ve experienced in the environment where you come from, as well.

So how do you look upon those things from a global view? How does it feel to relate to European initiatives, individual companies’ initiatives? How do you move forward in this? How do you create these worlds you want to be living in too from that perspective?

>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: Right, thank you, thank you Maarten.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: I wanted to make it easier.

>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: I feel a responsibility to shift back to optimism here after Maria’s bleak vision, but I think, yeah, the discussions in that sort of that techno community I think have been I think a little more skeptical about this idea of Internet of Things than maybe in some other areas, maybe in some of the more marketing areas or even some of those considering the ethical implications.

And I think that’s this question of: Is the Internet of Things actually a thing? Or is this just the Internet as it continues to grow? And I think from a sort of technical operator or developer perspective, it’s not it’s a continuum rather than a disruption necessarily.

But that’s not to say that it doesn’t bring new issues into focus, new challenges that have to be faced and I think one of the key aspects there is that this sort of represents the network of networks, which was sort of network of IP, Internet Protocol, connected networks, bringing in sort of a whole host of new protocols, new forms, new devices that really sort of change things up, change the way the Internet perhaps connects to our lives, connects to how we use it.

I think at that point, there is sort of questions about: How do we define the Internet itself? Do we consider it just Internet Protocol connected devices? Or are we looking at this broader ecosystem and saying, that is the Internet? That’s what we consider the Internet.

And then in doing that, we have to think a bit about, how do we see that Internet? What are the principles that have brought us this far? And that sort of open, inclusive policy making approach that has been saved, the IETF, the Internet registries, other organisations in that ISTAR field. Is that something that’s also being represented in the Internet of Things, where we’re seeing a really rapid evolution of new vendors, new venues, new places where standardization is done, that’s not necessarily being done in that same open, transparent way.

If we see that is pretty fundamental to making the Internet what we want it to be, how do we sort of look at bringing those principles of openness and transparency into this Internet of Things as it evolves so rapidly?

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Yes, thank you. Very clear. If you look to how standards evolve nowadays, and knowing where the Internet and IETF and that has worked from, IoT has developed a map of standard bodies and it’s amazing if you look at that. It’s like, am I on it? It’s like 50, 60, 70 organisations again reflecting also that all these converging sectors are coming together. And new ways have to be found and people are very hard looking for that.

In that complexity, it is difficult to be transparent, as well, I guess.

>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: It is. I think very quickly IoT and those sorts of initiatives are a really useful step in trying to foster that kind of cooperation between competitors, which has been really fundamental to getting the Internet where it is today.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Okay. Marco, I’d love to take it into the room. Do you think there’s any questions there?

[ Off microphone ]

There’s a green microphone at Marco’s mouth.

>> MARCO: I’m in the room and deliberately in the room because this is supposed to be a dialogue. Not that in are many of you left, but if you have any questions, by all means, I see them firsthand. No worries, the microphone will come to you.

>> Thank you. I’ll stand up. That’s easier for the panel. That’s what I was going to do. My name is Thea Wells. I worked in the industry, came out of the private sector for 25 years, and now have been with Council of Europe. Internet of Things, very interesting. Lots of stuff I would look forward to. I love the nappies, but it will be for the grandchildren. I do have the age for it.

What I have seen in terms of Human Rights, and I do enjoy the point that Maria raised, the right to work is one of the Human Rights so I’m glad that you raised that point. How do we sell to people who don’t have a job? The other point is when I’ve seen the discussions about Internet Governance today, what you were talking about is how do we treat people as consumers properly without violating a right?

What I don’t see in the discussion is how can we, industry, work together to actually promote also the rights of participation? I mean, all of this is about consumer product. How do you see industry, how do you see your role so that we can use this same Internet also to make people more complete human beings in the Internet, in other words, promote e Democracy, e Participation, e Voting, how do you see the applications evolve there?

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Maybe there’s answers even in the room behind you, Marco, I think Peter raised his hand, too.

>> Peter: Thank you. Well, I just

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Can you introduce yourself?

>> Yes, I’m Peter Campion. I’m representing the TPD, which is the body for Convention 108 at the Council of Europe, which is the Data Protection Convention for Council of Europe. So I just wanted to share with you some of the questions to make reference with the Wojciech presentation. We have started to think about, these are our preliminary questions about IoT, which of course would need an answer, and then in a cooperative manner.

I’m thrilled by the technical and technological evolution and revolution but those questions are already on the table, so panelists also mentioned the one of our main points, also the, which is the control of data.

One of the Data Protection principles, one of the most important is, that the data subjects have to have control about this, her data, through the whole life cycle of the data. So this is definitely one of the questions which has to be answered.

There are also some issues about asymmetric information, which was part of, and of course with transparency and awareness, which was raised also.

There is collection process of large quantity of data, which can have concerns or which may raise concerns about the consent and all these legal aspects of the informed consent.

There are questions about security, data security, also and the fragmentation of the players, market players, and, of course, the final one I would end with here about questions raised about profiling, analysis of behavioral patterns.

So that will be only as I said preliminary questions which of course we are also preparing but we would be really happy to have a collaborative answer for that. And I would be glad to have some of your the panelists’ views on these.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: I’m inclined to now have little focus on the human dignity, the privacy aspects, and then get back to the panel.

And after that, go to other issues.

>> MARCO PANCINI: I’ve got one smart question here.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Is this on privacy and human dignity?

>> MARCO PANCINI: It was on ethics. I would say let’s hear this. The word, when you talk about data life cycle the one thing that springs to mind is data waste. I’m going to quickly give this gentleman the floor. Warning for the other shot I’m going to come to you for the questions, or the answers.

>> Yes, good evening, everyone. My name is Petrik. I work for the IEEE Status Association. IEEE really favors privacy and security by design. I think that’s one thing which everyone should take into account when implementing their services.

Also, IEEE has quite a number of tools and facilities to help out schools in educating and creating awareness of the risks of security and privacy threats to kids, as well.

My question was related to the ethics part, in the good practice paper. Let me just take a good look over here.

We all make use of tools in our lives, which make our lives a lot easier. Like for instance a telephone, but phone can also be abused for heavy breathers or don’t think about the things we could do with a kitchen knife.

But my question is: Should we take into account ethics in our design? Or is this something which should be just prosecuted in case it is applied or used, misused, by a user or a company?

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: That’s an interesting question. The questions that came up here, they resonate with you, right? Who of you would like to respond to that first? Please.

>> WOJCIECH WIEWIOROWSKI: If I can start with a few words. There were definitely things that come typically with Data Protection issues. A lot of questions about Internet of Things have been already asked by the working party in Article 29 of the document which has been prepared in 2014. There is an opinion of the working party of Article 29. That’s the body which gets us all the Data Protection authorities from European Union countries. It’s called: On recent developments on the Internet of Things from 16th of September 2014.

Though I agree with all the questions that were asked there, you can find out easily that these are very basic questions directed to different players on the market. Directed to those who are creating the operational systems for IoT, those who are creating the devices, who are creating the software, and then for the social networks that are reusing the data from the IoT. And these were the questions of 2014 and at the moment we can ask another ones, and we will be finding the other ones on the road.

The problem is we are not asking the questions only to the device creator or the software creator that we precisely know because most of the examples that were shown so far, these were examples of one brand, one device that is used. While the biggest problem actually with the Internet of Things is that the whole privacy issue starts to be very contextual. It depends on the context of different environments that your device starts to be in, that your sensors start to be in.

If you go into this room, the answer to the privacy questions will be different than in the corridor, because you start to interact with the sensors, and with the devices, which are owned and which are possessed by the other people in the room.

So these are the questions which will be the most difficult. Is ethics possible to be used as a part of the answer? I would love to and the European Data Protection supervisor has just created the ethics Advisory Group that wants to address these issues and wants to ask ourselves the issues about the development of the technologies including IoT from the ethical perspective, not by the lawyers, not by the engineers, but by those who are dealing with ethics as an issue.

But at the same time, being an academic, I’m a little bit afraid that we will go to the answer which I would not want to see. I mean, we, in the society, and when we don’t know what to say, we would say: That’s a question of ethics. That’s how often that happens at the academic foras, that you discuss the thing and in the end when you don’t know what should be the answer, you say: Let’s make more education. Let’s do take it from the ethical perspective.

Yeah, I agree that those are nice buzzwords but the question and that was rightly asked by you talking about the ethics and the technical solutions: What does it mean in the technical field? What does the ethics mean in technical field? What steps you should take? Because only thinking about ethics is definitely not enough.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Yes, thank you very much. Mario.

>> MARIO CAMPOLARGO: Just a reflection, because what I think we have as discussion is the broader picture, and I think ethics belong to the discussion in the sense that what is right, what can wrong, how do we perceive? It’s interesting because you start your answer saying maybe the questions are the same we raised years and years ago and I was listening to Maria saying this is probably the last time she can be calling it having a cup of coffee. But my grandparents maybe have never been calling me because they live in a village of 10 people so everybody knew everybody so we have also to put in perspective what is it that is for the mental nature in our life. And obviously the question, the right to work, the erosion of jobs, the replacement of jobs by other jobs.

But this raises, in my view, also, very fundamental questions to the society, is: Is the notion of the value of the job the same that we had a few years ago? What is the ambition of humans in this society?

So there are very important questions that are raised here.

Now, just a bit more concrete. We have launched some years ago a reflection under the label of Online Manifesto trying to understand precisely what the hyperconnected society was not specific to the Internet of Things, but basically the hyperconnected society, IoT is now extending the boundaries to include millions of things, so whatever, in our day to day life. And those are very fundamental questions of philosophical questions, of understanding, of the meaning of living together, of political nature. It’s very important I think that some questions about where this remain aspects of either democracy, or how can IoT help or not in making more real some of the beliefs that we have in Europe and elsewhere in our Western Democratic world. So those are very concrete things, one is part of the others.

I think that what IoT brings but what Internet brings is that there is such an acceleration in the last few years that we don’t have time to digest even in academics I’m sure that have the faculty to digest these compressed time scales and we don’t have the ability to adapt ourselves.

But we have also to understand that this compression will continue. IoT with us being able to understand it fully or not we’ll find it some way because people find good things on that one. They will find also bad things and there will be always a balance between that but the society, also the perception what is good and bad is different for me and will be different from your daughters or from my grandchildren.

So it is really, we are now discussing at the core of the very basic societal principles and understanding of it.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Clear. I don’t hear you say it’s not important, not at all. It’s just that it’s something that needs to be addressed. If you talk about ethics maybe we need to define it.

But I’d like to see what’s happening on the because time flies. Grace to the organisation. We can go on to corridor 7 which is the time the buses leave.

But I would like to know what’s happening online. André?

>> ANDRÉ MELANCIA: I’ve been looking at the feed for the streaming thing. No one’s commenting on that but they are all commenting on Twitter, so I don’t have any specific questions but I have the feel of the people. Some are happy with the session, but there are also some people who are expressing their fears in terms of but not only IoT but in terms of privacy.

Some consider that IoT might become a form of slavery in terms of the privacy of people. Some fear that IoT may transform people into vendible goods, which already happens in kind of a way. There is a general skepticism on this, and a person commented, Marco Pancini commented, it feels strange not to be called a person or gentleman, but a data subject.

And maybe we could comment a bit more on this fear of skepticism and skepticism about IoT.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Thank you very much. I think Wolfgang you’ve been working for a long time on this, in the global platform. You know what the difficulties have been growing over the years. Where are we and where are we going with that?

>> My name is Wolfgang Kleinwächter. I’m a Professor from the University of Aarhus and involved in the Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things and the framework of the Internet Governance Forum. And in the Internet Governance Forum, and also Mr. Oettinger today placed the multistakeholder approach, so that means we will achieve sustainable results only if all stakeholders are involved.

So the Internet of Things has not yet really institutional home for policy development, if policies are needed for this. So what I have seen now is in the alliance you are Chairing, the Working Group on Policy, so this is just industry. It’s just one stakeholder.

So if I look into the Study Group 20 of the ITU, dealing with Internet of Things, this is not multistakeholder. That means Ross just spoke about partnerships as the basis for all this, so that means how the stakeholders which were defined in the Tunis Agenda are involved in these partnerships.

What I see is mainly partnerships between private industry and Governments, that’s it so that means where are and this brings us back to the problems raised by Maria. If you do not include Civil Society organisations in policy development, then you will have a problem. So that means you have to find, I would not say rough consensus. I could say a golden balance or something like that, to take these concerns into account by moving forward.

And thirdly, while the technical issues are technical issues but we know from the debate the last 20 years that technical issues have policy and social implications, and you cannot ignore this. So that means it’s difficult, it’s complex so that nobody has an answer.

That’s an exciting moment in history is that you have to invent something not only new technologies but also new ways of framing it and policy making. Thank you.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: We have one more question from the room and then I’ll ask you to think of a Tweet you would send out on what you’ve found here, what is the message you take away, and, okay, two Tweets is possible, too.

>> Can I make a suggestion for the second Tweet? What I’d like to know for the panel and then how far do you think are the existing institutions and the existing platforms suited to have this IoT discussion? And how much do we need to establish new ones?

>> I’m a consultant but also working for the NLIGF, the Dutch National IGF on the Internet of Things so I did a work job at the IGF last year and hope to do one this year. On the basis of that I’ve got three questions. The first one is for Ms. Farrell. We did exactly that workshop last year and the main concern that came out of the group in the room, there were over 100 people present, was that politicians, do not really understand what is changing in this society.

So our follow up workshop hopefully for this year is: How do we engage politicians? Do you have any ideas on that?

Another one is the Internet of Things. I think it’s a euphemism. It’s about data. So why not give it the right name: Internet of data, because that’s what all these things are doing, just collecting data. So from the industry, and also from a privacy point of view, what do you think about the new term? Because it’s a euphemism.

The third one is I heard Mr. LaJeunesse from Google saying, this is a secure environment in your presentation. Looking forward to 2026 I suppose because at this point in time, we know the Internet of Things is not safe. Whether it’s Barbie dolls or play stations or TVs that listen into conversations that are being hacked it’s just not safe. So how are we going to raise that barrier that it’s something we can trust?

And the fourth one is: Do I get an option out when I don’t want to touch my clothes or whatever, or my refrigerator to tell me when to buy something? Do I get a knob saying, I don’t want this?

So is that an option? So that’s four questions. Thank you for that.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Opting out of the IoT environment, beautiful. I’ll give you a little bit more than one Tweet, seeing the character of two questions that came.

But maybe keep the Tweet for your last remark, please. Maybe just go down the row. Then you know that it’s coming your way.

>> ROSS LaJEUNESSE: I certainly feel and hope, to address your last question, I always say the great thing about technology is that we get to define and determine how we use it. I’m not on Twitter for example. The reason why is I spend enough time looking at screens in my life as it is now. I don’t want to feed the beast. That’s how I think about it. You’re on Twitter, and I’ve been criticized for that but for me, it’s a conscious decision.

I spend too much time I feel interacting with devices already. I want to spend more time interacting with people. I read the newspaper in paper form. The reason I do that is because I like the serendipity of turning the page and exposing myself to something that if I’m online it’s harder to do.

So I see a world in which in my presentation, I was asked to just sort of raise possibilities, and sort of be provocative and raise some questions. I do not see a world in which we are all going to be forced to do this. And I think consumers will continue to have a choice. Users will continue to have a choice. And hopefully they’ll use it, and use those options.

Options like turning the device off, or using it when you want to. Like, I do that with my phone all the time. When I’m talking to my nieces and I’m hanging out and taking them to the zoo, I turn my phone off and I think sometimes honestly, in the world the way it is, we sometimes lose sight of how much control we currently have over how we use technology. And so I think that’s important to keep in mind.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Thank you, Ross. Please.

>> WOJCIECH WIEWOROWSKI: Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, the data subjects, I was joking just about that, about the fact we are trying to change these people that we meet in the Internet into the data that we are going to process, which definitely is not something that I would expect. And my first Tweet would be that the data is not the commodity. This is not something that we found in the coal mine. This is an information about the people and information about the processes and while it’s information about the people we should remember that these people have a dignity that we have to fight for.

And the second thing, that’s a little bit longer than a Tweet, would be that if we do the things that we do hundreds of years ago, trying to find the gold over the seas, and we would like to find the gold on the ocean of Internet of Things, that we may finish with saving with selling the slaves, and that’s once again this part of the history of discoveries that I would like to skip.

I would like to skip the part of the slavery and go directly to the world we have at the moment, the world where we remember that this is about the people and this is about making the world better.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Thank you very much. Mario?

>> MARIO CAMPOLARGO: What can I add to those hopeful words that you just pronounced? And I think that I think that maybe one day we’ll have a big amusement Park without any technology because by then this will be the different thing compared to our daily life.

But a little bit more serious I think that there’s one or two remarks here that I want to echo very much. We all have a responsibility but I will take it as well on my side to address progressively the aspects of IoT not just involving industry, politicians, requirements there, but really trying to look at the multistakeholder dimension, how can we embed it more explicit in our policies.

I think that this is a lesson that we’ll learn from the Internet development. I think that is something that we should take into consideration. A colleague at Internet of data, maybe in the positive side maybe we should call it Internet of Humans.

>> CHRIS BUCKRIDGE: I would like to make a couple of quick points. The first one to the matter of ethics and technical development. That just was something a few people raised and in terms of the technical community and the work that that community does, I think it’s interesting to go to a quote that actually Vint Cerf says a few years ago talking about IPv6 deploying actually, which I’m obligated to mention, that we talked about IPv4 being essentially the experimental network and that V6 deploying V6 meant a production network. That was where we were going to a production network. That dichotomy works with Internet of Things as well. The fact that these devices are so embedded in our lives means it’s a production at work. We can’t think of it as an experiment anymore and that does place some ethical obligations or changed obligations on the people who develop this technology, on the people who operate it so that’s something that needs to be considered.

I think the other issue and it does come back to ethics as well is the sort of open, transparentness of that development, the development of standards and protocols, that’s really a key to informed usership. When Ross talks about turning off devices I think that’s one aspect of us being able to be in control of this Internet of Things, not be controlled by those devices and using open standards or at least publicly inclusively developed standards I think is key to that. So in terms of the Tweet, sorry I’ll stop now. The Tweet would be we need to proactively and strategically involve our governance structures and we need to do it fast.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Excellent. Thank you very much. Maria?

>> MARIA FARRELL: I grew up in a small Irish town and went to a convent boarding school. There’s nothing you can teach me about lack of privacy.

[ Laughter ]

But more seriously, more seriously, actually for a dystopic vision, I have a cheerful demeanor, I think we can agree on that. To get to some of the questions, what’s meaningful consent? What do we do, how do we deal with information asymmetries? How do we do e Democracy, e Citizenship, the gentleman gave us the expression this morning the Internet of citizens which I really liked, I think we do that by being honest with ourselves, this is not a technocratic question we can resolve by talking about data and by talking about business process and by talking about supply chain and procurement and all of those things.

I think this is a question and a set of questions that we resolve by being really honest with ourselves, what we’re fundamentally talking about here is power. We are talking about who has power in a relationship when it comes to information about their lives, who has power in an employment relationship. Who has power in a citizen Government relationship.

To the question about how we engage politicians about this, obviously proactively trying to give them information et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I will tell you that I live in the U.K. I’m Irish but I live in the U.K., and I do find when I think about how we create our future narratives, the narratives of our future that are not dystopic and that are not about everything getting worse, about every aspects of our lives, the stuff of our very lives themselves being monetized I think it’s hard to describe those to politicians because I find the political class in the U.K. is pretty sanguine when it comes to narrowing the space of political dissent. It’s sanguine when it comes to ambient surveillance and when it comes to structural changes in our economy that are narrowing people’s opportunities and their prospects for full and rich lives.

So I think we’re really pushing a pill when we do that but we have to. It’s a moral obligation. We can’t not do it so I think we have to have a conversation that is very much, let’s be honest with ourselves. We’re talking about money here and we’re talking about power and to have that conversation, we have to have people in the conversation who do not have a lot of money and who do not have a lot of power. So I think that needs to be our starting point.

Okay, my Tweet would be, inspired by the comment about sort of data is something different to a commodity. It’s not found in the coal mine. Actually, I think there’s a really interesting parallel here of the extracting industries.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Keep it to 140 characters.

>> Maria Farrell: Big Data. Let me see, 140 characters.

It’s not the extractive industries, it’s the data extractive industries and we didn’t get to making those behave themselves by asking them to be looking at harms based common sense approaches. Sorry to be unkind. We actually did it by having preemptive regulation that looked at harms before they happened and tried to prevent them happening. I think that’s where we should kick off.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Thank you. Robert?

>> ROBERT McDOUGALL: Yes, thank you. So just a few comments from me. Civil Society I welcome input from Civil Society certainly in the context of the policy Working Group of IoT. We’ve had input from academics on points like liability of IoT applications so I’d love to continue the discussion with you after this panel finishes.

Internet of data, well, not all Internet of Things applications collect data. That’s why we have privacy law and regulation to control the behavior of actors that are active in this area. And where data is to be collected, there are processes and rules that need to be complied with, so certainly in our case we have an IoT platform. We provide connectivity to a variety of businesses, the businesses, it’s their data and it’s ultimately, there’s a clear legal and regulatory framework that will apply so I think the rule of enforcement is very important here. We have enforcers, we have regulators whose job it is to enforce that Regal and regulatory framework. In the U.S. the Federal Trade Commission have shown they’re well able to do that under the FTC act which is over 100 years old. We shouldn’t lose sight of that.

The final point on this societal idea, you know, I think society will decide. Some of the work we were doing on liability within the IoT, the risks associated with something goes wrong in an IoT environment, there’s not many players in the chain. Who’s going to be responsible? It’s very easy to really characterize very negative view of the world, and actually it’s part of the research in this area within the policy Working Group that suggested that the insurance industry has a very important role to play, and the concept of risk pooling was discussed and I did a bit of research because I didn’t know anything about risk pooling and I found out that the nuclear industry is a well known, it’s well known user of risk pooling and I thought if we’re already thinking about the nuclear industry as the parallel for IoT, well then, this is not a very good place to start. I think ultimately society will decide.

So my Tweet is: IoT has great potential. Society will decide.

>> MAARTEN BOTTERMAN: Thank you very much. Appreciate it very much. This brings me to the conclusion, and basically what I do find is again also confirmation that what we really need is meaningful transparency, effective accountability, and real choice.

And what that actually means, we cannot determine by one ourselves. We need to involve citizens that need to be aware. We need to have businesses that wants to commit ethically as Ross already started off. Governments that are actively backing all this.

So just a final thought, I would like to leave you with, is: What if maybe not 10 years from now but 15 years from now, our environments are fully IoT enabled? And they’re not only observing us but also doing things for us, and the learning how to take care of us. They’re learning what is best for us.

So how would such an environment be? Do we need a law of ethics for the learning IoT networks for the future? But thank you very much for your attention. Thank you very much for your excellent introductions.

And reality is, it’s happening. We’re building it and we’re building it together. Thank you very much for your time. And please do leave the building within the next

Sorry, Emily, please.

>> EMILY TAYLOR: Well, what a handover from such a fascinating discussion. I’ve got two really, really important things to say to you. They are important.

We have to leave now. The buses are here. They’re going to take us to a party where there will be free food and free drink, and lots of dancing.

We have to be out of here by 7:00 or we’re going to spend the night here, or something awful will happen.

Tomorrow morning at 8:00 a.m., there’s going to be a hot topic session on the right to be forgotten. That’s not in the programme so that’s an additional session for early birds, 8:00 a.m., be there or be square.

Session twitter hashtag

Hashtag: #eurodig16 #iot-sustainable