Cited by 34Blockchain Technology Applications and SecurityDigitalization, Law, and RegulationEthics and Social Impacts of AI

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

Open access
Ishmaev, Georgy·2020·Philosophy & Technology

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s13347-019-00361-y

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • These assumptions largely ignore the risk that such market mechanisms would rather fit into the structures of existing private data markets, replicating and even exaggerating moral risks associated with private data propertization.

    “What these assumptions, however, largely ignore is a risk that such market mechanisms would rather fit into the structures of existing private data markets, replicating and even exaggerating moral risks associated with the private data propertization (Ishmaev 2019).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ishmaev, G.
Affiliations
Delft University of Technology (NL)
Corresponding author
Ishmaev, Georgy
Venue
Philosophy & Technology
Published
2019-06-26
Volume
33
Issue
3
Pages
411-432
ISSN
  • 2210-5433 (ISSN-L)
  • 2210-5441
OpenAlex
W2954928151
Cited by
34
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5
FWCI
5.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophy & Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Delft University of Technology
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
blockchain, Internet of Things, private data, data ownership, data privacy, data markets, decentralized data exchange, moral boundaries, privacy erosion

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review