The Ethical Limits of Blockchain-Enabled Markets for Private IoT Data
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From Sovereignty, privacy, and ethics in blockchain-based identity management systems (2021) · cites this paper as Ishmaev 2019
Cites
Blockchain technology as a regulatory technology: from code is law to law is code
Filippi, P. D., & Hassan, S. (2016) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v21i12.7113 · Cited by 284 · see citing works
Four challenges for a theory of informational privacy
Floridi, L. (2006) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-006-9121-3 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sovereignty, privacy, and ethics in blockchain-based identity management systems
Ishmaev, G. (2021) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-020-09563-x · Cited by 53 · see citing works
“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).”
BackgroundSelf-citation
- Authors
- Ishmaev, G.
- Affiliations
- Delft University of Technology (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Ishmaev, Georgy
- ORCID
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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