RasmusSaltoft

Title: Why Is the Digital Divide a Challenge in the Internet of Things?

academic_poster_critique_version

Advertisements

Rasmus Steen

Review of “Ethical Design in the Internet of Things”

Summary

The article is about the protection of users’ privacy regarding the growth of The Internet of Things (IoT). The authors’ argue that the designing of IoT in an ethical manner, calls for transparency in the collection and handling of data. In the article, the transparency and choices of the users are closely linked to the ethical aspect of designing the IoT. Therefore, to implement this ethical aspect, the authors suggest a policy-based framework called SecKit, which is capable of giving users more control of their.

Their argument for the implementation of ethical design in the IoT, is mainly based on the general public awareness of privacy risks including governmental bodies which are in the process of writing regulations to face the growth of the digital domain.

Alternative summary

The paper is about protection of privacy in The Internet of Things. Designing IoT in an ethical manner, calls for transparency in the collection and handling of data. To implement this in the IoT, the authors suggest a policy-based framework, capable of customizing privacy policies of the users.

 

General critique about style and structure

The intended audience of the article are arguably people who have technical insight. The style of the language supports this statement, as it is a formal one with several technical terms. However, the authors offer definitions and explanations on the most important terms, which infers that they have an interest in making the article accessible and appropriate for people who might have technical insight, but might not have heard of the IoT before. The structure of the article is tight, and the authors writes meta texts and refers back to sections, which support the feel of a connecting thread throughout the article.

Note to self: The publisher of the article, Springer, has an excellent reputation in the scientific field and is known for its high quality of editorial work and high quality of publications in general. The article has thus probably been peer reviewed several times, which I think is clear when one read it. Such a note should not be in a peer review in my opinion, but I have included it here, to remind myself to keep in mind the context of articles.