Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Governance and Privacy Issues from the Internet of Value

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Enabling the Internet of Value

Part of the book series: Future of Business and Finance ((FBF))

  • 1198 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter considers the challenges and risks arising from the Internet of Value (IoV) on governance and privacy that are apparent with the transfer of trust and risk. It further considers the current governance and privacy issues with the development of new digital services such as blockchain that underpin the IoV, and how these issues need to be addressed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The DAO was a digital decentralised autonomous organisation, and a form of investor-directed venture capital fund. The DAO had an objective to provide a new decentralised business model for organising both commercial and non-profit (Shermin 2017).

  2. 2.

    The General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 is a regulation in EU law on data protection and privacy for all individual citizens of the European Union and the European Economic Area. It also addresses the transfer of personal data outside the EU and EEA areas (European Parliament and the Council 2016).

  3. 3.

    There are various forms of privacy, ranging from “the right to be left alone”, “control of information about ourselves” (Westin 1968), “the rights and obligations of individuals and organisations with respect to the collection, use, disclosure, and retention of personally identifiable information,” AICPA and CICA (2009) focus on the harms that arise from privacy violations (Solove 2006) and contextual integrity (Nissenbaum 2004).

  4. 4.

    Privacy differs from security, in that it relates to handling mechanisms for personal information, although security is one element of that. Security mechanisms, however, focus on the provision of protection mechanisms that include authentication, access controls, availability, confidentiality, integrity, retention, storage, backup, incident response and recovery. Privacy relates to personal information only, whereas security and confidentiality can relate to all information.

References

  • Adams, R., Kewell, B., & Parry, G. (2017). Blockchain for good? Digital ledger technology and sustainable development goals. Handbook of Sustainability and Social Science (pp. 127–140).

    Google Scholar 

  • AICPA and CICA (2009). Generally accepted privacy principles. Technical Report, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Akgiray, V. (2019). The potential for blockchain technology in corporate governance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonopoulos, A. M. (2017). Mastering bitcoin: Programming the open blockchain. O’Reilly Media, 2nd editio edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arun, J. S., Cuomo, J., & Gaur, N. (2019). Blockchain for business. London: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Athey, S., Catalini, C., & Tucker, C. E. (2017). The digital privacy paradox: Small money, small costs. Technical Report, Stanford Graduate School of Business: Small Talk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Athey, S., Parashkevov, I., Sarukkai, V., & Xia, J. (2016). Bitcoin pricing, adoption, and usage: Theory and evidence. Technical Report, Stanford Graduate School of Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atzori, M. (2015). Blockchain technology and Decentralized Governance: Is the State Still Necessary? (p. 2709713). Technical Report, SSRN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aula, P. (2010). Social media, reputation risk and ambient publicity management. Strategy and Leadership, 38(6), 43–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barak, B., Goldreich, O., Impagliazzo, R., Rudich, S., Sahai, A., Vadhan, S., & Yang, K. (2001). On the (Im)possibility of Obfuscating Programs. Technical Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennet, C., & Raab, C. (2006). The governance of privacy: Policy instruments in global perspectives.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, D. R., Thompson, M., Euken, J., Liquori, T., Fear, F., & Baldwin, S. (2008). Engagement for transformation: Value webs for local food system development. Agriculture and Human Values, 25(3), 379–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blok, V., & Lemmens, P. (2015). The emerging concept of responsible innovation. Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transformation of the concept of innovation. In Responsible innovation 2: Concepts, approaches, and applications (pp. 19–36). Berlin: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, R. V., Byrd, T. A., Pridmore, J. L., Thrasher, E., Pratt, R. M., & Mbarika, V. W. (2012). An empirical examination of antecedents and consequences of IT governance in US hospitals. Journal of Information Technology, 27(2), 156–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, S. D., & Oliver, R. W. (2000). Untangling the value web. Journal of Business Strategy, 21(1), 22–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catalini, C., & Gans, J. S. (2016). Some simple economics of the blockchain. Technical Report, National Bureau of Economic Research 22952, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Child, J., & Rodrigues, S. B. (2004). Repairing the breach of trust in corporate governance. Corporate Governance, 12(2), 143–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, H. (2016). Fintech and disruptive business models in financial products, intermediation and markets- policy implications for financial regulators.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, T. (2016). Global political economy: Theory and practice. New York: Editorial Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • CPTM (2016). Adaptive flexibility approaches to financial inclusion in a digital age. Technical Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • CSJ. (2016). The use of digital technologies to tackle financial exclusion. Technical Report, The Centre For Social Justice, Roundtable Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Filippi, P., McMullen, G., McConaghy, T., Choi, C., de la Rouviere, S., Benet, J., & Stern, D. J. (2016). How blockchains can support, complement, or supplement intellectual property. Technical Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPSRC (2017). Framework for responsible innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament and the Council (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European parliament and of the council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, F. R. (2012). Impact of information technology governance structures on strategic alignment. Ph.D. thesis, Capella University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, C. (2017). Distributed ledger technologies for public good: Leadership, collaboration and innovation. Technical Report, House of Lords.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, C. (2020). Distributed ledger technologies for public good: Leadership, collaboration and innovation proof of concept reducing friction in international trade. https://lordchrisholmes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/DLT-Update-2020-RFIT.pdf.

  • Huang, R., Zmud, R. W., & Price, R. L. (2010). Influencing the effectiveness of IT governance practices through steering committees and communication policies. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(3), 288–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IT Governance Institute (2003). Board briefing on IT governance 2nd ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • ItSMF (2020). Best practice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karimi, J., Bhattacherjee, A., Gupta, Y. P., & Somers, T. M. (2000). The effects of MIS steering committees on information technology management sophistication. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(2), 207–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ko, D., & Fink, D. (2010). Information technology governance: An evaluation of the theory-practice gap. Corporate Governance, 10(5), 662–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maull, R., Godsiff, P., Mulligan, C., Brown, A., & Kewell, B. (2017). Distributed ledger technology: Applications and implications. Strategic Change, 26(5), 481–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nienaber, A.-M., Hofeditz, M., & Searle, R. (2014). Do we bank on regulation or reputation? A meta-analysis and meta-regression of organizational trust in the financial services sector. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 32(5), 367–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 2–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, S. (2012). Privacy management in global organisations. In 13th International Conference on Communications and Multimedia Security (CMS) (pp. 217–237).

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, R. (2004). Crafting information technology. Governance, 21(4). https://doi.org/10.1201/1078/44705.21.4.20040901/84183.2.

  • Puschmann, T. (2017). Fintech. Business and information. Systems Engineering, 59(1), 69–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuters (2019). Bank of England sets out rules of engagement for Facebook’s Libra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, N. (2005). IT excellence starts with governance. Journal of Investment Compliance, 6(3), 45–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutter, K. (2017). The myth of easy interoperability. Technical Report, R3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shermin, V. (2017). Disrupting governance with blockchains and smart contracts. Strategic Change, 26(5), 499–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solove, D. J. (2006). A Taxonomy of Privacy Law. 154(3), 477–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stafford, G. (2003). The benefits of standard IT governance frameworks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568–1580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (2016). Precaution in the governance of technology. Technical Report, Research Gate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swire, P. P., & Bermann, S. (2007). Information privacy: Official reference for the certified information privacy professional (CIPP). New York: International Association of Privacy Professionals.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, E. L., & Stewart, G. (2013). The emerging role of the Board of Directors in enterprise business technology governance. International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, 10(4), 346–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Grembergen, W., De Haes, S., & Guldentops, E. (2004). Structures, processes and relational mechanisms for IT governance. In W. Van Grembergen (Ed.), Strategies for Information Technology Governance. IDEA Group Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rijmenam, M., Schweitzer, J., & Williams, M.-A. (2017). A distributed future: How blockchain affects strategic management, organisation design & governance. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2017(1), 14807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walch, A. (2015). The bitcoin blockchain as financial market infrastructure: A consideration of operational risk. Technical Report, Social Science Research Network (SSRN).

    Google Scholar 

  • Walport, M. (2016). Distributed Ledger Technology: beyond block chain. Technical Report, UK Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weill, P., & Ross, J. W. (2004). IT governance: How top managers manage IT decision rights for superior results.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weill, P., & Ross, J. W. (2005). A matrixed approach to designing IT governance. MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(2), 26–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westin, A. F. (1968). Privacy and freedom. Washington and Lee Law Review, 25(1), 166–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, S.P.-J., Straub, D. W., & Liang, T.-P. (2015). How information technology governance mechanisms and strategic alignment influence organizational performance: Insights from a matched survey of business and IT managers. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 497–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H. N., Chen, X., & Wang, H. (2018). Blockchain challenges and opportunities: A survey. International Journal of Web and Grid Services, 14(4), 352–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Surrey Business School, Guildford, UK

    Mike Brookbanks

Authors
  1. Mike Brookbanks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mike Brookbanks .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Blockchain Technologies, University College London, London, UK

    Nikhil Vadgama

  2. Centre for Blockchain Technologies, University College London, London, UK

    Jiahua Xu

  3. Centre for Blockchain Technologies, University College London, London, UK

    Paolo Tasca

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Brookbanks, M. (2022). Governance and Privacy Issues from the Internet of Value. In: Vadgama, N., Xu, J., Tasca, P. (eds) Enabling the Internet of Value. Future of Business and Finance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78184-2_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation