Is There a Right to Offline Alternatives in a Digital World?

  • Murat Karaboga
  • Tobias Matzner
  • Hannah Obersteller
  • Carsten Ochs
Part of the Law, Governance and Technology Series book series (LGTS, volume 36)

Abstract

More and more offline devices are weaved into the Internet of Things. Besides beneficial effects, the ubiquitous digitization also poses substantial risks for users’ privacy and self-determination. In this paper, we discuss whether a right to offline alternatives, hence to lead a non-digital life, might be a reasonable demand to counter such worries. In the search for answers, we investigate the – possible – societal utility and reasonability of such an ambition, as well as potential damages individuals or even the society might suffer, if such a right would be established. Furthermore, relevant aspects of the current legal framework are presented, followed by an analysis of former and ongoing Internet of Things regulation initiatives, asking whether the right to offline alternatives may have already been recognized and part of regulatory balancing processes.

Keywords

Offline alternatives Internet of things Policy Data protection 

Bibliography

  1. Article 29 Working Party. “Working document on data protection and privacy implications in eCall initiative.” Opinion 125. Adopted on September 26, 2006.Google Scholar
  2. Augsberg, Ino. „Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union (GRC).“ In Europäisches Unionsrecht: Vertrag über die Europäische Union - Vertrag über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union - Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union, Kommentar, vol. 7, edited by Hans von der Groeben, Jürgen Schwarze, and Armin Hatje. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2015.Google Scholar
  3. Benhamou, Bernard. “Organizing Internet Architecture.” (Esprit, May 2006), 14. Accessed March 5, 2016 http://www.netgouvernance.org/esprit-eng.pdf.
  4. Bergmann, Jan. Handlexikon der Europäischen Union. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2015.Google Scholar
  5. Castells, Manuel. “Information Technology, Globalization and Social Development.” UNRISD Discussion Paper No. 114, UN Research Center, September 1999: 8. Accessed March 8, 2016, http://www.unrisd.org/unrisd/website/document.nsf/ab82a6805797760f80256b4f005da1ab/f270e0c066f3de7780256b67005b728c/$file/dp114.pdf.
  6. Castells, Manuel. The Power of Identity, The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture, Volume 2. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, 303.Google Scholar
  7. Communication from the Commission to the Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) in Europe: steps towards a policy framework. Com(2007) 96 final (2007). Brussels, 15 March 2007.Google Scholar
  8. Communication from the Commission to the Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Internet of Things – An action plan for Europe. COM(2009) 278 final. Brussels, 18 June 2009.Google Scholar
  9. Communication from the Commission to the Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Digital Single Market Strategy for Europe, SWD(2015) 100 final. Brussels, 6 May 2015.Google Scholar
  10. “eCall – Do you have any concerns for your privacy? You shouldn’t….” Newsroom Editor, European Commission. Accessed March 7, 2016: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ecall-%E2%80%93-do-you-have-any-concerns-your-privacy-you-shouldnt.
  11. Eisenstein, Elisabeth. “The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformations in Early Modern Europe.” (2 Vols. ed.). Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  12. ETNO. “The industrial internet needs broadband investment and the right regulation.” Last modified 15 December 2015. Retrieved at: http://www.politico.eu/sponsored-content/the-industrial-internet-needs-broadband-investment-and-the-right-regulation/ (accessed March 13, 2016).
  13. European Commission Information Society and Media Directorate-General. Meeting Minutes of IoT Expert Group of 19 November 2010. Retrieved at: http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetailDoc&id=7556&no=3 (accessed March 25 2016).
  14. European Commission Press Release. eCall: automated emergency call for road accidents mandatory in cars from 2015. Brussels, 13 June 2013.Google Scholar
  15. European Council. Compact for Growth and Jobs. EUCO 76/12, Brussels, 29 June 2012., 7–15.Google Scholar
  16. European Parliament. Report on the Internet of Things. A7–0154/2010, Rapporteur: Maria Badia I Cutchet. 10 May 2010.Google Scholar
  17. Friess, Peter, and Rolf Riemenschneider. “New Horizons for the Internet of Things in Europe.” In Building the Hyperconnected Society: IoT Research and Innovation Value Chains, Ecosystems and Markets, edited by Ovidiu Vermesan, Peter Friess, 5–13. Aalborg: River Publishers, 2015.Google Scholar
  18. Ghiglieri, Marco. “I Know What You Watched Last Sunday A New Survey Of Privacy In HbbTV.” Workshop Web 2.0 Security & Privacy 2014 in conjunction with the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2014.Google Scholar
  19. Greenfield, Adam. Everyware: The dawning age of ubiquitous computing. Berkeley: New Riders Publishing, 2006.Google Scholar
  20. Kühling, Jürgen. „Der Fall der Vorratsdatenspeicherungsrichtlinie und der Aufstieg des EuGH zum Grundrechtsgericht.“ NVwZ (2014), 681–685.Google Scholar
  21. Latour, Bruno. “Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts.” in Shaping Technology/Building Society. Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by Wiebe E. Bijker, and John Law, 225–259. Cambridge/US: MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  22. Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
  23. Loovink, Geert. “Hermes on the Hudson: Notes on Media Theory after Snowden.” e-flux journal #54, (04/2014).Google Scholar
  24. Lüdemann, Volker, and Sengstacken, Christin. „Lebensretter eCall: Türöffner für neue Telematik-Dienstleistungen.“ RDV 2014, 177–183.Google Scholar
  25. Molina-Markham, Andrés, et al. “Private memoirs of a smart meter.” Proceedings of the 2nd ACM workshop on embedded sensing systems for energy-efficiency in building. ACM, 2010.Google Scholar
  26. Morozov, Evgeny. “The rise of data and the death of politics.” The Guardian, Issue 20.07.2014. Accessed March 22, 2016, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/20/rise-of-data-death-of-politics-evgeny-morozov-algorithmic-regulation.
  27. “New EC Expert Group on the Internet of Things.” EDRi. Last modified October 6, 2010. https://edri.org/edrigramnumber8-19expert-group-rfid-iot/ (accessed March 13, 2016).
  28. Nissenbaum, Helen. Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
  29. O’Reilly, Tim. “Open Data and Algorithmic Regulation.” In Beyond Transparency: Open Data and the Future of Civic Innovation, edited by Brett Goldstein, and Lauren Dyson, 289–301. San Francisco: Code for America Press, 2013.Google Scholar
  30. Oettinger, Günther. “Von 0:4 zu 4.0: Wenn Europa mit Amerika mithalten will, braucht es eine digitale Strategie.” Zeitschrift IP - Internationale Politik, July/August (2015): 20–25.Google Scholar
  31. Olson, Parmy. “The Quantified Other: Nest and Fitbit Chase a Lucrative Side Business.” Forbes, Issue 05.05.2014. Accessed March 22, 2016, http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2014/04/17/the-quantified-other-nest-and-fitbit-chase-a-lucrative-side-business/#41b161d45403.
  32. “Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on Promoting Trust in the Information Society by Fostering Data Protection and Privacy.” EDPS, 19.03.2010. Accessed March 5, 2016 https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/site/mySite/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2010/10-03-19_Trust_Information_Society_EN.pdf.
  33. “Opinion of the EDPS on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning type-approval requirements for the deployment of the eCall system and amending Directive 2007/46/EC.” EDPS. Accessed March 14, 2016 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201311/20131128ATT75138/20131128ATT75138EN.pdf.
  34. Poel, Martijn, et al. “Data for Policy: A Study of Big Data and Other Innovative Data-Driven Approaches for Evidence-Informed Policymaking.” Report about the State-of-the-Art. Amsterdam: technopolis, Oxford Internet Institute, Center for European Policy Studies, 2015.Google Scholar
  35. Regulation (EU) 2015/758 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 concerning type-approval requirements for the deployment of the eCall in-vehicle system based on the 112 service and amending Directive 2007/46/EC (“eCall regulation“).Google Scholar
  36. “RFID and Informed Consent – Using and Removing RFID Functionality.” EDRi, last modified December 5, 2007. https://edri.org/edrigramnumber5-23rfid-informed-consent/ (accessed March 13, 2016).
  37. Rhees, Garath. “The hidden dangers of cycling.” garethreeds.org, last modified January 10, 2012. Accessed February 29, 2016. http://garethrees.org/2012/01/10/shadwell/.
  38. Santucci, Gérald. “The Internet of Things: The Way Ahead.” In Internet of Things - Global Technological and Societal Trends from Smart Environments and Spaces to Green ICT, edited by Ovidiu Vermessan, Peter Friess, 53–98. Aalborg: River Publishers, 2011.Google Scholar
  39. Santucci, Gérald. “Towards Connectobjectome: The age when the totality of all objects become connected.” In The Internet of Things 2012: New Horizons, edited by Ian G Smith, 8–12. Halifax: Platinum Print, 2012.Google Scholar
  40. Santucci, Gérald. “Privacy in the Digital Economy: Requiem or Renaissance? An essay on the future of privacy.” The Privacy Surgeon. September 2013. http://www.privacysurgeon.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Privacy-in-the-Digital-Economy-final.pdf (accessed March 25 2016).
  41. Schivelbusch, Wolfgang. The railway journey: The industrialization of time and space in the nineteenth century. Oakland: University of California Press, 2014.Google Scholar
  42. Schüttpelz, Erhard. „Ein absoluter Begriff. Zur Genealogie und Karriere des Netzwerkbegriffs.“ In Vernetzte Steuerung: Soziale Prozesse im Zeitalter technischer Netzwerke, ed. Stefan Kaufmann, 25–46. Zürich: Chronos, 2007.Google Scholar
  43. Simmel, Georg. “The Metropolis and Mental Life.” In The Blackwell City Reader, edited by Gary Bridge, and Sophie Watson, 103–110. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2010.Google Scholar
  44. Sprenger, Florian, and Christoph Engemann. „Im Netz der Dinge: Zur Einleitung.“ In Internet der Dinge: Über smarte Objekte, intelligente Umgebungen und die technische Durchdringung der Welt, edited by Florian Sprenger, and Christoph Engemann, 7–58. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 2015.Google Scholar
  45. Stäheli, Urs. “Aus dem Rhythmus fallen. Zur öffentlichen Entnetzung.“ In Kursbuch 177: Privat 2.0, 66–77, 2013.Google Scholar
  46. Tonkiss, Fran. “The Ethics of Indifference: Community and Solitude in the City.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 6, No. 3 (2003): 297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zuboff, Shoshana. “Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization.” Journal of Information Technology 30(1) (2015): 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Murat Karaboga
    • 1
  • Tobias Matzner
    • 2
  • Hannah Obersteller
    • 3
  • Carsten Ochs
    • 4
  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation ResearchKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Internationales Zentrum für Ethik in den WissenschaftenUniversität TübingenTübingenGermany
  3. 3.Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz Schleswig-HolsteinKielGermany
  4. 4.Universität Kassel Fachbereich 05 Soziologische TheorieKasselGermany

Personalised recommendations