Skip to content
Thomas Amberg edited this page Feb 26, 2019 · 99 revisions

Better IoT Principles Wiki

A semi-structured collection of background material. Licensed CC BY-SA, betteriot.org

Versions

Main document

Branches

Workshop material

Know Cards & Poster

Workshops & talks

ThingsCon Salon Cologne talk

FutureEverything FutureSessions 2018 Manchester talk

PAIR UX Symposium 2018 Zürich talk

TheThingsConference 2018 Amsterdam workshop

Ada_conf 2017 Malmö talk

ThingsConAMS 2017 Amsterdam workshop

Similar initiatives

http://www.consumersinternational.org/media/154809/iot-principles_v2.pdf

Securing consumer trust in the IoT, Principles and Recommendations 2017 - Connectivity and inclusion; Information and transparency; Ownership and use; Security and safety; Liability; Data protection and privacy online; Complaints handling and redress; Competition and choice; Lifecycle

https://harper.wirelessink.com/2006/02/15/everyware-the-dawning-age-of-ubiquitous-computing/

Everyware Principles - Do no harm; Default to harmlessnes; Be self-disclosing; Be conservative of face; Be conservative of time; Be deniable

https://www.thewavingcat.com/iot-trustmark/

A Trustmark for IoT - Good data practices; Good security practices; Openness; Lifecycle management; Establishing that the producing organization is trustworthy

https://www.crowdsupply.com/about

Proclamation of user rights - Curiosity; Independence; Association; Longevity; Transfer; Discourse; Privacy; Security

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1u-4g1XjtdYNaLhil1fSPzsw1v6OuTiTM3Mu0jaFEl1Q

IoT Mark Landscape of 30+ similar initiatives

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SN6hYeKe3eRK6x9D0Sr7GpCA4nirpyo3u68xG1A6NDs

Doteveryone Ethical Tech Initiatives Directory

Governance

https://people.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/ietf/golden-rule/

IETF Golden Rules - Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send; Do not munge forwarded data; Modify as late as possible; Leave nothing undefined; Cause no harm; Keep it simple, stupid; No voting, rough consensus; Plain ASCII text is enough

https://medium.com/doteveryone/the-tech-industry-needs-a-moral-compass-3ce1665a287f

And while software might love a standard, real life is messier and more extraordinary than any product backlog gives it credit for. We can’t solve this simply through process, by automating tests for “Ethical Acceptance” or creating simple “if this then that” rules; there isn’t a simple check and balance to make before a product or feature goes out the door— as an industry, we need to be continually monitoring, and thinking deeply and strategically, about the consequences of the decisions we make. We need to take responsibility.

https://www.slideshare.net/peterbihr/towards-a-trustmark-for-iot-30-may-2018 (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Change is made through better day-to-day decisions

We believe that good ethics are good for business

We’re proposing a trustmark for IoT that increases transparency and empowers consumers to make better decisions.

The approach of "self-assessed but verifiable" opens up trustmark-carrying products to public scrutiny in a similar way that open source software can be peer reviewed. Compliance with the trustmark is proven by providing publicly available documentation to answer (in a structured way) the questions that determine a product's compliance.

Definitions

http://www.tamberg.org/iotmark/2018/ConnectedProductReferenceModel.pdf

A simple reference model for connected products - Connected product; Device; Gateway; Backend; Client

http://mappingtheiot.polimi.it/

Mapping the IoT Toolkit

Privacy

IoT Mark Privacy ⇢

http://www.oreilly.com/iot/free/files/privacy-and-the-iot.pdf

the term privacy means very different things to people […] Solitude; Intimacy; Anonymity; Reserve

The right to informational self-determination is not only granted for the sake of the individual, but also in the interest of the public, to guarantee a free and democratic communication order

potentially harmful activities: Information collection; Information processing; Information dissemination; Distortion; Invasion

https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/958325186310307840, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/30/opinion/strava-privacy.html

The Strava debacle shows that individualized "informed consent" is not sufficient for data privacy. Given the complexity, companies cannot fully inform us, and thus we cannot fully consent. Data privacy is more a public good.

http://jenpersson.com/the-internet-of-things/

Privacy is a human right. There can be no ethical model of discrimination based on any non-consensual invasion of privacy. Privacy is not something I should pay to have. You should not design products that reduce my rights. GDPR requires privacy-by-design and data protection by default. Now is that chance for IoT manufacturers to lead that shift towards higher standards.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/

Guide to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)

https://coopdigitalblog.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/co-op_digital_gdpr_rights_posters_a3_print.pdf

GDPR rights poster - The right to view your data; The right to be informed; The right to be forgotten; The right to move your data; The right to say no; The right to limit how your data is used; The right to make changes to your data; Th right to human-made decision making

https://www.eugdpr.org/, http://www.eugdpr.org/key-changes.html

Data Subject Rights: Breach Notification; Right to Access; Right to be Forgotten; Data Portability; Privacy by Design; Data Protection Officers

https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-data-protection-privacy-standards-gdpr-general-protection-data-regulation/

Europe’s new data protection rules export privacy standards worldwide

https://www.slideshare.net/sasvangent/gdpr-for-things-thingscon-amsterdam-2017

GDPR for Things - ThingsCon Amsterdam 2017

https://vimeo.com/255720097

Fiona Mc Andrew - Designing for privacy & ethics

https://twitter.com/ameellio/status/964448613584850945, https://hbr.org/2018/02/research-a-strong-privacy-policy-can-save-your-company-millions

chart of Fortune 100 privacy policies

http://www.azarask.in/blog/post/privacy-icons/, https://wiki.mozilla.org/Privacy_Icons

Aza Raskin's Privacy Icons

https://twitter.com/CraftyDeano/status/956235634154332168

Apple iOS privacy icon

http://oro.open.ac.uk/47431/1/proceedings.pdf

Privacy-by-Design Framework for Assessing Internet of Things Applications and Platforms

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/smedataprotect/index_en.htm

Find out what GDPR means for your SME.

https://blog.chrisadams.me.uk/2018/02/21/omgdpr/

OMGDPR a GPDR-themed event in Berlin

https://iotbusinessnews.com/2018/02/26/79400-gdpr-iot-problem-consent/

GDPR And IoT – The Problem Of Consent

https://privacyscore.org/, https://privacyscore.org/site/17907/, https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.05139

PrivacyScore can only report on technical security and privacy measures that can be analyzed automatically. In particular, we do not analyze privacy policies, whether informed consent was obtained, etc. This may change in the future.

https://www.eff.org/privacybadger

blocks spying ads and invisible trackers.

https://www.acm.org/articles/bulletins/2018/march/usacm-statement-on-data-privacy, https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/public-policy/2018_usacm_statement_preservingpersonalprivacy.pdf

10 principles and practices for building data privacy into modern technological systems. […] Fairness; Transparency; Collection Limitation and Minimisation; Individual Control; Data Integrity and Quality; Data Security; Data Retention and Disposal; Privacy Enhancement; Management and Accountability; Risk Management

https://cltc.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/CLTC_Privacy_of_the_IoT-1.pdf

Despite the benefits that consumers will derive from IoT devices, there are also risks. One such risk is a change to how we see privacy. For the purposes of this report, privacy is defined as: the ability for people to selectively share, to determine how information about them is collected, used, and passed along; the ability to retreat from the gaze of and interactions with others; the right to be let alone, to create solitude and reserve from others; the ability to control the degree to which one is identifiable when undertaking online or offline activities; and the ability to control the data impression one gives off.

https://www.iotprivacyforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Clearly-Opaque-Privacy-Risks-of-the-Internet-of-Things.pdf

We find value in Alan Westin’s classic definition of privacy as “the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others.”

And, though it may be worn possibly to the point of being threadbare, Warren and Brandeis’ conception of privacy as a ‘right to be let alone’ is still useful to bear in mind, especially as they envisioned this right to encompass thoughts, emotions and sentiments, which is particularly germane to the IoT. We also find useful Westin’s view that privacy protects four ‘states’: solitude, intimacy, anonymity, and reserve. That said, these views are predicated in part on harms resulting from invasion. We argue at different points in this report that the IoT threatens to decompose the notion of privacy invasion because of increasingly omnipresent sensors and because many IoT devices will be invited into our lives.

Interoperability

IoT Mark Interoperability ⇢

https://blogs.fda.gov/fdavoice/index.php/2017/09/interoperability-fdas-final-guidance-on-smart-safe-medical-device-interactions/

It’s not likely that medical device interoperability is a part of the everyday vocabulary of American consumers—and frankly, we hope it stays that way. At CDRH, we want patients and consumers to have confidence that medical devices work as intended without concern over how these devices operate together. But, in working with manufacturers to bring innovative medical devices to patients who need them, interoperability is an indispensable concept.

https://github.com/alexa/avs-device-sdk

An [Apache 2.0 licensed] SDK for commercial device makers to integrate Alexa directly into connected products.

Openness

IoT Mark Openness ⇢

http://opendefinition.org/od/2.1/en/

The Open Definition makes precise the meaning of “open” with respect to knowledge, promoting a robust commons in which anyone may participate, and interoperability is maximized.

Summary: Knowledge is open if anyone is free to access, use, modify, and share it — subject, at most, to measures that preserve provenance and openness.

https://opensource.org/osd

The Open Source Definition - Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria: Free Redistribution; Source Code; Derived Works; Integrity of The Author's Source Code; No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups; No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor; Distribution of License; License Must Not Be Specific to a Product; License Must Not Restrict Other Software; License Must Be Technology-Neutral

http://choosealicense.org/

I want it simple and permissive: MIT License […] I'm concerned about patents: Apache License 2.0 […] I care about sharing improvements: GNU GPLv3 […] More licenses are available.

https://www.oshwa.org/definition/

Open source hardware is hardware whose design is made publicly available so that anyone can study, modify, distribute, make, and sell the design or hardware based on that design.

http://certificate.oshwa.org/

The Open Source Hardware Association Certification was created in response to overwhelming demand for a clearer and more transparent method of identifying and marketing open source hardware products.

https://medium.com/@iotwatch/what-does-it-take-to-make-better-connected-products-1275565268ff

Encouraging open sourceness but not imposing it. This will polarise many in the open source hardware community but the strength of the mark will be in being able to be adopted in a commercial environment where people do have to make money, either through their IP over the hardware or the software. We have to be able to inspire people to do things in a better way, but not force them to.

https://bosch-si.com/iot-platform/iot-platform/open/iot.html, https://eclipse.org/org/press-release/20151003-bosch.php

Ecosystems are the key to succeeding in the IoT. Our IoT platform leverages open source and standards.

https://iot.eclipse.org/white-paper-industry-40

Open Source Software for Industry 4.0

https://blog.safecast.org/faq/licenses/, https://github.com/safecast

Safecast data is published under a CC0 designation […] hardware developed by Safecast is open source […] software is licensed under the MIT license unless otherwise specified

https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you

applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position

Data Governance

IoT Mark Data Governance ⇢

https://theodi.org/about-the-odi/the-data-spectrum/

The Data Spectrum helps you understand the language of data: Closed; Shared; Open (CC BY, theodi.org)

Ownership

IoT Mark Ownership ⇢

https://mailchi.mp/iotpodcast/stacey-on-iot-iot-will-break-our-legal-system?e=50b07adfc6

Tech law is taking over your your home and garage

https://www.midata.coop/

Midata.coop enables citizens to securely store, manage and control access to their personal data by helping them to establish and own national/regional not-for-profit MIDATA cooperatives.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-midata-vision-of-consumer-empowerment

Government-backed initiative to empower individuals [with] control over the use of their own data.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recht_am_eigenen_Bild

Das Recht am eigenen Bild […] besagt, dass jeder Mensch grundsätzlich selbst darüber bestimmen darf, ob und in welchem Zusammenhang Bilder von ihm veröffentlicht werden.

Transparency

IoT Mark Transparency ⇢

Security

IoT Mark Security ⇢

https://www.particle.io/resources/securing-internet-of-things-products/

Security Checklist for the Internet of Things - Device Protocol Security (end-to-end); Hardware and Device Security; Cloud Security; Physical Security; Company Policies

https://iotsecurityfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/IoTSF-Establishing-Principles-for-IoT-Security-Download.pdf

IoT Security Foundation - Establishing Principles for Internet of Things Security: Does the data need to be private? Does the data need to be trusted? Is the safe and/or timely arrival of data important? Is it necessary to restrict access to or control of the device? Is it necessary to update the software on the device? Will ownership of the device need to be managed or transferred in a secure manner? Does the data need to be audited?

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/sopris/, https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/SevenPropertiesofHighlySecureDevices.pdf

Properties of Highly Secure Devices - Hardware-based Root of Trust; Small Trusted Computing Base; Defense in Depth; Compartmentalization; Certificate-based Authentication; Renewable Security; Failure Reporting

https://www.enisa.europa.eu/publications/baseline-security-recommendations-for-iot

ENISA Baseline Security Recommendations for IoT - Technical Measures: Hardware security; Trust and Integrity Management; Strong default security and privacy; Data protection and compliance; System safety and reliability; Secure Software / Firmware updates; Authentication; Authorisation; Access Control - Physical and Environmental security; Cryptography; Secure and trusted communications; Secure Interfaces and network services; Secure input and output handling; Logging; Monitoring and Auditing

https://www.amazon.com/Technical-Foundations-Iot-Boris-Adryan/dp/163081251X

The Technical Foundations of IoT - Security Characteristic: Confidentiality; Integrity; Availability; Authentication; Access control; Non-repudiation

https://www.pentestpartners.com/security-blog/why-is-consumer-iot-insecure/

Why is consumer IoT insecure? No one even thinks about security, or assumes that someone else in the supply chain addressed it; We’ll fix the problem once it’s shipped; We don’t have any money left for security; Do you recall the product and go bust, or carry on shipping regardless?; A lack of standards and guidance; IoT vendors that don’t care about security

https://www.din.de/en/getting-involved/standards-committees/nia/projects/wdc-proj:din21:282747019

Information Technology - security requirements for IoT devices within small Business - home environment

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-moran-suit-architecture-00, https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/experts-propose-standard-for-iot-firmware-updates/

IETF, A Firmware Update Architecture for Internet of Things Devices

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_Internet_of_Things_Project

The OWASP Internet of Things Project is designed to help manufacturers, developers, and consumers better understand the security issues associated with the Internet of Things

https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Principles_of_IoT_Security

Principles of IoT Security

http://www.iiconsortium.org/pdf/Endpoint_Security_Best_Practices_Final_Mar_2018.pdf

Industrial Internet Consortium Endpoint Security Best Practices

http://www.landwehr.org/2015-03-haigh-landwehr-ieee.pdf

Building Code for Medical Device Software Security

https://www.owasp.org/images/3/33/Automated-threat-handbook.pdf

OWASP Automated Threat Handbook for Web Applications

https://34c3.cyber-itl.org/, https://34c3.cyber-itl.org/slides.pdf, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BufzX-zeZvQ

Cyber Independent Testing Lab, goals: Remain independent of vendor influence; Automated, comparable, quantitative analysis; Act as a consumer watchdog; Always bring data to the conversation

http://hackaday.com/2017/06/20/practical-iot-cryptography-on-the-espressif-esp8266/

Practical IoT Crypto on the Espressif ESP8266

https://securingiot.projectsbyif.com/

Updating a device while ensuring others can’t; Controlling a device while ensuring others can’t; Protecting data sent from a device; Ensuring data from a device is genuine

https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm622074.htm

Securing medical devices from cybersecurity threats cannot be achieved by one government agency alone. Every stakeholder—manufacturers, hospitals, health care providers, cybersecurity researchers and government entities – all have a unique role to play in addressing these modern challenges.

https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM356190.pdf

premarket guidance identifies issues manufacturers should consider in the design and development of their medical device to ensure their product adequately addresses cybersecurity vulnerabilities.

https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM482022.pdf

postmarket guidance outlines a risk-based framework manufacturers should use to ensure they can quickly and adequately respond to new cybersecurity threats once a device is in use.

https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/publications/pr-18-1550-Medical-Device-Cybersecurity-Playbook.pdf

Medical Device Cybersecurity Regional Incident Preparedness and Response Playbook (v1.0, Oct 2018)

Lifecycle

IoT Mark Lifecycle ⇢

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8xdp94/right-to-repair-california-bill

A California lawmaker is making the state the 18th in the country to consider legislation that would make it easier to fix your things.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+REPORT+A8-2017-0214+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

[EU motion] on a longer lifetime for products: benefits for consumers and companies (2016/2272(INI)) Designing robust, durable and high-quality products; Promoting repairability and longevity; Operating a usage-oriented economic model and supporting SMEs and employment in the EU; Ensuring better information for consumers; Measures on planned obsolescence; Protecting consumers against software obsolescence

https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/conservation/why-we-must-fight-for-the-right-to-repair-our-electronics

Why We Must Fight for the Right to Repair Our Electronics

https://www.pentestpartners.com/security-blog/could-right-to-repair-heighten-the-risk-for-iot-and-smart-devices/

Could ‘Right to Repair’ heighten the risk for IoT and smart devices?

http://widgets.weforum.org/iot4d/

The framework is [a] way of looking at IoT projects and their impact; it does not claim to be the most comprehensive or the most illustrative and it focuses only on the most prominent SDG being addressed by a given project.

Examples

Fairphone 2 modular smartphone

TheThingsNetwork LoRaWAN infrastructure

Safecast radiation sensor

Philips Hue connected lamp

Logitech Harmony Hub

Mycroft Voice Assistant

Amazon Alexa

Amazon Kindle

Eero WiFi System

Eclipse Smarthome

Clone this wiki locally
You can’t perform that action at this time.