pith. sign in

arxiv: 1906.10378 · v1 · pith:2BULC2QPnew · submitted 2019-06-25 · 💻 cs.HC

Peril v. Promise: IoT and the Ethical Imaginaries

Funda Ustek-Spilda , Alison Powell , Irina Shklovski , Sebastian Lehuede This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 16:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords IoTethicsethical imaginariesdevelopersresponsible designperil and promiseEuropean hubssituated capabilities
0
0 comments X

The pith

The peril-promise dichotomy in IoT futures blocks effective ethical design even when using top-down frameworks or technical fixes.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper studies how developers in major European IoT hubs confront ethical questions while futures for the technology are cast as either a threat or a great benefit. This binary framing makes it hard to expand applications responsibly or to design ethically. Ethnographic work reveals that neither rules handed down from above nor efforts to solve ethics through code alone break out of the pattern. Readers should care because many current efforts to make connected devices ethical rest on exactly these two strategies.

Core claim

The authors argue that the future scenarios for IoT oscillate between peril and promise, creating problems for ethical design and production. Based on research with developers in London, Amsterdam, Barcelona and Belgrade, they show the practical challenges in day-to-day work. Their central claim is that top-down ethical frameworks overlooking developers' situated capabilities, and solutionist approaches treating ethics as technical problems, are unlikely to offer an alternative to this dichotomous imaginary.

What carries the argument

The dichotomous imaginary of peril versus promise, which structures thinking about IoT futures and limits ethical alternatives.

If this is right

  • IoT developers will keep facing the same ethical constraints without changes to how futures are imagined.
  • Responsible design practices in Europe may not improve if they rely on external frameworks or technical reductions.
  • Expanding IoT applications will remain difficult due to the persistent binary views.
  • Day-to-day decisions by developers will continue to be shaped by the peril or promise framing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Ethics work in tech might benefit from methods that start from developers' daily realities rather than imposed standards.
  • Similar dichotomies in other fields like AI might face the same limits.
  • Policymakers might need to rethink how they support ethical tech innovation by focusing on local practices.

Load-bearing premise

That the observations from developers in the four hubs reveal the main barriers to ethical IoT work and that the peril-promise split is the key structural issue.

What would settle it

A case where an IoT project used a top-down ethical framework or a technical solution and successfully moved beyond the peril-promise framing in its design process.

read the original abstract

The future scenarios often associated with Internet of Things (IoT) oscillate between the peril of IoT for the future of humanity and the promises for an ever-connected and efficient future. Such a dichotomous positioning creates problems not only for expanding the field of application of the technology, but also ensuring ethical and responsible design and production. As part of VirtEU (Values and Ethics in Innovation for Responsible Technology in Europe) (EU Horizon 2020 FP7), we have conducted ethnographic research into the main hubs of IoT in Europe, such as London, Amsterdam, Barcelona and Belgrade, with developers and designers of IoT to identify the challenges they face in their day-to-day work. In this paper, we focus on the IoT and the ethical imaginaries explore the practical challenges IoT developers face when they are designing, producing and marketing IoT technologies. We argue that top-down ethical frameworks that overlook the situated capabilities of developers or the solutionist approaches that treat ethical issues as technical problems are unlikely to provide an alternative to the dichotomous imaginary for the future.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports ethnographic fieldwork from the VirtEU project across four European IoT development hubs (London, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Belgrade). It identifies day-to-day challenges developers face in ethical design and production, attributes these primarily to the dominant peril-promise dichotomy in IoT imaginaries, and concludes that top-down ethical frameworks (which overlook situated developer capabilities) and solutionist approaches (which treat ethics as technical problems) are unlikely to offer viable alternatives.

Significance. If the interpretive linkage between observed practices and the dichotomous imaginary holds after fuller methodological elaboration, the work could contribute to HCI and responsible-innovation literature by supplying situated, developer-centered evidence that challenges abstract ethical prescriptions and highlights the limits of solutionism.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and Discussion] The central claim (abstract; presumably the Discussion or Conclusions) that top-down frameworks or solutionist approaches are 'unlikely to provide an alternative' rests on the attribution that the peril-promise dichotomy is the primary structural obstacle. The manuscript should show, via the coding scheme, thematic analysis, or disambiguation of competing explanations, how the ethnographic data from the four hubs subordinates alternative influences (market incentives, regulation, technical constraints) rather than leaving the attribution interpretive.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: details on participant selection, interview protocols, coding procedures, and criteria for generalizability across the four hubs would allow readers to assess the strength of the empirical grounding for the interpretive claims.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states the four hubs but does not preview the number of developers interviewed or the dominant themes; adding one sentence would improve the summary's informativeness without altering length.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed report. We address the single major comment below, proposing a targeted revision to increase transparency around our interpretive process while preserving the ethnographic character of the study.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and Discussion] The central claim (abstract; presumably the Discussion or Conclusions) that top-down frameworks or solutionist approaches are 'unlikely to provide an alternative' rests on the attribution that the peril-promise dichotomy is the primary structural obstacle. The manuscript should show, via the coding scheme, thematic analysis, or disambiguation of competing explanations, how the ethnographic data from the four hubs subordinates alternative influences (market incentives, regulation, technical constraints) rather than leaving the attribution interpretive.

    Authors: We agree that greater explicitness about how the data support the primacy of the peril-promise imaginary would strengthen the manuscript. Across the four sites, developers repeatedly invoked the dichotomy when describing ethical decision-making, even while acknowledging market pressures, regulatory uncertainty, and technical limits; these other factors appeared in the transcripts but were consistently framed as operating within, rather than displacing, the dichotomous imaginary. In the revised version we will (1) add a concise description of the iterative thematic coding process in the Methods section, (2) include representative coded excerpts in the Findings that illustrate how alternative explanations were considered and found secondary, and (3) insert a short paragraph in the Discussion that explicitly addresses the disambiguation of competing influences. These additions will make the attribution less purely interpretive without requiring new data collection. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in ethnographic interpretive analysis

full rationale

This paper reports primary ethnographic fieldwork from the VirtEU project across four IoT development hubs. Its central claim—that top-down ethical frameworks and solutionist approaches are unlikely to displace the peril-promise imaginary—is presented as an interpretive conclusion drawn from observed developer practices rather than any derivation, equation, fitted parameter, or self-referential definition. No load-bearing steps reduce to prior self-citations, ansatzes, or renamings; the argument rests on direct empirical observations and remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the assumption that ethnographic data from four European hubs reliably reveals the load-bearing obstacles to ethical IoT design and that the peril-promise dichotomy is the dominant framing; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Ethnographic observation of developers in selected hubs can identify the practical challenges that prevent ethical design
    Invoked to move from fieldwork to the general argument about ethical frameworks

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5723 in / 1119 out tokens · 38566 ms · 2026-05-25T16:40:30.807799+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Do-Ers v. Postpon- Ers: How Do IoT Developers Respond to Ethical Challenges?

    Ustek-Spilda, Funda. 2019. “Do-Ers v. Postpon- Ers: How Do IoT Developers Respond to Ethical Challenges?” Medium (blog). February 1,

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Accessed 12 February 2019

    https://medium.com/@VIRT_EU/blog- 1-do-ers-v-postpon-ers-how-do-iot- developers-respond-to-ethical-challenges- d9007fbda7b2. Accessed 12 February 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    An Ethics Framework for Research into Heterogeneous Systems

    Happa, Jassim, Jason RC Nurse, Michael Goldsmith, Sadie Creese, and Rebecca Williams. 2018. “An Ethics Framework for Research into Heterogeneous Systems” published in the 2018 IET Living in the Internet of Things: Cybersecurity of the IoT Conference. https://digital- library.theiet.org/content/conferences/10.10 49/cp.2018.0026 Accessed 12 February 2019

    work page arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Is There a Room for Security and Privacy in IoT? - IEEE Conference Publication

    Tabane, Elias, and Zuva Tranos. 2016. “Is There a Room for Security and Privacy in IoT? - IEEE Conference Publication.” In 2016 International Conference on Advances in Computing and Communication Engineering (ICACCE). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICACCE.2016.807375 8

    work page doi:10.1109/icacce.2016.807375 2016

  5. [5]

    Social Ethics in Internet of Things: An Outline and Review

    Shahraki, A min, and Ø ystein Haugen. 2018. “Social Ethics in Internet of Things: An Outline and Review.” In 2018 IEEE Industrial Cyber - Physical Systems (ICPS), 509 –16. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPHYS.2018.839075 7

    work page doi:10.1109/icphys.2018.839075 2018

  6. [6]

    Practice and Its Overflows: Reflectio ns on Order and Mess

    Suchman, Lucy. 2011. “Practice and Its Overflows: Reflectio ns on Order and Mess.” TECNOSCIENZA: Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies 2 (1): 21–30

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    The trolley problem: would you kill one person to save many others? The Guardian

    Crockett, M., 2016. The trolley problem: would you kill one person to save many others? The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/science/head- quarters/2016/dec/12/the-trolley-problem- would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-many- others Accessed 08 July 2018

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, 3rd ed

    MacIntyre, A., 2007. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, 3rd ed. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana.F.N.M Surname, Article Title, https://www.acm.org /proceedings-template

    work page 2007

  9. [9]

    Capitalism and the media: moral economy, well-being and capabilities

    Hesmondhalgh, D., 2017. Capitalism and the media: moral economy, well-being and capabilities. Media, Culture & Society 39, 202–218.F.N.M Surname and F.N.M Surname, 2018. Article Title, The title of book two (2nd. ed.). Publisher Name, City, State, Country, page count, and DOI if available

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things

    Puig de la Bellacasa, M., 2011 . Matters of care in technoscience: Assembling neglected things. Social Studies of Science 41, 85–106

    work page 2011

  11. [11]

    A Conceptual Framework for Studying Internet of Things: Virtue Ethics, Capability Approach and Care Ethics

    Ustek-Spilda, Funda. 2018. “A Conceptual Framework for Studying Internet of Things: Virtue Ethics, Capability Approach and Care Ethics ” Medium (blog). Oc tober 26, 2018. https://medium.com/@VIRT_EU/a-conceptual-framework-for- studying-internet-of-things-virtue-ethics-capability-approach-and-638514eb364e

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Imaginaries of the Digital: Ambiguity, Power and the Question of Agency

    Mansell, Robin. 2017. “Imaginaries of the Digital: Ambiguity, Power and the Question of Agency.” Communiquer. Revue de Communication Sociale et Publique, no. 20: 40–48

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    Calling for a Revolution: An Analysis of IoT Manifestos

    Fritsch, Ester, Irina Shklovski, and Rache l Douglas-Jones. 2018. “Calling for a Revolution: An Analysis of IoT Manifestos.” In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 302. ACM

    work page 2018