EPSRC reference: EP/M001636/1
Title: Privacy-by-Design: Building Accountability into the Internet of Things
Principal investigator: Professor Andy Crabtree
Department: School of Computer Science
Organisation: University of Nottingham
Scheme: EPSRC Fellowship
ICT prioritisation panel: July 2014 | Case for Support
Digital Economy Fellowship Interviews: 17 September 2014 | Interview
Starts: 01 December 2014 Ends: 30 November 2019 Value: £1,137,416
THE PROPOSAL
This 5-year EPSRC Established Career Fellowship put data at the heart of Digital Economy research into the emerging Internet of Things (IoT). It was premised on the recognition that in connecting billions of ‘things’ to the Internet the IoT would broadcast unprecedented amounts of human data and do so ‘seamlessly’, invisibly, unaccountably. Data, not the ‘things’ themselves, thus created a human problem that threatened the social acceptability of this emerging technology.
The proposed solution focused on the need to build trust in the IoT. The suggestion was that this might be achieved by enabling data awareness and control and by reshaping privacy mechanisms from ‘single click’ one-time only interactions to ongoing interactions that enable citizens to negotiate the uses of their data by other parties.
The scope of the IoT was and is enormous so the Fellowship focused on the domestic environment not only to make the research tractable but more importantly because the home, in being a key site of personal data, provided a critical lens on the data challenge.
Our research proposed to engage industry partners in the sustained exploration of IoT applications and the data challenge in the home over the lifetime of the Fellowship. We would conduct ethnographic studies to understand how people reason about privacy and build and maintain trust. And we would build provocative human-centred configurations and interfaces to the IoT to engage citizens in analysis of the problem space and co-creation of acceptable solutions.
5 years later and the need to build trust into the digital ecosystem is broadly accepted, if not yet realised in practice. If Ed Snowden’s whistleblowing on NSA surveillance didn’t catch the public’s attention in 2013 then the Facebook / Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018 certainly did, and the introduction of new data protection regulation in Europe (GDPR) in the same year bringing with it punitive fines also grabbed industry’s attention.
Back in 2014, however, growing cultural awareness (social, political, legal, ethical, etc.) of the data challenge was seeding manifold efforts to make the digital ecosystem more ‘human-centred’. It is within this broader cultural context and towards catalysing such a step change in the IoT that this Fellowship has sought to make a substantive contribution.
THE ACCOMPLISHMENT
Building on an established track record of social science research in design, and ethnomethodologically-informed ethnographic studies in particular, the Fellowship has delivered a series of outcomes that explicate the situated character of IoT data in the home and acceptability challenges confronting an increasingly ‘smart’ domestic IoT. The studies were enabled by the design and deployment of IoT applications in the home, including bespoke IoT devices designed to explore the use of data to drive the delivery of personalised consumer services (Tolmie et al. 2016, Fischer et al. 2016, Fischer et al. 2017, Crabtree et al. 2019).
The studies make it perspicuous that in practice IoT data is opaque, its sense, reference and meaning unclear. The issue is not that IoT data is inherently meaningless – algorithms will always be able to extract some information from the data – but that there is significant risk of misrepresentation (Tolmie et al. 2016); that the information gleaned by passing the data through analytics engines may be inaccurate and with potentially damaging consequences for the people whose behaviour generated the data and are subject to its use. There is strong need then for the ‘human in the loop’, not only to build trust but in doing so to ensure the accuracy or at least the practical adequacy of insights gleaned through data analytics.
The studies also make it perspicuous that IoT data is indexical to human action (ibid.) and the social and material circumstances of its production (Crabtree et al. 2019); furthermore, that these are not contained within or reflected by IoT data. For example, IoT data might document the total and average durations of showers taken in the home and amount of water used in a household, and the data might even be disaggregated to reveal specific occasions of showering occurring on specific days at specific times using specific amounts of water. However, it does not tell us specifically who generated the data, how or why, it only tells us that they used a specific amount of water at a specific time on a specific day.
The indexicality of IoT data occasions the need to support ‘data work’ (Fischer et al. 2016, 2017) between user and IoT system to avert misrepresentation and deliver effective personalised services. Automating data work turns on the construction of service-specific dialogues that provide users with methods for parsing relevant aspects of human action and the social and material circumstances of IoT data’s production (Crabtree et al. 2019).
Our ethnographic work has also explicated digital privacy practices in the home. These studies extended beyond the IoT to take the broader digital ecosystem into account; privacy practices surrounding PCs, laptops, mobile phones, etc., online services, social media, and the data implicated in their day-to-day use. They found that household members have an abiding concern to manage and indeed minimise the potential ‘attack surface’ of the digital on their everyday lives and relationships (Crabtree et al. 2017).
The attack surface is created in members’ mundane interactions with the networked world, which rides roughshod over the practical politics of sharing data and the calculus of accountability that enables the careful design of data sharing for its recipients (Tolmie and Crabtree 2017). Consequently, we find people taking great care over the management of cohorts, identities and the visibility of the digital self in near ubiquitous circumstances where it is impossible for people to control what recipients might make of their data, and even who the recipients are or might be.
Our studies have also revealed mundane expectations potential users have of the IoT and autonomous systems that are increasingly intelligent or ‘smart’ and the human challenges that confront them. If IoT devices are to be demonstrably smart, for example, and not just dumb ‘things’ connected to the Internet then they must fit into the social milieu and become part of the division of labour that drives and provides for the anticipation of need, rather behave as agents operating in their own right (Hyland et al. 2018).
Similarly our studies demonstrate the practical irrelevance of black box explanations to human trust in autonomous systems for the home; members are no more interested in what goes on inside a smart device and how it arrived at decision or action than they are in what goes on inside their central heating system and how it works. Much more important and relevant is understanding on whose behalf a smart device acts and that their interests are not at odds with the users. Social accountability, rather than computational accountability, is critical (Nilsson et al. 2019).
Our studies of hyper-personalised media that exploits the IoT to deliver highly adaptive and physically immersive filmic experiences show that the use of IoT data may produce effects that are “magical”. However, the experience is tempered by a perceptible asymmetry in value that undermines trust and leads to potential dystopian futures where users have no agency or control and no capacity to understand what is happening with or to their data and why (Sailaja et al. 2019).
And our studies of members’ mundane reasoning about data in the current and future connected home reveal the potential for data utility in delivering personalised services is tempered by the ubiquitous need for ‘recipient design’ or the tailoring of data disclosure, particularly amongst family and friends (Kilic et al. 2020).
The Fellowship’s work has been informed by, and informed, the Human Data Interaction (HDI) framework (Crabtree & Mortier 2015, Mortier et al. 2016) and its studies have been leveraged in the design of the Databox platform, which seeks to implement core HDI principles enabling legibility, agency and negotiability in data-driven systems.
The Fellowship’s studies have sensitised design activities to something of what ‘human in the loop’ means: enabling users to parse the indexicality of data, developing approaches that minimise the potential attack surface, building social accountability into data processing, and creating interaction mechanisms that support recipient design in data sharing.
The Fellowship developed the first model (Fig.1) of the IoT Databox platform (Crabtree et al. 2016) prior to the launch of the Databox project (EP/N028260/2), which has since sought to elaborate, refine and implement it. The Databox adopts a radical approach to data processing, implementing the data minimisation principle mandated by GDPR and constraining data distribution to the results of data processing done on-the-box, which is situated in the user’s home: only the outcome of data processing is shared with others then, not the data itself.
Figure 1. The IoT Databox model (Crabtree et al. 2016).
The Databox thus minimises the potential attack surface of the IoT on users; it exploits a familiar app-based environment that makes it accountable to users who wants their data and what they want to use it for, and allows users to control data processing through installing and uninstalling apps; apps are the locus for personalised service delivery and provide the opportunity to support users in parsing the indexicality of data; support for recipient design has been specified but at the timing of writing has yet to be implemented (Crabtree et al. 2018).
The Fellowship has developed support for the Databox platform, designing and implementing a software development kit (SDK) that provides an integrated development environment (IDE) for the creation of apps that exploit the IoT. In developing this environment, we have focused especially on building-in support mechanisms that enable developers to create GDPR compliant apps which respect the privacy of users (Lodge et al. 2018 a&b, Lodge and Crabtree 2019). We have also worked with legal-tech lawyers to assess the IoT Databox platform’s overall ability to comply with the requirements of GDPR (Urquhart et al. 2018).
The social and technical accomplishments of the Fellowship are complemented by methodological innovation in human-centred IT research and design. In addition to conducting ‘classical’ field studies of user environments (e.g., digital privacy practices in the current home) and situated evaluation of technology deployments (e.g., connected showers or energy monitoring systems), we have also developed ‘hybrid’ methods to engage potential users in technological research.
Our hybrid methods exploit the underlying analytic of our studies – ethnomethodology – alongside human-centred research methods used in design in a bid to create ‘breaching experiments’ that provoke mundane reasoning about technological visions and articulate challenges that confront their social acceptability.
We have thus leveraged contravision (Nilsson et al. 2019), design fiction (Coulton et al. 2019, Sailaja et al. 2019), and technology probes (Kilic et al. 2020) to stimulate the imagination, enable potential users to reason about the place of future and emerging technologies in their everyday lives, and elicit perceptible barriers to their adoption in the course of doing so. Methodological innovation underpins the award of the Digital Economy Investigator-led project (EP/S02767X/1) Experiencing the Future Mundane.
However, the Fellowship has not been without its problems. Industry engagement has been a notable challenge. Letters of support for the research have been all that has materialised in some cases. Others have suffered from economic downturns that have led to a reframing of their priorities. Then there has been wholesale organisational restructuring to contend with. And last, but by no means least, have been the IP lawyers and negotiations that stretched out for years to no useful end.
Nonetheless, the Fellowship has not been without industry involvement or impact. Notably our engagement with BT has shaped the Databox SDK, and resulted in our being invited to exhibit the Databox platform at BT’s flagship Innovation Showcase in 2017, and we have had close involvement with BBC R&D over the lifetime of the Fellowship.
The principles of HDI chimed with the BBC from the outset of the Fellowship and R&D had strong interest in the Databox as a means of delivering on the corporation’s public service remit and maintaining public trust in increasingly data-driven, personalised media services. Indeed as the Fellowship entered its final year, BBC R&D began developing its own data platform and trialling the ‘BBC Box’. We have also been commissioned by the Institution of Engineering and Technology to assemble an edited collection based on the Fellowship core thematic entitled ‘Privacy by Design for the Internet of Things: Building Accountability and Security’.
THE OUTCOMES
Publications
1.Andy Crabtree; Richard Mortier; Hamed Haddadi (eds.). Privacy by Design for the Internet of Things: Building Accountability and Security. Work in progress. Commissioned by the Institution of Engineering and Technology.
2.Damla Kilic; Andy Crabtree; Glenn McGarry; Murray Goulden (2020) The Cardboard Box Study: Understanding Collaborative Data Management in the Connected Home. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1PQVmB3l8L_riBWepdTLT55zGNBfKvXtv
3.Tom Lodge; Andy Crabtree (2019). Privacy Engineering for Domestic IoT: Enabling Due Diligence. Sensors, vol. 19 (20), 10 October 2019, Article 4380. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19204380
4.Andy Crabtree; Lewis Hyland; James Colley; Martin Flintham; Joel Fischer; Hyosun Kwon (2019). Probing IoT-based Consumer Services: ‘Insights’ from the Connected Shower. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 5 September 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-019-01303-3
5.Neelima Sailaja; James Colley; Andy Crabtree; Adrian Gradinar; Paul Coulton; Ian Forrester; Lianne Kerlin; Phil Stenton (2019). The Living Room of the Future. In TVX ‘19. Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for Television and Online Video, Salford, UK, 5-7 June 2019. New York: ACM Press, pp. 95-107. https://doi.org/10.1145/3317697.3323360 || https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/2329205
6.Andy Crabtree; Lachlan Urquhart; Jiahong Chen (2019). Right to an Explanation Considered Harmful. Social Science Research Network, 8 April 2019. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3384790
7.Tommy Nilsson; Andy Crabtree; Joel Fischer; Boriana Koleva (2019). Breaching the Future: Understanding Human Challenges of Autonomous Systems for the Home. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 23 (2), April 2019, pp. 287-307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-019-01210-7
8.Paul Coulton; Joseph Lindley; Adrian Gradinar; James Colley; Neelima Sailaja; Andy Crabtree; Ian Forrester; Lianne Kerlin (2019). Experiencing the Future Mundane. In RTD ‘19. Research Through Design Conference, Delft, The Netherlands, 19-22 March 2019. The Netherlands: RTD, Article 19. https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1547788
9.John Moore; Andrés Arcia-Moret; Poonam Yadav; Richard Mortier; Anthony Brown; Derek McAuley; Andy Crabtree; Chris Greenhalgh; Hamed Haddadi; Yousef Amar (2019). Zest: REST over ZeroMQ. In SPT-IoT ‘19. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops. Kyoto, Japan, 11-15 March 2019. New Jersey: IEEE, pp. 1015-1019. https://doi.org/10.1109/PERCOMW.2019.8730686 || https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1547750
10.Lachlan Urquhart; Tom Lodge; Andy Crabtree (2018). Demonstrably Doing Accountability in the Internet of Things. International Journal of Law and Technology, vol. 27 (1), 24 December 2018, pp. 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eay015
11.Poonam Yadav; John Moore; Qi Li; Richard Mortier; Anthony Brown; Andy Crabtree; Chris Greenhalgh; Derek McAuley; Yousef Amar; Ali Shahin Shamasabadi; Hamed Haddadi (2018). Providing Occupancy as a Service with Databox. In CitiFog ‘18. Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Smart Cities and Fog Computing, Shenzhen, China, 4 November 2018. New York: ACM Press, pp. 29-34. https://doi.org/10.1145/3277893.3277894 || https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1425041
12.Tom Lodge; Andy Crabtree; Anthony Brown (2018b). IoT App Development: Supporting Data Protection by Design and Default. In UbiComp ‘18. Proceedings of the 2018 International Joint Conference and International Symposium on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Wearable Computers, Singapore, 8-12 October 2018. New York: ACM Press. pp. 901-910. https://doi.org/10.1145/3267305.3274151 || https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1234975
13.Tom Lodge; Andy Crabtree; Anthony Brown (2018a). Developing GDPR Compliant Apps for the Edge. In DPM ‘18. Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Data Privacy Management, Barcelona, Spain, 6-7 September 2018. Cham: Springer, pp. 313-328. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00305-0_22 || https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1158927
14.Neelima Sailaja; Andy Crabtree; Derek McAuley; Phil Stenton (2018). Explicating the Challenges of Providing Novel Media Experiences Driven by User Personal Data. In TVX ’18. Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for Television and Online Video, Seoul, Korea, 26-28 June 2018. New York: ACM Press, pp. 101-113. https://doi.org/10.1145/3210825.3210830 || http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/52562/
15.Lewis Hyland; Andy Crabtree; Joel Fischer; James Colley; Carolina Fuentes (2018). “What Do You Want for Dinner?” – Need Anticipation and the Design of Proactive Technologies. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices, vol. 27 (3-6), May 2018, pp. 917-946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-018-9314-4
16.Tom Lodge; Anthony Brown; Andy Crabtree (2018). Enabling Trusted App Development @ The Edge. arXiv, 26 April 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.10987
17.Jhim Verame; Enrico Costanza; Joel Fischer; Andy Crabtree; Sarvapali Ramchurn; Tom Rodden; Nick Jennings (2018). Learning from the Veg Box: Designing Unpredictability in Agency Delegation. In CHI ‘18. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, Canada, 21-26 April 2018. New York: ACM Press, Paper No. 447. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174021 || http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/49597/
18.Alan Chamberlain; Andy Crabtree; Hamed Haddadi; Richard Mortier (2018). Privacy and the Internet of Things. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 22 (2), April 2018, pp. 289-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-017-1066-5
19.Peter Tolmie; Andy Crabtree (2018). The Practical Politics of Sharing Personal Data. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 22 (2), April 2018, pp. 293-315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-017-1071-8 || http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/45056/1/PUC.pdf
20.James Colley; Andy Crabtree (2018). Object Based Media, the IoT and Databox. In PETRAS ‘18. Proceedings of the 1st Living in the Internet of Things Conference ‘Cybersecurity of the IoT’, London, UK, 28-29 March 2018. London: Institute of Engineering and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1049/cp.2018.0034 || https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1308343
21.Yousef Amar; Hamed Haddadi; Richard Mortier. Anthony Brown; James Colley; Andy Crabtree (2018). An Analysis of Home IoT Network Traffic and Behaviour. arXiv, 14 March 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.05368
22.Andy Crabtree; Tom Lodge; James Colley; Chris Greenhalgh; Kevin Glover; Hamed Haddadi; Yousef Amar; Richard Mortier; Qi Li; John Moore; Liang Wang; Poonam Yadav; Jianxin Zhao; Anthony Brown; Lachlan Urquhart; Derek McAuley (2018). Building Accountability into the Internet of Things: The IoT Databox Model. Journal of Reliable Intelligent Environments, vol. 4 (1), 27 January 2018, pp. 39-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40860-018-0054-5
23.Joel Fischer; Andy Crabtree; James Colley; Tom Rodden (2017). Data Work: How Advisors and Clients Make IoT Data Accountable. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices, vol. 26 (4), 23 June 2017, pp. 597-626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-017-9293-x
24.Andy Crabtree; Tom Lodge; James Colley; Chris Greenhalgh; Richard Mortier (2017). Accountable IoT? Outline of the Databox Model. In WoWMoM ‘17. Proceedings of the International Symposium on a World of Wireless, Mobile, and Multimedia Networks, Macau, China, 12-15 June 2017. New Jersey: IEEE, pp. 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1109/WoWMoM.2017.7974335 || http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/42233/
25.Andy Crabtree; Peter Tolmie; Will Knight (2017). Repacking Privacy for a Networked World. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing and Work Practices, vol. 26 (4), May 2017, pp. 453-488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-017-9276-y
26.Neelima Sailaja; Andy Crabtree; Phil Stenton (2017). Challenges of Using Personal Data to Drive Personalised Electronic Programme Guides. In CHI ‘17. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver (CO), 6-11 May 2017. New York: ACM Press, pp. 5226-5231. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025986 || http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/42750/
27.Charith Perera; Susan Wakenshaw; Tim Baarslag; Hamed Haddadi; Arosha Bandara; Richard Mortier; Andy Crabtree; Irene Ng; Derek McAuley; Jon Crowcroft (2017). Valorising the IoT Databox: Creating Value for Everyone. Transactions on Emerging Technologies, vol 28 (1), January 2017, Article 38. https://doi.org/10.1002/ett.3125
28.Richard Mortier; Hamed Haddadi; Tristan Henderson; Derek McAuley; Jon Crowcroft; Andy Crabtree (2016). Human Data Interaction. Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction (2nd ed.), Chapter 41, Interaction Design Foundation. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/human-data-interaction
29.Richard Mortier; Jianxin Zhao; Jon Crowcroft; Liang Wang, Qi Li; Hamed Haddadi; Yousef Amar; Andy Crabtree; James Colley; Tom Lodge; Anthony Brown; Derek McAuley; Chris Greenhalgh (2016). Personal Data Management with the Databox: What’s Inside the Box? In CAN ‘16. Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Cloud-Assisted Networking, Irvine (CA), USA, 12 December 2016. New York: ACM Press, pp. 49-54. https://doi.org/10.1145/3010079.3010082 || http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/45061/
30.Andy Crabtree; Tom Lodge; James Colley; Chris Greenhalgh; Richard Mortier (2016). Building Accountability into the Internet of Things. Social Science Research Network, 7 December 2016. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2881876
31.Andy Crabtree; Richard Mortier (2016). Personal Data, Privacy and the Internet of Things: The Shifting Locus of Agency and Control. Social Science Research Network, 22 November 2016. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2874312
32.Andy Crabtree; Tom Lodge; James Colley; Chris Greenhalgh; Richard Mortier; Hamed Haddadi (2016). Enabling the New Economic Actor: Data Protection, the Digital Economy, and the Databox. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol 20 (6), 2 August 2016, pp. 947-957. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-016-0939-3
33.Joel Fischer; Andy Crabtree; Tom Rodden; James Colley; Enrico Costanza; Mike Jewell; Sarvapali Ramchurn (2016). “Just Whack It On Until It Gets Hot” - Working with IoT Data in the Home. In CHI ‘16. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose (CA), USA, 7-12 May 2016. New York: ACM Press, pp. 5933-5944. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858518 || http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/31391/
34.Andy Crabtree (2016). “Enabling the New Economic Actor: Personal Data Regulation and the Digital Economy. In IC2EW ‘16. Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering Workshop, Berlin, Germany, 4-8 April 2016. New Jersey: IEEE, pp. 124-129. https://doi.org/10.1109/IC2EW.2016.18 || https://drive.google.com/open?id=169zB4jpi6BAjxBlDYZ08WcEpOPz1rbv4
35.Peter Tolmie; Andy Crabtree; Tom Rodden; James Colley; Ewa Luger (2016). “This Has To Be The Cats” - Personal Data Legibility in Networked Sensing Systems. In CSCW ‘16. Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, San Francisco (CA), USA, 27 February – 2 March 2016. New York: ACM Press, pp. 491-502. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819992 || http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/30346/
36.Andy Crabtree; Peter Tolmie (2016). A Day in the Life of Things in the Home. In CSCW ‘16. Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, San Francisco (CA), USA, 27 February – 2 March 2016. New York: ACM Press, pp. 1738-1750. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819954 || http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/30347/
37.Graham Button; Andy Crabtree; Mark Rouncefield; Peter Tolmie (2015). Deconstructing Ethnography: Towards a Social Methodology for Ubiquitous and Interactive Computing Systems. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21954-7
38.Andy Crabtree; Richard Mortier (2015). Human Data Interaction: Historical Lessons from Social Studies and CSCW. In ECSCW ‘15. Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Oslo, Norway, 19-23 September 2015. Cham: Springer, pp. 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20499-4_1 || http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/30345/
Software and technical products
39. Databox. https://github.com/me-box/
40. Databox SDK. https://github.com/me-box/platform-sdk
Engagement activities
a) Building a Healthy Public Service Internet. Mozilla Festival, The Royal Society of Arts, London, 23 October 2018. https://ti.to/Mozilla/mozfesthouse-publicserviceinternethealth/en
b) Keynote, CHIST-ERA Intelligent Computation for Dynamic Networked Environments. Helsinki, Finland, 21-22 June 2018. http://conference2018.chistera.eu/conference-programme
c) The Living Room of the Future. Foundation for Art and Creative Technologies, Liverpool, 3-28 May 2018. https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/living-room-of-the-future
d) Sarajevo Unlimited. British Council, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2-5 November 2017. https://kosovo.britishcouncil.org/en/the-living-room-of-the-future
e) Mozilla Festival, Decentring Personal Data Analytics. Mozilla Festival, Ravensbourne College, London, 28 October 2017. https://www.mozillafestival.org/en/spaces/decentralisation
f) Databox Hack Day. Mozilla Festival, RSA House, London, 26 October 2017. https://www.eventbrite.com/e/databox-hackday-at-mozfest-2017-tickets-37382940381#
g) Design Research. Cabinet Office Policy Lab, 1 Horse Guards Road, London, 20 September 2017. https://openpolicy.blog.gov.uk/2017/09/08/a-look-ahead-to-the-london-design-festival/
h) Foreign and Commonwealth Office UK/Japan Socio-Cyber Physical Systems Workshop. Japanese Embassy, Tokyo, 7-8 September 2017. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc0LamvzsD6SJhhYrVSa6lIsA4cid0lpU7eP8moDy0rhbweBQ/closedform
i) Databox in a “Smart World”. BT Innovation Showcase, Adastral Park, Ipswich, 12-16 June 2017. http://connect2.globalservices.bt.com/innovationweek2017
j) Leveraging Energy Data for Digital Health and Care Monitoring. Smart Energy GB Roundtable, London, 2 May 2017. https://www.smartenergygb.org/en/resources/press-centre/press-releases-folder/energising-healthcare
k) Databox: Hack an App. Mozilla Festival, Ravensbourne College, London, 29-30 October 2016. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2016/10/28/mozilla-hosts-seventh-annual-mozfest-in-london-this-weekend/
l) The Kitchen Databox Demo. Mozilla Festival, Ravensbourne College, London, 29 October 2016. https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/blog/2016-11-bbc-rd-at-mozfest-2016
m)Personal Information Management. European Commission Roundtable, Brussels, 27 November 2015.
n) Privacy and Trust in the Digital Economy. Horizon Digital Economy Research Institute, 10 March 2015. https://www.horizon.ac.uk/event/event/
o) Proposals for the Budget IoT Investment Package. Digital Catapult Roundtable, London. 2 February 2015.
p) Digital Media and Big Data. Ofcom Workshop, University of Nottingham, 14 January 2015.
Collaborations and partnerships
BBC R&D (2014 – 2019)
Outcomes: 5, 8, 14, 20, 26, 39 & a, c, d, l
+ Joint ESRC Impact Acceleration Award
British Council (2017 – 2018)
Outcomes: 5, 8 & c, d
BT Group PLC (2014 – 2018)
Outcomes: 40 & i
CSE (2016 – 2017)
Outcomes: 23, 33
Digital Catapult (2014 – 2017)
E.On (2015 – 2016)
Foundation for Art and Creative
Technology (2016 – 2018)
Outcomes: 5, 8 & c
Institution of Engineering and
Technology (2019 – 2020)
Outcomes: 1
Unilever (2014 – 2018)
Telefonica (2014 – 2015)
Further funding £12,578,846 (80% fEC)
EPSRC (EP/T022493/1) Horizon: Trusted Data-Driven Products, 1 August 2020, £3,979,849
UKRI (MR/T019220/1) The Next Generation: Design Research for the 21st Century, 1 August 2020, £966,279
EPSRC (EP/S02767X/1) Experiencing the Future Mundane, 24 September 2019, £461,079. https://gow.epsrc.ukri.org/NGBOViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/S02767X/1
EPSRC (EP/R03351X/1) Defence Against Dark Artefacts, 5 September 2018, £1,011,787. https://gow.epsrc.ukri.org/NGBOViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/R03351X/1
AHRC (AH/R008728/1) Objects of Immersion, 18 February 2018, £60,409. https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FR008728%2F1
EPSRC (EP/N028260/2) Databox: Privacy-Aware Infrastructure for Managing Personal Data, 31 October 2016, £1,230, 248. https://gow.epsrc.ukri.org/NGBOViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/N028260/1
EPSRC (EP/N014243/1) Future Everyday Interaction with the Autonomous Internet of Things, 1 April 2016, £806,241. https://gow.epsrc.ukri.org/NGBOViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/N014243/1
EPSRC (EP/M02315X/1) From Human Data to Personal Experience, 1 August 2015, £4,062,954. https://gow.epsrc.ukri.org/NGBOViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/M02315X/1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Fellowship’s accomplishments, collaborations and partnerships, engagement activities and outcomes would not have been possible were it not for the efforts of some extremely talented individuals including:
Dr. Peter Tolmie, ethnomethodologist, who has moved on to take up the position of Principal Research Scientist, Information Systems and New Media, University Siegen.
Dr. James Colley, IoT wizard and software engineer, who quite literally made our technology deployments work but has moved into a rather more lucrative position in industry with Parexcel International.
Dr. Tom Lodge, computer scientist, who developed the IoT Databox SDK and with it carved out a unique area of research that has sought to empower other developers and enable them to get to grips with GDPR as practical day-to-day feature of their work.
Dr. Glenn McGarry, fieldworker, who has just completed his PhD thesis and is finding his feet in the curious world of the Mixed Reality Laboratory.
I have also been extremely fortunate in supervising some very talented PhD students, who have made significant contributions to the Fellowship’s accomplishments, collaborations and partnerships, engagement activities and outcomes. These include:
Dr. Neelima Sailaja, an Horizon CDT student sponsored by the BBC, who conducted original research around personal data and media and has moved on to join the Horizon Digital Economy Research Institute.
Tommy Nilsson, thesis submitted, who has done original research around the acceptability challenges confronting domestic autonomous systems and developed the breaching experiments methodology to incorporate contravision.
Damla Kilic, thesis in progress, who is conducting original research into the interpersonal nature of data sharing and requirements for supporting recipient design.
Ian Forrester and Phil Stenton (BBC R&D), Paul McKee and Mary Lumkin (BT), Paul Coulton and Adrian Gradinar (Imagination Lancaster), and Lachlan Urquhart (Edinburgh Law School) have also been key to the Fellowship’s accomplishments, collaborations and partnerships, engagement activities and outcomes.
Many thanks to one and all.
Andy Crabtree, January 2020.
