The State of Responsible Internet of Things

I few days ago, we published The State of Responsible Internet of Things. Its a collection of essays by some of Europe’s brightest minds about the Internet of Things, compiled by ThingsCon and published online on medium, as well as on Github.

Topics covered range from transparent design principles, open business strategies, smart and connected cities all the way to health in IoT and IoT in emerging markets. With this report, we want to highlight various perspectives on how to build an Internet of Things for everyone – and to share some practical and critical thoughts, as well as some open questions and challenges when it comes to building connected objects and services.

With „Controlling Machines – AI, intentions, and games and in the IoT“ I contributed an essay myself. It touches on what it means for us as users and people, if we infuse our objects with AI – and what we can do to understand this properly.

The current version of the report is open by design: Not only are all articles published under a Creative Commons license (CC by-nc-sa), we shared all articles also to be found and and forked over on GitHub. In addition we will also be adding to the current collection of essays. So, if you would like to contribute a piece, please do get in touch!

The report stems from the ThingsCon network, a global community of IoT practitioners dedicated to fostering the creation of a human-centric & responsible Internet of Things. You can learn more about ThingsCon over here – and join a local event in your region. You can also follow us on twitter.

Innovative Citizen

Last week we had the chance to be part of the Innovative Citizen Festival in Dortmund: Hosted by Fraunhofer Institut, Folkwang Universität Essen, the Dortmunder U and various local partners, Innovative Citizen is an open festival that tackles civic and public innovation processes, citizen science, and urban interventions.



I was involved as a curator for the track on ‚Openness, Digitalization, Democratization‘ – and in addition to inviting over some very interesting speakers and good friends, we also held a workshop with our newly formed studio forrrest (more on that soon) on Urban Narratives and Identities, which was great fun and very insightful.

A personal highlight, however, was to have the great Cindy Regalado and her partner in crime, Ted Fjallman, over for two days of workshops and a deep dive into the concepts of citizen science and public data. Hailing from London (these days) and being not only part of the Public Laboratory for Open Technology and Science but also researching as part of the Extreme Citizen Science group at London’s UCL, Cindy offered a super-practical take on civic data generation and science literacy: Kites! Over two days we built, and flew DIY-kites, attaching them with cameras and eventually stitching together areal maps for specific regions of the city. It was a great hands-on exercise on the power of civic action to generate valid and tangible data that addresses local issues, developments, and insights. The concept for DIY-Kite mapping stems from the public lab itself, which implemented its first large-scale mapping project back in 2010 in relation with the BP oil spill the the Golf – and has been applying it to projects around the world since, including mapping uncharted terrain to support the cause of local populations in DRC to generating a dreamed up „future map“ of Jerusalem to foster communication and collaboration between Israeli and Palestinian children. Around our kite mapping some quite interesting discussions about the potential (and threats) of citizen science to address contemporary challenges of cities the formation of hands-on collaboration in urban settings and communities evolved – including the notion that it could be a great way to count populist opinion making in general .


DIY Kite Mapping


On that note I teamed up with my colleague Max Krueger. Our workshop on Urban Narratives aimed to tap into the space of vague assumptions of our neighbors’s identities and explore the stories, traits, and individual perspectives that make up our neighborhoods, our communities, and eventually our European society. It was a first off dive into this very challenging subject that brought about quite some interesting findings and perspectives: from your trendy neighborhood social web (read: virtual & hyperlocal pin board), to storytelling approaches like HONY all the way to conceptual interventions that tap into the space of interaction design and art, our session marked the beginning of a research project that will hopefully continue way beyond this conference. We’re currently looking to build upon the results of this initial workshop and set up a dedicated ideation session with public and civic stakeholders to explore this further. If you’d like to be part of this, please holla!

There’s a lot to take away from four days in Dortmund. Besides a lot of follow up ideas on projects and question (with hopefully more to tell about projects in Cologne and Berlin, soon), it was a great opportunity to meet likeminded folks and make new friends. Also, it was another event that fits perfectly into the intersection of technological innovation, public and urban societies, and collaborative processes that shapes a lot of the work I am currently looking forward to. There’s a lot to be done for sure – and a lot to learn as well. Let’s get to it!

Photo credit: Cindy Regalado / Ted Fjallman

ThingsCon15 in WIRED

[S]ome of the most interesting discussions centered on the need for sober, critical thinking about the Internet of Things.

One product of ThingsCon is the “IoT Manifesto.” Written by designers for other designers, it addresses high-level concerns about the IoT in the form of 10 pledges. Designers are encouraged to “build and promote a culture of privacy,” “empower users to be the master of their domain,” and be “deliberate about what data we collect.” Its most provocative pledge might be its first: “We don’t believe the hype.” It acknowledges an important fact about the Internet of Things: There’s a lot of action—but there’s also a lot of unconsidered design.


WIRED writes about ThingsCon, the IOT Manifesto and the importance of taking ethics, context, and impact into account when designing for the Internet of Things.

Full article

ThingsCon15 – A (personal) recap

It happened. After months of planning and scheduling it finally all came together for ThingsCon15 this weekend. It was the second installment of a community-driven conference on the IoT & future of hardware. And it was amazing: More than 40 speakers and so many partners, participants, friends, and just really clever minds gathered in Berlin for two days to talk about connected products, how to build and design them. We had a lot of input in all kinds of formats: talks, workshops, project demonstrations, pitches, manifestos, readings – and bar-talks. In the end this all made for two wonderful days, brimming with ideas, new friends, and new questions. And the emergence of a very interesting overarching question.[[MORE]]

What kind of world do we want to build?

While we will share all, photos, talks & write ups, and a nice little video wrap up of ThingsCon15 very soon, I wanted to share my personal take-aways on ThingsCon. Note: I was bound at the main stage for most of the conference for moderating duties, which led me to miss most of the workshops – but that way I got most of the talks which is nice. So here goes a rather partial and recap of ThingsCon from my personal point of view:

A critical take on Things – discussions far from gadgetism

ThingsCon was kicked off by a thought provoking keynote from Sci-Fi Author Warren Ellis, who early on framed a recurring theme: A very critical (and sometime almost dystopian) take on a connected world – and a deliberate distance from Gadgetism or Tech-Talk. I’m still haunted by that front door who has an 404 and won’t recognize me. That’s terrifying.
In this was joined by many speakers across the board – from Claire Rowland and an interesting outline on design principles for connected products, to Scott Smith and his human centric take on a culture that is drenched in interconnected products. We heard some very interesting learnings by the good guys at Rural Spark, locally designing and building a smart, decentralized energy grid in India – and a refreshing Keynote by Bruce Sterling to wrap it all up, nicely linking back to Warren’s door vision, by presenting his and his wife’s work on Casa Jasmina, a fully connected house.

While Warren repeatedly highlighted the need to go all the way, to not just design the technical aspect of a product, but also the human-centric side to it, in some cases this evolved into an almost philosophical, but certainly sociological discussion on a connected world and its implications. I was amazed by the deep, theoretical insights on concepts like ‚embodiment‘ and abstract vs. object-centered thinking and design by Prof. Andrea Krajewski. And I was literally blown away by Matt Gorbet’s reading of a beautiful essay by Rich Gold, titled ‚How smart does your bed have to be before you’re afraid to go to sleep at night?‘ an on-point and humorous collection of thoughts and questions dealing with a potential future world where everything is smart, connected and active in itself. Written in 1991! It was one of my absolute highlights of this years ThingsCon, and if you have the chance to should definitely check it out, here’s a brief excerpt from it. (More to be found here)

How is an intelligent house different from an intelligently designed house? Given a choice, which would you rather live in? How about a basically stupid house, but one that is quite pleasant if you live in it intelligently? Do smart houses prevent you from watching dumb TV? Do smart houses take part in the action of TV shows, by say, adding lighting and special effects? If you don’t have children but would like some, do smart houses add the patter of little feet to the background? Does the patter get louder as the children grow up?
How smart does the bed in your house have to be before you are afraid to go to sleep at night?

Responsibility, Education, and the IoT

It became very obvious throughout these two days, that implications of the IoT matter very deeply for our lives, and the questions why? and how? ought to be answered by everyone in building this new connected world: designers & entrepreneurs, consultants & clients – and engineering students & universities. These questions shape the very way how we work and force us to find our own answer to them – as open or irritating they might be. The situation is that in many cases, we’re just at the very beginning of merely asking them. It’s a matter of education, of taking a step back from the breadboard and reflecting on what we’re building, and why. Turns out, an indie-conference is a wonderful place to do so.

Because we had the chance to go beyond the theoretical and conceptual part and actually produce hands-on and tangible take-aways that have the potential to not only keep this discussion going, but to actually feed back into our day-to-day work and projects. One of these wonderful outcomes is the launch of the IoT-Manifesto, a 10-point document that takes a stand for creating meaningful products designed for a world that we all would want to live in. It’s a joint effort of four studios (The Incredible Machine,, Frolic, Afdeling Buitengewone Zaken) and some good folks from the TU Delft and serves as an interesting starting point for a discussion around vision, reality, and realism on building IoT Products. Another tangible tool to understand the implications of connected products we’re building was introduced by Scott Smith: Thingclash is a dive into what happens to our culture and lives, once we start connecting things to the internet.

In the end, we are all human beings

In a way, this year’s ThingsCon was way more about people than it was about things. And that’s a good thing. It was inspiring to see question like What world do we want to live in? And how can we shape it in a way that makes sense for us, people? What are the dangers and pitfalls when in comes to designing products for the IoT – and what can we, as designers, entrepreneurs, researchers, consultants do, to make sure we avoid them? discussed in the audience – and somehow surfacing on pretty much every talk I had the chance to see. As Andrea Krajewski put it nicely:

The object is not the object. The object is an extension of ourselves. It’s an extension of us, our homes, our lives.

Let’s keep that in mind when we talk about the future of hardware. It’s the future of ourselves.

*With ThingsCon* [*a crazy week*]( *is ending – and an interesting transition phase for myself is starting to which I am looking forwrad to. I’ll keep this outlet going and of course I’m very looking forward to continue all these wonderful discussions we had over the past days in all kinds of future settings. Thank you all for taking part in making this happen.*

Global Innovation Gathering 15

I just came back from kicking off a crazy week (with re:publica and ThingsCon yet to come) together with some very amazing people. I had the great honor to once again take part at this year’s Global Innovation Gathering – and it was mind-blowing.

The Global Innovation Gathering (or GIG) is a network of innovation hubs, founders, social entrepreneurs, and thoroughly inspiring people from Asia, Latin America, and (mostly) Africa. Launched at re:publica in 2013, this year’s group consists of about 70 folks who all gather for about a week here in Berlin to exchange their thoughts, ideas, and questions – and to actually get some work done and lay the basis for future collaboration and community building.[[MORE]]

And so it begins! #innovation #collaboration #entrepreneurship

Ein von Adam Molyneux-Berry (@amusicb) gepostetes Foto am

Besides a lot of making new friends (which would be more than enough already), a great fringe program with upcycled 3-d printers and just lot’s of opportunities to chat and learn, I had the chance to take part in three very deep and intensive workshops at this weekend’s barcamp in Berlin. While many of these findings are shared through all kinds of channels, hackpads, and networks, I wanted to share my personal – preliminary – take-aways right here:

Session 1: Social Impact and Technolgy Hubs

Hosted by the lovely Tayo Akinyemi we discussed the purpose, impact, and possible strategies that ‚innovation hubs‘ might go for. We found that

  • Impact Hubs tackle complex problems, in that they tackle big, long-term, and multidisciplinary challenges of our society (eg. unemployment, general lack of access resources or information, inadequate education, etc.)
  • Not by specifically solving these problems, but by providing the space, resources, and ecosystem for others to solve them. This is a crucial (but not always easy to identify) line that not only helps making efficient and transparent decisions when running a hub – it also allows to keep focus on the long-term objective of building an ecosystem, rather than tackling countless problems one-by-one.
  • In order to understand whether a hub is successful or well-led, an impact measurement with rigid definition of objectives, along with quantifiable goals, roadmaps, and metrics is mandatory. The problem here is, that often goals such as ‚building an engaged community‘ or ‚developing a productive culture‘ are intangible, hard to quantify and thus subject to interpretation. Nonetheless these objective have to be defined and monitored against.

Session 2: Hub Innovation and Sustainability

Put together by the great Adam Molyneux-Berry and Tayo, building upon the conversations on sustainability that took place through the past years, this session was split in to two perspectives: entrepreneurs and hubs. I took part in the entrepreneurship track and this is what we discussed:

  • Again, we found that a clear definition of objective is crucial for any future decision making. This specifically includes highlighting various ways and approaches to building and funding a company, be it VCs funded, bootstrapped, informal, or even family business or conglomerate. To make these decisions deliberately (as opposed to implicitly) hubs can enable founder to actually choose the way they want to operate. And of course, this applies to the strategy and outlook of the hub itself, it’s programming, and provided resources.
  • We discussed potential and efficient selection criteria to grow a healthy and diverse culture and community, taking into account aspects like motivation, background, education, and (rather the controversial) family and private situation. Wherever one draws the line here it became pretty obvious, that a careful (self-)selection of members is vital to grow a sustainable and engaged community
  • We mentioned but did not have the time to go into detail on aspects like *adjusting to the context and environment *of a hub (a co-working space in Berlin is probably very differently led and built than a tech-hub in Kampala). Closely linked to this is a feasible business model for the hub itself to ensure long term operations. I hear that Adam compiled this cool list of best-practices for innovative hub business models, that really amazed my when he read it to me.

Catching up with old(ish) friends. The original Tayo, director of #AfriLabs! Let the games begin!

Ein von Adam Molyneux-Berry (@amusicb) gepostetes Foto am

Session 3: Peacehack Camp South Sudan

The final session I attended was led by Stephen Kovats and Hakim George from kap movie who spoke about putting together a peace/activist/technology camp for about a week in late November in South Sudan. I had the chance to join Stephen when he kicked off his #OSJUBA initiative back in 2013, striving to explore the potential of open (source) culture to state building and the development of public policies and services in South Sudan (yep, pretty challenging). I was happy to get an update on the current status of his endeavors and learned a lot about his current work at the agency for open culture, about activism, civic engagement, and the potential of community-led engagement to tackle civil unrest and clashes. We shared best-practices and stories about existing initiatives, here are some of the ones we discussed:

  • Umati framework (iHub, Nairobi) – a framework to monitor online hate speech. Used throughout election violence in Kenya and beyond.
  • Incike initiative (Rwanda) – a brilliant, brilliant project to raise awareness and funds for elderly survivors of the Rwanda genocide. It uses mobile crowd funding via feature phones on a massive scale and was put together by the all-amazing Aphrodice Mutangana and his team. So impressive!
  • Rethink Relief (MIT, Boston + Uganda) – a design-led workshop to identify and solve local challenges between short and long-term programs with interdisciplinary teams. The goal is to come up with a working prototype for a product or service after two weeks. It’s put together by the wonderful Jona Rephishti and the great folks at MIT’s D-Lab.

The prevailing question was: Are these new models of community action big enough to move beyond existing conflict lines? Obviously we could not answer this – be I like to believe that it’s a start and a worthwhile opportunity to showcase alternative paths for communities to choose for themselves.

Well this was just 2 days. I can’t wait for the rest of this week. I’ll share more of everything GIG, re:publica, and – of course – ThingsCon15 right here. Good days.