Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Threats to Journalists from the Consumer Internet of Things

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybersecurity, Situational Awareness and Social Media

Part of the book series: Springer Proceedings in Complexity ((SPCOM))

Abstract

Threats associated with the consumer Internet of Things (IoT) may particularly inhibit the work and wellbeing of journalists, especially because of the danger of technological surveillance and the imperative to protect confidential sources. These issues may have knock-on effects on societal stability and democratic processes if press freedom is eroded. Still, journalists remain unaware of potential IoT threats, and so are unable to incorporate them into risk assessments or to advise their sources. This shows a clear gap in the literature, requiring immediate attention. This article therefore identifies and organises distinctive and novel threats to journalism from the consumer IoT. The article presents a novel conceptualisation of threats to the press in six categories: regulatory gaps, legal threats, profiling threats, tracking threats, data and device modification threats and networked device threats. Each of the threats in these categories includes a description and hypothetical consequences that include real-life ways in which IoT devices can be used to inhibit journalistic work, building on interdisciplinary literature analysis and expert interviews. In so doing, this article synthesises technical information about IoT device capabilities with human security and privacy requirements tailored to a specific at-risk population: journalists. It is therefore important for cyber science scholarship to address the contemporary and emerging risks associated with IoT devices to vulnerable groups such as journalists. This exploratory conceptualisation enables the evidence-based conceptual evolution of understandings of cyber security risks to journalists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barbosa, N.M., Zhang, Z., Wang, Y.: Do Privacy and security matter to everyone? Quantifying and clustering user-centric considerations about smart home device adoption. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth USENIX Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, pp. 417–435. USENIX Association, Virtual (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Nurse, J., Erola, A., Agrafiotis, I., Goldsmith, M., Creese, S.: Smart insiders: exploring the threat from insiders using the internet-of-things. In: Proceedings of the 2015 International Workshop on Secure Internet of Things (SIoT), Vienna, Austria (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Tanczer, L.M., Steenmans, I., Elsden, M., Blackstock, J., Carr, M.: Emerging risks in the IoT ecosystem: who’s afraid of the big bad smart fridge? In: Living in the Internet of Things: Cybersecurity of the IoT—2018, p. 33 (9 pp.)–33 (9 pp.). Institution of Engineering and Technology, London, UK (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Zhang, N., Mi, X., Feng, X., Wang, X., Tian, Y., Qian, F.: Dangerous skills: understanding and mitigating security risks of voice-controlled third-party functions on virtual personal assistant systems. In: 2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pp. 1381–1396. IEEE, Stockholm, Sweden (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Shere, A.R.K., Nurse, J.R.C., Flechais, I.: ‘Security should be there by default’: investigating how journalists perceive and respond to risks from the Internet of Things. Presented at the 2020 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW) September 1 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Phillips, G.: How the free press worldwide is under threat (2020). https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/may/28/how-the-free-press-worldwide-is-under-threat

  7. The Nobel Prize: The Nobel Peace Prize 2021. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2021/press-release/

  8. Ball, J.: GCHQ captured emails of journalists from top international media (2015). https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/19/gchq-intercepted-emails-journalists-ny-times-bbc-guardian-le-monde-reuters-nbc-washington-post

  9. Pegg, D., Lewis, P., Safi, M., Lakhani, N.: FT editor among 180 journalists identified by clients of spyware firm (2021). https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/18/ft-editor-roula-khalaf-among-180-journalists-targeted-nso-spyware

  10. Woodhams, S.: Spyware: an unregulated and escalating threat to independent media (2021). https://www.cima.ned.org/publication/spyware-an-unregulated-and-escalating-threat-to-independent-media/

  11. Pickard, V.: Restructuring democratic infrastructures: a policy approach to the journalism crisis. Digit. J. 8, 704–719 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1733433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Stotzky, I.P.: The role of a free press and freedom of expression in developing democracies. U. Miami L. Rev. 56, 255 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Council of Europe: The 2019 Annual Report by the Partner Organisations of the Council of Europe’s Platform for the Protection of Journalism and Safety of Journalists: ‘Democracy at Risk: threats and attacks against media freedom in Europe’. Council of Europe, Council of Europe, Avenue de l’Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex, France (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gulzar, M., Abbas, G.: Internet of things security: a survey and taxonomy. In: 2019 International Conference on Engineering and Emerging Technologies (ICEET), pp. 1–6. IEEE, Lahore, Pakistan (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Zorz, Z.: Government-backed cyber attackers increasingly targeting journalists (2020). https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2020/03/27/cyber-attackers-targeting-journalists/

  16. Crete-Nishihata, M., Oliver, J., Parsons, C., Walker, D., Tsui, L., Deibert, R.: The information security cultures of journalism. Digit. J. 0, 1–24 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1777882

  17. McGregor, S.E., Charters, P., Holliday, T., Roesner, F.: Investigating the computer security practices and needs of journalists. In: Proceedings of the 24th USENIX Security Symposium, p. 17. USENIX Association, Washington, D.C. (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  18. McGregor, S.E., Watkins, E.A., Al-Ameen, M.N., Caine, K., Roesner, F.: When the weakest link is strong: secure collaboration in the case of the Panama papers. In: Proceedings of the 26th USENIX Security Symposium, p. 19. USENIX Association, Vancouver, BC, Canada (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  19. McGregor, S.E., Watkins, E.A.: “Security by Obscurity”: journalists’ mental models of information security. #ISOJ. 6 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Uzunov, A.V., Fernandez, E.B.: An extensible pattern-based library and taxonomy of security threats for distributed systems. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 36, 734–747 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2013.12.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Electronic Frontier Foundation: Threat model. https://ssd.eff.org/en/glossary/threat-model

  22. Fruhlinger, J.: Threat modeling explained: a process for anticipating cyber attacks. https://www.csoonline.com/article/3537370/threat-modeling-explained-a-process-for-anticipating-cyber-attacks.html

  23. Torr, P.: Demystifying the threat modeling process. IEEE Secur. Privacy 3, 66–70 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2005.119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Xiong, W., Lagerström, R.: Threat modeling—a systematic literature review. Comput. Secur. 84, 53–69 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2019.03.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bradshaw, P.: Why every journalist should have a threat model (with cats) (2014). https://onlinejournalismblog.com/2014/07/16/why-every-journalist-should-have-a-threat-model-with-cats/

  26. Stray, J.: Security for journalists, part two: threat modeling. https://source.opennews.org/articles/security-journalists-part-two-threat-modeling/

  27. Szathmari, G.: Threats. Threat modeling. Privacy for journalists. https://privacyforjournalists.org.au/threat-modeling-for-journalists

  28. Rory Peck Trust: Digital risk assessment. https://rorypecktrust.org/resources/Digital-Security-Guide/Digital-Risk-Assessment?cu=en-GB

  29. Herrman, J.: The tools for covering tech are the same as in 2009 (2019). https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/31/technology/personaltech/tools-covering-tech-same-2009.html

  30. Nawir, M., Amir, A., Yaakob, N., Lynn, O.B.: Internet of Things (IoT): taxonomy of security attacks. In: 2016 3rd International Conference on Electronic Design (ICED), pp. 321–326. IEEE, Phuket, Thailand (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Alrawi, O., Lever, C., Antonakakis, M., Monrose, F.: SoK: security evaluation of home-based IoT deployments. In: 2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), pp. 1362–1380. IEEE, San Francisco, CA, USA (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Perez, A.J., Zeadally, S., Griffith, S.: Bystanders’ privacy. IT Prof. 19, 61–65 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2017.42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lopez, J., Rios, R., Bao, F., Wang, G.: Evolving privacy: from sensors to the Internet of Things. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 75, 46–57 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2017.04.045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Goulden, M., Tolmie, P., Mortier, R., Lodge, T., Pietilainen, A.-K., Teixeira, R.: Living with interpersonal data: observability and accountability in the age of pervasive ICT. New Media Soc. 20, 1580–1599 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817700154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Christensen, A.T., Olesen, H., Sørensen, L.: On the value of the counterfactual and how the smart home informs it. Surveill. Soc. 19, 241–243 (2021). https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v19i2.14301

  36. Burdon, M., Cohen, T.: Modulation harms and the Google home. Surveill. Soc. 19, 154–167 (2021). https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v19i2.14299

  37. Cha, S.-C., Hsu, T.-Y., Xiang, Y., Yeh, K.-H.: Privacy enhancing technologies in the internet of things: perspectives and challenges. IEEE Internet Things J. 6, 2159–2187 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2018.2878658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kazansky, B.: ‘It depends on your threat model’: the anticipatory dimensions of resistance to data-driven surveillance. Big Data Soc. 8, 2053951720985557 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720985557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Heartfield, R., Loukas, G., Budimir, S., Bezemskij, A., Fontaine, J.R.J., Filippoupolitis, A., Roesch, E.: A taxonomy of cyber-physical threats and impact in the smart home. Comput. Secur. 78, 398–428 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2018.07.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Blythe, J.M., Johnson, S.D.: A systematic review of crime facilitated by the consumer Internet of Things. Secur. J. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-019-00211-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lopez-Neira, I., Patel, T., Parkin, S., Danezis, G., Tanczer, L.: ‘Internet of Things’: how abuse is getting smarter. Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Chalhoub, G., Flechais, I., Nthala, N., Abu-Salma, R.: Innovation inaction or in action? The role of user experience in the security and privacy design of smart home cameras. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth USENIX Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security, p. 21. USENIX Association, Virtual (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Hoffmann, S.: IoT security architecture and policy for the home—a Hub based approach. IoT Security Foundation, Oxford, United Kingdom (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Atamli, A.W., Martin, A.: Threat-based security analysis for the internet of things. In: 2014 International Workshop on Secure Internet of Things, pp. 35–43 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  45. PRISMA: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. http://prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/Checklist.aspx

  46. Rasmussen, L.B.: The narrative aspect of scenario building—how story telling may give people a memory of the future. AI & Soc. 19, 229–249 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-005-0337-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kebande, V.R., Karie, N.M., Michael, A., Malapane, S.M.G., Venter, H.S.: How an IoT-enabled “smart refrigerator” can play a clandestine role in perpetuating cyber-crime. In: 2017 IST-Africa Week Conference (IST-Africa), pp. 1–10 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Freund, J.: Threat-modeling basics using MITRE ATT&CK. https://www.darkreading.com/risk/threat-modeling-basics-using-mitre-attandck/a/d-id/1337728

  49. Kenyon, M.: Dubious denials & scripted spin: spyware company NSO group goes on 60 minutes (2019). https://citizenlab.ca/2019/04/dubious-denials-scripted-spin-spyware-company-nso-group-goes-on-60-minutes/

  50. Rueckert, P.: Pegasus: the new global weapon for silencing journalists (2021). https://forbiddenstories.org/pegasus-the-new-global-weapon-for-silencing-journalists/

  51. Scott-Railton, J., Marczak, B., Razzak, B.A., Crete-Nishihata, M., Deibert, R.: Reckless exploit: Mexican journalists, lawyers, and a child targeted with NSO spyware. University of Toronto, The Citizen Lab (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Lindsay, G., Woods, B., Corman, J.: Issue brief: smart homes and the internet of things. The Atlantic Council: the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, Washington, D.C. (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Meteriz, Ü., Fazιl Yιldιran, N., Kim, J., Mohaisen, D.: Understanding the potential risks of sharing elevation information on fitness applications. In: 2020 IEEE 40th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), pp. 464–473 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Hassan, W.U., Hussain, S., Bates, A.: Analysis of privacy protections in fitness tracking social networks-or-You can run, but can you hide? Presented at the 27th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 18) (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sadowski, J.: When data is capital: datafication, accumulation, and extraction. Big Data Soc. 6, 2053951718820549 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718820549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Käll, J.: The materiality of data as property. Harv. Int. Law J. 61, 1–11 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Michel, M.C.K., King, M.C.: Cyber influence of human behavior: personal and national security, privacy, and fraud awareness to prevent harm. In: 2019 IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS), pp. 1–7. IEEE, Medford, MA, USA (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Anell, S., Grober, L., Krombholz, K.: End user and expert perceptions of threats and potential countermeasures. In: The 5th European Workshop on Usable Security, p. 10. IEEE, Genova, Italy (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  59. Krebs, B.: KrebsOnSecurity hit with record DDoS—Krebs on security (2016). https://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/09/krebsonsecurity-hit-with-record-ddos/

  60. Tabassum, M., Kosiński, T., Lipford, H.R.: ‘I don’t own the data’: end user perceptions of smart home device data practices and risks. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth USENIX Conference on Usable Privacy and Security, pp. 435–450. USENIX Association, USA (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Wright, L.: Economic Espionage and Business Intelligence. In: Wright, L. (ed.) People, Risk, and Security: How to Prevent Your Greatest Asset from Becoming Your Greatest Liability, pp. 91–105. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London (2017)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  62. Rizvi, S., Kurtz, A., Pfeffer, J., Rizvi, M.: Securing the internet of things (IoT): a security taxonomy for IoT. In: 2018 17th IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications/12th IEEE International Conference on Big Data Science and Engineering (TrustCom/BigDataSE), pp. 163–168 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  63. Cimpanu, C.: A massive botnet of CCTV cameras involved in ferocious DDoS attacks (2016). https://news.softpedia.com/news/a-massive-botnet-of-cctv-cameras-involved-in-ferocious-ddos-attacks-505722.shtml

  64. Smith, S.: The Internet of Risky Things: Trusting the Devices That Surround Us. O’Reilly Media Inc., Sebastopol, CA, USA (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  65. McGregor, S.: Why DDoS attacks matter for journalists. https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/journalists_ddos_hack_passwords.php

  66. Agrafiotis, I., Nurse, J.R.C., Goldsmith, M., Creese, S., Upton, D.: A taxonomy of cyber-harms: defining the impacts of cyber-attacks and understanding how they propagate. J Cyber Secur. 4 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyy006

  67. Holcomb, J., Mitchell, A., Page, D.: Investigative journalists and digital security: perceptions of vulnerability and changes in behavior. Pew Research Center in association with Columbia University’s Tow Center for Digital Journalism, Columbia University, New York (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  68. Brevini, B.: Metadata laws, journalism and resistance in Australia. Media Commun. 5, 76–83 (2017). https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v5i1.810

  69. Information Commissioner’s Office: Data protection act 2018: for organisations. https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/data-protection-act-2018/

  70. Shere, A.R.K.: Now you [don’t] see me: how have new legislation and changing public awareness of the UK surveillance state impacted OSINT investigations? J. Cyber Policy 5, 429–448 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2020.1832129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Pavur, J., Knerr, C.: GDPArrrrr: using privacy laws to steal identities. In: Blackhat USA 2019 Whitepaper, p. 10. Blackhat USA, Las Vegas (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  72. Frost, J., Hamlin, A.: Ransomware—a strategic threat to organizations. Mt. Plains J. Bus. Technol. 21 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  73. Solove, D.J., Hartzog, W.: Breached!: Why Data Security Law Fails and How to Improve it. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  74. Cox, J.: Customs and border protection paid $476,000 to a location data firm in new deal. https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/k7qyv3/customs-border-protection-venntel-location-data-dhs

  75. Cox, J.: The loophole the DMV uses to sell your data to private investigators (2020). https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ep47na/dmv-dppa-drivers-privacy-protection-act-buy-data-private-investigators

  76. Aksu, H., Babun, L., Conti, M., Tolomei, G., Uluagac, A.S.: Advertising in the IoT era: vision and challenges (2018). arXiv:1802.04102 [cs]

  77. Rahaman, T.: Smart things are getting smarter: an introduction to the internet of behavior. Med. Ref. Serv. Q. 41, 110–116 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2022.2021046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Abdi, N., Ramokapane, K.M., Such, J.M.: More than smart speakers: security and privacy perceptions of smart home personal assistants. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth USENIX Conference on Usable Privacy and Security, pp. 451–466. USENIX Association, USA (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  79. Alqhatani, A., Lipford, H.R.: ‘There is nothing that i need to keep secret’: sharing practices and concerns of wearable fitness data. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth USENIX Conference on Usable Privacy and Security, pp. 421–434. USENIX Association, USA (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  80. Edu, J.S., Such, J.M., Suarez-Tangil, G.: Smart home personal assistants: a security and privacy review. arXiv:1903.05593 [cs]

  81. Liverpool, L.: Voice assistant recordings could reveal what someone nearby is typing (2020). https://www.newscientist.com/article/2261844-voice-assistant-recordings-could-reveal-what-someone-nearby-is-typing/

  82. Sturgess, J., Nurse, J.R.C., Zhao, J.: A capability-oriented approach to assessing privacy risk in smart home ecosystems. In: 2018 IET PETRAS Living in the Internet of Things: Cybersecurity of the IoT—2018, p. 37 (8 pp.)–37 (8 pp.). Institution of Engineering and Technology, London, UK (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  83. Wakefield, J.: Ring doorbells to send live video to Mississippi police (2020). https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54809228

  84. Shere, A.R.K., Nurse, J.R.C.: Police surveillance of Black Lives Matter shows the danger technology poses to democracy (2020). http://theconversation.com/police-surveillance-of-black-lives-matter-shows-the-danger-technology-poses-to-democracy-142194

  85. Access Now: New world disorder: digital attacks on freedom of assembly (2020). https://www.accessnow.org/new-world-disorder-digital-attacks-on-freedom-of-assembly/

  86. @DFRLab: Data and defense: the case of Strava. https://medium.com/dfrlab/data-and-defense-the-case-of-strava-6b56ee3b1a2

  87. National Security Agency: Limiting Location Data Exposure. National Security Agency, USA (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  88. Binns, A.: Fair game? Journalists’ experiences of online abuse. J. Appl. J. Media Stud. 6, 183–206 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1386/ajms.6.2.183_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Middleton, L.: Woman ‘hacked into ex-boyfriend’s Alexa and told his new girlfriend to leave’ (2020). https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/12/woman-hacked-into-ex-boyfriends-alexa-and-told-his-new-girlfriend-to-leave-13407458/

  90. Moody, G.: The enemy within: welcome to the Internet of gaslighting. https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/the-enemy-within-welcome-to-the-internet-of-gaslighting/

  91. Agence France-Presse (AFP): Hackers use ‘smart’ refrigerator to send 750,000 virus-laced emails (2014). https://www.rawstory.com/2014/01/hackers-use-smart-refrigerator-to-send-750000-virus-laced-emails/

  92. Greenberg, A.: Hackers broke into real news sites to plant fake stories (2020). https://www.wired.com/story/hackers-broke-into-real-news-sites-to-plant-fake-stories-anti-nato/

  93. Hamilton, E.: Eric Hamilton on Twitter: ‘Here’s a thing that happened today. I was recently – and falsely – linked to an article I didn’t write, because the author who DID write it happens to share the same name/byline as I do. I’m not going to link to it because it’s complete garbage’. https://twitter.com/OnetheycallEric/status/1270857748092239872

  94. Honeywell, L.: Leigh Honeywell @ on Twitter: ‘Btw this Eric Hamilton is _not_ the author of the shitty stalker article, just has the misfortune of the same name and profession’. https://twitter.com/hypatiadotca/status/1270978645327110145

  95. Schwedel, S., Palus, H.: A ranking of the weirdest appliances that you can technically tweet from. https://slate.com/technology/2019/08/twitter-electronics-ranked-list-which-is-best.html

  96. Reporters Without Borders: RSF unveils 20/2020 list of press freedom’s digital predators. Reporters without borders. https://rsf.org/en/news/rsf-unveils-202020-list-press-freedoms-digital-predators

  97. Patel, C., Doshi, N.: Security Challenges in IoT Cyber World. In: Hassanien, A.E., Elhoseny, M., Ahmed, S.H., Singh, A.K. (eds.) Security in Smart Cities: Models, Applications, and Challenges, pp. 171–191. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2019)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  98. Staff of Senator Ed Markey: Tracking & Hacking: Security & Privacy Gaps Put American Drivers at Risk. Office of the United States Senator for Massachusetts, Massachusetts, USA (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  99. Bhartiya, S.: Your smart fridge may kill you: the dark side of IoT. https://www.infoworld.com/article/3176673/your-smart-fridge-may-kill-you-the-dark-side-of-iot.html

  100. Nassi, B., Bitton, R., Masuoka, R., Shabtai, A., Elovici, Y.: SoK: Security and privacy in the age of commercial drones. Presented at the 2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  101. McLaughlin, J.: NSA looking to exploit internet of things, including biomedical devices, official says (2016). https://theintercept.com/2016/06/10/nsa-looking-to-exploit-internet-of-things-including-biomedical-devices-official-says/

  102. Ackerman, S., Thielman, S.: US intelligence chief: we might use the internet of things to spy on you (2016). https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/09/internet-of-things-smart-home-devices-government-surveillance-james-clapper

  103. Levy, I.: Hacked doll ‘could open front door’ (2017). https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-38966285

  104. Shaban, H.: An Amazon Echo recorded a family’s conversation, then sent it to a random person in their contacts, report says—The Washington Post (2018). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/05/24/an-amazon-echo-recorded-a-familys-conversation-then-sent-it-to-a-random-person-in-their-contacts-report-says/

  105. Finley, K.: Why tech’s best minds are very worried about the internet of things (2014). https://www.wired.com/2014/05/iot-report/

  106. Mahase, E.: Kashmir communications blackout is putting patients at risk, doctors warn. BMJ 366, l5204 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Elliott, V.: Four ways governments disrupt internet access. https://restofworld.org/2021/four-ways-governments-disrupt-internet-access/

  108. Tanczer, L.: Gender and the Internet of Things (‘IoT’): futureproofing online harms legislation. UCL Department of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy (UCL STEaPP), London, UK (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  109. Reporters Without Borders: 2020 World Press Freedom Index: “Entering a decisive decade for journalism, exacerbated by coronavirus”. RSF. https://rsf.org/en/2020-world-press-freedom-index-entering-decisive-decade-journalism-exacerbated-coronavirus

  110. Deutsche Welle: Morocco arrests journalist on rape and spy charges. https://www.dw.com/en/omar-radi-morocco-journalist/a-54372595

  111. Cap, P.: The Language of Fear: Communicating Threat in Public Discourse. Springer, London, UK (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  112. Lawson, S.: Putting the “war” in cyberwar: metaphor, analogy, and cybersecurity discourse in the United States. First Monday 17 (2012). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v17i7.3848

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council under Grant EP/P00881X/1.

With thanks to Dr. Miranda Melcher, Dr. Jean Debarros and Jonathan Foldi for their invaluable help, support and encouragement. Thanks also to the Cyber Science 2022 reviewers for their useful feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Anjuli R. K. Shere & Andrew Martin

  2. School of Computing, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

    Jason R. C. Nurse

Authors
  1. Anjuli R. K. Shere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jason R. C. Nurse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anjuli R. K. Shere .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Research Series Ltd, London, UK

    Cyril Onwubiko

  2. Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

    Pierangelo Rosati

  3. Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Aunshul Rege

  4. University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Arnau Erola

  5. Lupovis, Glasgow, UK

    Xavier Bellekens

  6. Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

    Hanan Hindy

  7. University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

    Martin Gilje Jaatun

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Shere, A.R.K., Nurse, J.R.C., Martin, A. (2023). Threats to Journalists from the Consumer Internet of Things. In: Onwubiko, C., et al. Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybersecurity, Situational Awareness and Social Media. Springer Proceedings in Complexity. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6414-5_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation