Page - 112 - in Digital Entrepreneurship - Impact on Business and Society

transactions themselvesand thusover theirownprivacy—provided theyunderstand what opportunities and risks the technology as a whole brings with it (Bogdan 2018).This is also reflected in the threecasespresented.Theusersofpatientory, for example, get increased control over their health data. In the sameway, the users of MedBlock and of Kry or other telemedicine providers are also strengthened—for example, by the gain in flexibility and confidence in their data security. Users are currently accustomed tocentralisedcontrol systems invarious areasof social life. This ismainly because responsibilities can be assigned directly.With a blockchain, this is not the case. Participants should, therefore, alwaysbe aware that the risk ultimately lies with each user himself or herself. Conversely, this means that, especially in a transitional period, online consultingorganisationsmust ensure that users canmake use of both blockchain-based and “traditional” forms of data processing. On the platform side, the question of integrating previous data pro- cessing into theblockchain arises. Furthermore, questionsofdigital ethics (Capurro 2017;Grimmet al. 2019)will also have to be discussed—especially regarding the unavoidablepermanenceof the information storedon theblockchain.Governments should also create legal models and instruments to provide a legal framework for the management of digital assets. Regulatory supervision and thus also centrali- sation, however, are controversial, as it takes the idea of decentralisation, which underlies the blockchain technology, to absurdity. Overall, it can be stated that private (and sometimes federated) blockchains appear to be particularly suitable for data processing in digital services by com- panies: these types of blockchains combine all the following advantages which allowthoseseekingandreceivinghelp to interactwitheachotherasbest aspossible without the risk of data being leaked to third parties: integrity, manipulation and failure safety through transparency, decentralisation, majority principle and cryptography. References Agbo, C. C.,Mahmoud,Q.H.,&Eklund, J.M. (2019). Blockchain technology in healthcare: A systematic review.Healthcare. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare7020056. Backhaus, N., & Thüring,M. (2015). Trust in cloud computing: pro and contra from the user’s point of view. i-com. https://doi.org/10.1515/icom-2015-0001. Baumann, C. et al. (2017). TeleTrust-Bundesverband IT-Sicherheit. https://www.teletrust. de/fileadmin/docs/publikationen/broschueren/Blockchain/2017_TeleTrusT-Positionspapier_ Blockchain__.pdf. Accessed 14April 2020. Bertsch, A. (2002).Digitale signaturen. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. BitFury Group. (2015). Public versus private blockchains part 1: permissioned blockchains. BitFury Group. https://bitfury.com/content/downloads/public-vs-private-pt1-1.pdf. Accessed 14April 2020. Blix, M., & Jeansson, J. (2018). Telemedicine and the welfare state: The swedish experience. Research Institute of Industrial Economics.Working Paper Series 1238. Bogdan, B. (2018). MedRevolution—Neue technologien am Puls der Patienten. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. 116 S. Gerth and L. Heim