Stop the PIA

My own sense is that this sounds good, parallel to an ‘environmental impact assessment’ (EIA). But the history of EIA should clearly alert us to the risk that impact assessments are unlikely to prevent risks to privacy and data protection. To the contrary, they are likely to cover the backside of actors who can say they submitted a risk assessment, be limited to primarily a symbolic victory for privacy, and clearly raise the costs of all software and systems developments, creating a new set of businesses employed to write PIAs for organizations.

The concept of a privacy impact assessment is one of those initiatives that sounds good, and rings all the right bells to be politically popular, but that will not accomplish its intended aims and undoubtedly have negative, unintended consequences. I hope the privacy community takes a more critical look at the rhetoric in support of this bureaucratic silver bullet that carries its own risks.

Happy to receive comments, as I am sure my view is a minority opinion, but every discussion of the issue convinces me all the more that the PIA is a mistake. I hope some bright students begin to evaluate the actual impact of the PIA.

Call  for  Papers: http://www.york.ac.uk/satsu/news-events/ics/

The   ubiquitous   social   and   cultural   adoption   of   social   media,   such   as   Twitter,   Google,   Wikipedia,  YouTube  and  Facebook  can  be  seen  to  present  a  significant  example  of  scientific   and   technological   innovation   in   many   contemporary   societies.   While   some   studies   of   social   media   and,   more   specifically,   Web   2.0   platforms   built   around   user-­‐‑generated   content,   have   made   reference   to   the   importance   of   the   field   of   science   and   technology   studies   (STS)   for   understanding   their   development   and  diffusion,   scholars   working   within   this   academic   framework   have   yet   to   fully   turn   their   focus   on   this   area.   This   three-­‐‑day   symposium   is   intended   to   explore   the   intersection   between   STS   and   social   media  inquiry,  with  a  specific  focus  on  how  Web  2.0  is  both  generative  and  challenging  of  different  forms  of  knowledge  (co-­‐‑)production  and  the  authority  it  commands.
• The  user-­‐‑centred  and  mass-­‐‑collaboration  characteristics  of  social  media  platforms   have  a  clear  affinity  with  recent  STS  models  of  the  co-­‐‑construction  of   technologies.  Notions  such  as  ‘prosumerism’  have  been  used  to  describe  this   blurring  of  the  relationship  between  the  consumer  and  producer.  However,  we   need  to  ask  whether  this  is  to  be  seen  as  co-­‐‑construction  or  primarily  a  re-­‐‑ engineering  of  labour  relations  and  the  locus  of  production?  We  also  need  to  ask   whether  the  ubiquity  extends  across  all  social  media  for  all  types  of  content.  In   other  words,  are  new  forms  of  expertise  being  inscribed,  or  are  old  knowledge   hierarchies  being  reinforced?
• STS  challenges  the  traditional  perception  of  scientific  ‘discovery’  and   technological  advancement,  to  demonstrate  the  co-­‐‑production  of  claims  to   knowledge  and  the  different  forms  and  assemblages  of  knowledge  this  involves:   how  does  this  map  onto  commentaries  on  the  importance  of  lay  knowledge  and   ‘citizen  science’  found  in  Web  2.0  as  individuals  and  groups  distribute  ideas  and   information  across  their  social  networks?  Could  this  provide  a  new  impetus  for   ‘public  interest  science’?
• How  do  the  same  issues  relate  to  the  social  sciences  themselves:  how  might  Web   2.0  provide  opportunities  for  new  forms  of  data  and  data  analytics  (for  example,   as  ‘virtual  knowledge’  via  crowdsourcing,  real-­‐‑time  data  streaming,  by-­‐‑product
data  etc)  and  in  what  ways  do  these  challenge  conventional  social  science  by   opening  up  questions  about  what  data  itself  constitutes  and  what  order  of  being   it  represents?
• How  might  lay,  amateur  knowledge  be  mobilised  as  ‘citizen  science’  and  what   warrant,  authorisation  and  location  in  established  science  might  it  secure?  How   might  the  contribution  of  Web  2.0  science  platforms  differ  from  the  amateur   societies  of  the  19th  and  20th  centuries?
• It  has  been  claimed  that  algorithms  and  code  play  an  increasingly  powerful  part   in  shaping  and  constituting  everyday  life,  it  has  even  been  claimed  that   algorithms  are  creating  new  rules  and  power  structures  that  unknowingly  come   to  restructure  social  hierarchies  and  divisions.  How,  for  example,  do  algorithms   make  decisions  for  us?  How  do  algorithms  bypass  or  re-­‐‑craft  human  agency?   What  are  the  implications  of  this?  Exactly  how  do  algorithms,  code  and  metrics   shape  everyday  life  and  access  to  knowledge?
• Do  the  open  source  platforms  and  social  media  tools  of  Web  2.0  come  into   tension  with  the  international  standardisation  and  codification  of  global  ICT   infrastructures  and  local  and  global  knowledge  infrastructures?
• Finally,  the  more  celebratory  characterisations  of  social  media  emanating  from   the  marketing  world  typically  lack  a  critical  focus:  can  social  media  and  STS   analyses  build  a  political  economy  of  Web  2.0  to  provide  such  a  focus,  by   explicitly  addressing  issues  of  participatory  surveillance,  exclusion  and  control?
Papers  are  invited  that  explore  these  broad  questions  around  a  number  of  possible   themes,  including:

• The  boundaries  and  future  of  social  media  as  a  medium  of  knowledge  creation,   dissemination,  and  regulation
• The  co-­‐‑production  of  knowledge  via  Web  2.0  platforms   • Knowledge,  expertise  and  disruptive/disrupted  authority   • Capturing  social  media:  the  commercial/political  exploitation  by  or  empowering
of  Web  2.0   • Ownership,  dissemination  and  use  of  scientific  knowledge   • E-­‐‑governance  and  the  regulation  of  knowledge  within  social  media     • National  practices  and  global  opportunities   • Novel  forms  of  knowledge  creation  through  group  processes, archiving,  digitization  etc.   • Public  and  visible  science
Confirmed  plenary  speakers  include: Geof  Bowker,  University  of  Pittsburgh;  Leah  Lievrouw,  UCLA;   Adrian  MacKenzie,  Cesagen,  University  of  Lancaster;  Rob  Proctor,  e-­‐‑Research  Centre,  University  of  Manchester;  Robin  Williams,  ISSTI,  Edinburgh;  Sally  Wyatt,  e-­Humanities  Programme,  Royal  Netherlands  Academy  of  Arts  and   Sciences.

This  conference  is  intended  to  bring  together  some  of  the  leading  scholars  in  the  fields  of   STS,  Communication  and  Social  Media  analysis,  and  the  history  and  philosophy  of   science  to  critically  explore  these  issues.

Please  send  abstracts  of  proposed  papers  to  sarah-­‐‑shrive-­‐‑morriosn@york.ac.uk  by  29   February  2012      Registration  information  is  available  on  the  SATSU  site:   www.york.ac.uk/satsu

Conference  organising  committee:  David  Beer,  Darren  Reed,  Mike  Hardey,  Brian  Loader,   Sarah  Shrive-­Morrison,  Andrew  Webster,  Robin  Williams,  Sally  Wyatt

The  deadline  for  this  call  for  papers  is  29  February  2012.  If  you  are  interested  to  submit   an  individual  paper  or  panel  including  3  papers  please  go  to  web-­‐‑link  or  contact  email   satsu@york.ac.uk

Conference  Fees   The  ICS  conference  is  completely  funded  through  self-­finance.  iCS  therefore  needs  to   charge  a  conference  fee  applicable  to  all  participating  in  this  conference,  including   speakers.  However,  all  panel  organisers,  speakers  and  moderators  will  receive  a  £25   discount  on  the  conference  fee.  The  conference  fee  covers  the  administration  and   production  of  the  conference,  hire  of  venue  and  a/v  equipment,  and  the  catering  costs.   The  estimated  conference  fees  for  this  coming  year  are:  Full  fee  between  £100-­150;   Concessions  between  £75-­£125;  Day  fee  between  £75-‑125  (all  fees  to  include  lunch).

His passing led me to immediately recall the famous 1984 Apple Macintosh commercial. The beautiful female athlete that hurls the hammer into the screen that was displaying Big Brother, speaking to the masses, is certainly the anti-thesis of the computer nerd, Steve Jobs. But surely she represented his ambition to liberate the individual computer user. The innovations he has been associated with have done much to enable more individuals to use technologies in ways that provided them with more communicative power and the ability to hold institutions across society more accountable. He is often criticised for moving towards an appliance-based, walled-garden approach, but his smart phone and tablets have not become a substitute for the personal computer, but more of a complement that extends and embeds the Internet in everyday life and work (Dutton and Blank 2011).

Barack Obama has been quoted as saying that Jobs ‘… changed the way each of us sees the world’. Indeed, and he enabled each of us to have more personal control over how we see the world.

References

Dutton, W. H., and Blank, G. (2011), Next Generation Users: The Oxford Internet Survey 2011. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford.

If you would like an offprint please contact enquiries@oii.ox.ac.uk giving your name and postal address.

The paper draws on research undertaken over the last five years in the Oxford e-Social Science project (OeSS), which was central to our edited book, World Wide Research.  The project aims to understand how e-Research projects negotiate various social, ethical, legal and organizational forces and constraints, in order to help researchers avoid these problems when building scientific collaborations and tools for research.

World Wide Research

Hold the date: We will be holding a number of events in the coming months drawing on the research of OeSS, which may be of interest to you. Further details to follow:

8 September in Oxford: Michael Nielsen on his forthcoming book with Princeton University Press, entitled Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science.

24 November in Oxford or London: a showcase event highlighting some of the conclusions of the OeSS project that can inform and stimulate debate over the ethical, legal and institutional implications for the future of digital research across all disciplines.

Sincerely

Bill

William Dutton, Professor of Internet Studies

You can access my papers on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=478025

A Meeting to be held as part of an ESRC Seminar Series entitled ‘Digital Policy: Connectivity, Creativity and Rights‘

Location: Oxford Internet Institute (OII) Seminar Room, 1 St Giles’, Oxford

Time: 10.00-16.00 on 24 June 2011

An invited group of academics and practitioners will meet at the OII on 24 June 2011 to identify the key policy issues that should be considered in the UK’s new communications bill. Press coverage of the Oxford Media Convention, various interviews over the following months, and an open letter by the Minister, indicate that the Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) plans to issue a green paper in the near-future – possibly by the end of the summer or early autumn 2011. Therefore is critical that debate over the key objectives and issues of the new communications bill begins early, before the initial green paper is published. The meeting will be one in an ESRC Seminar Series, entitled ‘Digital Policy: Connectivity, Creativity and Rights’: http://idl.newport.ac.uk/digitalpolicy/ for which I am a co-principal. My colleagues and I are in the early life of this series, but one of our clear aims is to help shape and inform debate about digital policy. It is difficult to think of a more significant focus of a discussion of digital policy in Britain than the forthcoming communications bill. That said, we would define ‘digital policy’ broadly, in the spirit of increasing convergence across the ecology of media and related information and communication technologies, such as the Internet and mobile communication, that are shaping the quality and diversity of communication in the UK and worldwide.

If you would like to join this discussion, please comment on this blog or send a note to <events@oii.ox.ac.uk> at your earliest convenience. We are trying to limit numbers but should be able to bring in individuals that can add to the mix of expertise we wish to assemble on the day. Whether or not you can attend this session, you are invited to send a one-page position paper before the 17th of June, which we will use to identify the key issues. I will edit and collate these for participants on the day, and use them to shape the agendafor the seminar. A key outcome of this meeting is the identification of key issues, but we also hope this meeting will suggest follow-ups to this discussion, which can be organised by the ESRC Seminar Series, or by others, as we seek to broaden and deepen discussion of the communications bill.

A short summary of the seminar will be posted in due course, but do let me know if you wish to attend, and please post or send your thoughts on critical issues. Also consult the event page on the OII Web site for further details at: http://oii.ox.ac.uk/events/?id=445

This first seminar was entitled ‘Digital Wales: Inclusive Creativity and Economy’ to take full advantage of key speakers and participants from Wales, including: Cardiff University Professor Ian Hargreaves, one of the founding members of the Ofcom Board; David Warrender, Director of Digital Wales for the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG); Alan Burge, Communities Directorate for the WAG; and Rhodri Williams, Director Ofcom Wales. This worked well, in part because Wales has placed a real priority on a set of initiatives around a ‘Digital Wales’, focused largely on the creative industries, but also on access to next generation Internet infrastructures. http://wales.gov.uk/topics/businessandeconomy/publications/heartofdigitalwales/?lang=en

The discussion was wide-ranging and engaging – too broad to be summarized here, but it will be summarized in due course on the series Web site. However, Professor Young has posted a short overview of the objectives of the series online at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzKZF6Ff7JY

I came away from the launch seminar more fully convinced of the value of having a focus on specific local, regional and national initiatives, such as Digital Wales. It anchors the discussion in a specific setting and provides an impetus to discuss specific projects, such as initiatives in video production across Wales. My own contribution to the forum focused on providing one perspective on the agenda for the series as a whole. I argued that the series could make a contribution by focusing on the UK context and the particular issues raised for nations, and such issues as rural access, the vitality of small businesses, and emerging debate over the ‘big society’. In addition, I thought we should focus on clarifying distinctions between initiatives relevant to network individuals, as well as networked institutions. And of course we need to address key issues of infrastructure, content regulation and new policy, such as the drafting of a new communications act for the UK.

My other point was the there were several ways in which academic participation in this policy discussion could add value. One was the role we could play in assessing alternative policy initiatives from the perspective of connectivity, creativity and rights, among other criteria. We should be particularly well equipped to bring evidence and empirical research to bear on these issues, and be well positioned to question taken-for-granted assumptions about the impact of policy. Secondly, we should be well positioned to provide a neutral meeting ground for discussion among a full range of stakeholders. We may have interests and preferences ourselves, but our primary incentive is to be open, and accountable as academics. If we do not provide a neutral meeting ground, our reputation is at risk. Thirdly, we should have a special role in putting local developments, whether in Wales or Britain as a whole, in a broader context, whether that be global trends or the broader ecology of particular policy areas. I used my work on the ecology of choices shaping freedom of expression as an example. Finally, I hope that the participation by academics opens up discussion of the policy process in Britain. Is the policy process providing adequate opportunities for debate? Is it sufficiently transparent and publicly accountable? Is government tapping the expertise of citizens? My own sense is that progress could be made on all of these fronts.

Slides for my own presentation are posted on Slideshare at: http://www.slideshare.net/WHDutton/towards-an-agenda-on-digital-wales-2011

In 2011, the European Forum Alpbach will deal with “Justice – Responsibility for the Future”. From September 18 until September 3, 4.000 people from over 60 countries will once again come to the Tyrolian mountain village of Alpbach to discuss and explore current issues in the interdisciplinary setting of our conference. Once again, we are calling for applications for scholarships which will enable students and recent graduates to participate in this equally fascinating and venerable event. Please find all relevant information below.

The pursuit of justice is inherently human. The subjectivity of our perception gives rise to as many different opinions as there are human beings. When our own views or positions are negated by someone else’s, we feel the need for “justice”: we start looking for a superior authority that will solve our conflicts with the surrounding world and impose an order on opposing attitudes. Under the heading “Justice – Responsibility for the Future”, the European Forum Alpbach 2011 is centred on the conviction that justice and fairness are not only a necessity, but an ethical imperative. Only if we strive to create fair systems today, will we be able to live up to our responsibility towards future generations, their peaceful coexistence and their sustenance.

The European Forum Alpbach 2011 will give its participants a choice of 16 one-week seminars which will analyse the manifestations of “Justice – Responsibility for the Future” in a great variety of academic fields. The Alpbach Symposia will approach the topic from a more practice-oriented vantage point. A large number of panel discussions will give you the opportunity to debate the most burning current issues in the fields of healthcare, technology, economics, international politics, spatial planning and financial markets. Summer Schools for European Law and Health Care Policy, as well as a rich cultural programme, complete the agenda.

Our international interdisciplinary conference offers participants the opportunity to enter into discussion with renowned personalities. In a unique atmosphere, experts from politics, business and academia will discuss burning issues of our times with the participants. An extensive social programme gives participants the chance to continue debates outside the conference and seminar rooms. The special nature of the European Forum attracts around 4,000 participants to the Tyrolean village of Alpbach every year.

To enable young people to share in this experience, we offer scholarships for students and recent graduates with the kind support of our donors.

I cordially invite you to apply for a scholarship. Please forward this message to colleagues who might be interested.

For more details about the scholarship program please have a look at our website http://www.alpbach.org/scholarships

Best regards,

Franz Mailer

European Forum Alpbach Non-Profit Foundation under Private Law
Invalidenstrasse 5/7, 1030 Vienna, Austria
fon: +43 1 7181711-13
fax: +43 1 7181701
e-mail: stipendium@alpbach.org

PS: In numerous European countries, Alpbach Initiative Groups and Clubs offer additional scholarship opportunities. These associations, which are run by Alpbach alumni, also organise events in the spirit of Alpbach. More details can be found at http://www.alpbach.org/asscociates

William H. Dutton, Anna Dopatka, Michael Hills, Ginette Law, and Victoria Nash (2011), Freedom of Connection – Freedom of Expression: The Changing Legal and Regulatory Ecology Shaping the Internet. Paris: UNESCO, Division for Freedom of Expression, Democracy and Peace.

There was a launch event in Paris on 30 May, with a press release providing details on the launch and access to the online and print versions of the manuscript at: http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31418&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Networking Public Expertise

Abstract

The potential of crowd sourcing has captured the imagination of many managers and professionals across all sectors of society, but left many others quite skeptical. This is not only because conceptions of the wisdom of crowds appear counter-intuitive, but also, if taken literally, these concepts can be misleading and therefore dysfunctional for governments seeking to adopt innovations in distributed collaboration. This paper challenges conventional notions of the wisdom of crowds, arguing that distributed intelligence must be well structured by technical platforms and management strategies. After clarifying these conceptual issues, the paper explains how collaborative networking can be used to harness the distributed expertise of citizens, as distinguished from citizen consultation, which seeks to engage citizens – each on an equal footing. Networking the public as advisors aims to involve experts on particular public issues and problems distributed anywhere in the world. The paper then describes the lessons learned from previous efforts to citizen source advice, and why governments should again pursue this strategy as a means to inform policy and decision-making. This is followed by a set of nine strategies for fostering the bottom-up development of governmental initiatives aimed at harnessing distributed public expertise.

If there is any difficulty obtaining this paper, a copy is available on SSRN at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1767870

Freedom of Connection - Freedom of Expression (cover)

An ‘International Symposium on Freedom of Expression’, organized by UNESCO with the support of the Swedish National Commission for UNESCO, will be held on 26 January 2011 at UNESCO’s headquarters in Paris. Key topics for panels include ‘The Status of Press Freedom Worldwide’, ‘Freedom of Expression on the Internet’, and ‘Press Freedom and the Safety of Journalists’. I am hopeful that our manuscript for UNESCO, entitled ‘Freedom of Connection – Freedom of Expression’ will be launched at the event. The penultimate draft is available online at: <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1654464>

President Obama in Cairo

Abstract:

The Internet has stimulated innovation in American public diplomacy methods towards the Middle East, from one-way communication through broadcasting and the print media to a more interactive model in which the government joins the conversation. This paper assesses the potential of this new model through an analysis of an early US government Web 2.0 public diplomacy initiative, the State Department’s Digital Outreach Team (DOT), focusing on an embedded case study, that of Arabic Internet discussions of Barack Obama’s Cairo speech of 4 June 2009, in which the DOT participated.
Your comments would be welcomed.

Tech weekly:  WikiLeaks, Anonymous and cyber war
Guardian Online, 14/12/10
Professor William Dutton of the Oxford Internet Institute joins a panel on a podcast hosted by Jemima Kiss to discuss WikiLeaks and the news that major internet companies and services have been taken offline in a battle between hackers and government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/audio/2010/dec/14/tech-weekly-wikileaks-cables-cyberwar-audio

Who rules the web?
Al Jazeera net, 14/12/10
Professor Bill Dutton, professor of internet studies at Oxford University, is on Inside Story, which asks: ‘Who controls the flow of information on the internet? Who sets the rules and under what terms?’
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/insidestory/2010/12/201012151234554295.html

Rationale

The Internet has become a motor of change in the relationships of consumers with business and industry. Internet users have new opportunities to enhance their power as consumers. They may obtain information regarding an immense range of relevant goods and services and benefit from the enormous possibilities available to participate in social networks, express their opinions on brand names, access independent sources of expertise, and interact and dialogue with firms and other service providers. They can play an active role in marketing communication processes and participate much more in the development and consumption of products. For their part, the Internet – including the processing systems used to manage great masses of consumer data – allow businesses to define and develop marketing proposals that are more precise and more closely matched to their customers. In sum, the new possibilities offered by the Internet make possible advanced forms of exchanges and interactions within which consumers, businesses and other service providers collaborate in the creation and reproduction of the market.

This potential of the Internet to transform the marketing and commercial environment could spawn a field of research within the larger arena of Internet Studies. Early research related to the Internet-based consumer focused on obtaining user profiles and on the segmentation of online consumers. However, as use of the Internet as a marketing channel increased, resulting in its wider use as a purchasing medium, subsequent research became centred on a plethora of questions directly related to the consumer, such as the factors influencing the consumer’s involvement in purchasing behaviours; online consumer satisfaction and loyalty; trust in purchase decisions on the Internet; consumer affairs and protection; as well as the adaptation of classic theories and models to explain online consumer behaviour. In addition, with the emergence of the applications of social networking and the thrust of recent proposals in business sciences – such as, for example, new service-dominant logic and Customer Relationship Marketing (CRM), a new wave of studies has emerged. New studies examine the forms in which the Internet empowers the consumer; exploring the new routes for co-creation of value and for participation on the part of the consumer in processes of innovation and in the generation of content; evaluating the impact of personalization practices tied to CRM programmes and to the new forms of interaction; and, finally, examining the relationship with the brand in virtual communities. A closely related area of research is focused on analyzing the institutional framework of online consumer protection.

Topics of interest include, but are not limited to the following:

• Critical perspectives on the growing body of research into the Internet and the Consumer, which help to define the state of this field, its dynamism, and the critical areas in need of clarification and further research.
• Insights into the main contributions made in the research on the online consumer to the larger domain of ‘Internet Studies’, in terms of new theories, data and methods.
• Comprehensive overviews of key issues in Internet Studies on the Consumer -such as, for example flow, trust, eCRM, brand communities, co-creation and empowerment, which include major findings and directions for further research.

For more on the workshop, see the Web site.

Rationale

Digital policy is high on political, communications and commercial agendas currently with the Digital Economy Bill (BIS 2009-10) currently going through Parliament following on from the Digital Britain Final Report in June 2009 (BIS 2009).  While the digital revolution is already well underway in the UK in terms of business developments and changes in daily life, these transitions mark a major policy and legislative push towards Britain’s digital future. Controversial areas such as copyright infringement, the future and functions of public service content, and the role of Ofcom are core to these changes.  In broader terms the potential for economic transformations and growth through the digital economy, new skills, innovation and creativity, are key concerns.

The three core areas of focus of the seminar series offer an original synthesis bringing together consideration of connectivity, creativity and rights to encourage links between technical, political and economic issues. The series will consider connectivity from social and skills-based as well as infrastructural and technical perspectives. Creativity will be examined in a wide sense including creative and media industries, transitions in public service and other forms of content, new knowledge and networking and political and commercial innovations. Rights points not only to the importance of digital inclusivity but broader concerns of digital empowerment through access not only to digital technologies but to the knowledge, skills and motivations that are required to use in imaginative ways and to their full potential. The benefits to individuals and communities as well as to the economy at large are at stake here. Across the seminar series different aspects of the digital knowledge economy, knowledge work and skills and rights issues will be addressed including from critical perspectives.

An innovative approach of the series will be to examine these areas through multi-stakeholder engagement to identify the practical implications and challenges as well as critical debates about winners and losers in the digital game. It will bring policymakers and politicians at different levels together with academics, regulators, communications, media and creative industry representatives as well as members of NGOs, social and digital entrepreneurs and innovators.

The organizers of the series recognize that at this moment of profound digital change an inclusive debate of the kind that can only be stimulated by bringing actors with contrasting interests together is crucial. Not least to identify major tensions and concerns as well as opportunities, but also any areas requiring a particular policy focus, including in relation to complex issues of access and digital rights at collective and individual levels. What kind of digital future is envisaged in Britain? Who continues to be left out or at risk of being left out of this digital future? What can be done to overcome major technical, knowledge and skills barriers to this? How much control needs to be exerted to achieve a safe online environment including for the most vulnerable? What new kinds of creativity and innovation are being unleashed by digital change and how can these be expanded? How is the public service ethos being tested and enhanced in the digital environment? These are the kinds of questions that are central to this series.

Seminar Format

There will be at least five seminars, with additional seminars possible through support from other sources. The first will be held over two days to launch the series and explore the linking themes in some depth, and then four one-day seminars to focus in detail on separate areas. The aim will be to have some core participants who will attend a number of the seminars and then participants related to each theme for the individual seminars. All seminars will have a mix of stakeholders, ranging across policy, business and civil society, in addition to academics to generate theory/practice connections in fresh and productive ways. The aim will be to involve between 30 and 40 people in each seminar including core group participants (regular attendees) and guest speakers and participants.

Dr Sarikakis

 

 

Tracy Simmons

Gillian Youngs

The series is international. First it aims to examine digital Britain in its global context. Secondly, it aims to do that in part through the direct participation in the series of leading scholars from North America, Canada, Europe and East Asia. Finally, it aims to harness digital media in its own methodology in engagement and outreach terms, such as by using the Internet to extend cost effectively the number of international speakers who can be invovled in the series, and by using the web to enable worldwide access to the series. By experimenting with popular social media such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, the series also aims to contribute to new models of academic practice.

The international contributions to the series are vital when digital communication and problems and challenges affecting it have national dimensions and characteristics but also go well beyond them in creating an era of everyday global communication for leisure as much as work, consumption as much as production. The international aspects of the series will stimulate interesting comparative questions for research, contrasting areas of good practice, varied perspectives on issues such as risk, and different sets of policy priorities and objectives. The international character of the series will also significantly enhance its outputs, both in terms of the text and audiovisual material to be mounted online, but also the academic publications from the series. It is also anticipated  that new international networks will develop out of the series which will give academics at all levels of experience and others involved access to knowledge outside of the UK context. The in-depth quality of the seminars will offer plenty of opportunity for new research collaborations to be generated.

The ESRC Research Seminar Series ‘Digital Policy: Connectivity, Creativity and Rights’ (RES-451-26-0849) runs from 2011 to 2013 led by Prof. Gillian Youngs, University of Wales, Newport, with Dr Tracy Simmons, University of Leicester, Prof. Bill Dutton, Oxford Internet Institute, and Prof. Katharine Sarikakis, University of Vienna.

Online Petitions

This initiative has already led to concerns being raised over ‘frivolous’ petitions and the gaming of this system by organized pressure groups. This ignores the degree that bad ideas are raised, from time to time, by parliamentarians, and dismisses the ability of parliament to assess the merits of a petition drive. This should be an all party initiative given the role that the Labour Party played in introducing e-Petitions in the UK, but in opposition, the Labour Party might not follow through on this innovation.

Of course, a valid concern is over the potential for a large segment of the public to support measures that are unwise. For example, many referenda supported in California have been judged unconstitutional by the courts. However, this is not a referendum, but only an opportunity to put an issue on the table. What better way is there for politicians to explain and debate issues of concern to the public. They need not be tied by a petition to discuss the issue.

Hopefully, the government will sense public support for this initiative so that it moves ahead as soon as practical.

For press coverage, see:

eWeek Government Moves Towards Bills By Crowdsourcing, December 28, 2010 by Eric Doyle

MPs, the class apart by Daily Mail Comment, 29th December 2010

Petitions and Democracy

UNESCO

UNESCO is holding an ‘International Symposium on Freedom of Expression‘ on 26 January 2011, with the support of the Swedish National Commission for UNESCO. One panel session will focus on freedom of expression on the Internet, and we also expect that our UNESCO publication, entitled ‘Freedom of Connection – Freedom of Expression‘, will be launched. A penultimate draft of the manuscript is online at SSRN, but a print version will be available by the date of the symposium.

There has hardly been a more critical time to focus on freedom of expression. It is not simply WikiLeaks that makes this a timely topic, but also worldwide trends in policy and practice that could undermine expression online unless the larger ecology of policies shaping expression are more fully understood.

Symposium site at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/resources/events/international-symposium-on-freedom-of-expression/

A Perspectives Workshop supported by Dagstuhl

[27.09.09 - 02.10.09, Seminar 09402]

Organized by:

David Chaum (K.U. Leuven, BE)
William H. Dutton (University of Oxford, GB)
Miroslaw Kutylowski (Wroclaw University of Technology, PL)
Tracy Westen (Center for Governmental Studies – Los Angeles, US)

Three Organizers Finding Their Way Near Dagstuhl

Summary

The workshop was a meeting forum for experts in the area of computer security and social sciences. The main idea of the seminar was to discuss new challenges for democracy during the transition from traditional society into a society where network communication influences so much social and political life.

The workshop participants discussed the key issues behind success or failure of electronic systems in e-democracy. While advances of technology play a central role in evolution of e-democracy, the main threats and failures are due to insufficient cooperation and lack of understanding between IT specialists and those from political and social sciences. In the past, major failures can be attributed to a narrow view of the systems supporting e-democracy. For this reason many fundamental mistakes have been made.

Some major problems arise when technical sciences and social sciences meet. On the one hand, computer specialists are often unaware of real requirements for the emerging systems, on the other hand the specialists from social sciences might be unaware of technical limitations due to hermetic language of computer security professionals. Nevertheless, the workshop participants succeeded immediately in building up a working group focused on identifying the most crucial issues for development of future e-democracy systems.

The result of the workshop is a set of recommendations for decision-makers regarding e-democracy systems. The list does not consider all problems that may arise, but brings focus to those that in our opinion have the biggest impact.

Dagstuhl Castle

Recommendations

1. Encourage Interdisciplinary Collaboration. Severe design errors may result from making decisions based on partial expertise, or from separate groups working in isolation. As design processes for technologies used in democratic systems should include a wide range of competencies, it is vital that lawyers, public officials and social scientists are engaged as well as computer scientists and engineers. Unfortunately, the workshop participants observe that this is not a common practice today and many fundamental errors in the past resulted from partial expertise.

2. Ensure Effective Take-up of E-democracy Solutions. At present, government-driven processes (like elections, disclosure of information) are often so conservative that they fail to take full advantage of new technologies and approaches, despite that they have proved effective elsewhere. The reason for this phenomenon is a discrepancy between available solutions that are ready to use and specific requirements of e-democracy. Substantial amount of research is necessary to adapt emerging technologies to meet the diverse requirements of e-democracy.

3. Deploy Appropriate Design Models. The lesson we have learnt during the last decades is that the really successful systems are in practice the flexible ones that were not designed by a single organization but have instead developed through collaborative efforts of many participants driven by their interests and needs. Therefore we feel that new technical systems supporting e-democracy should be small, flexible, modular and based on proven off-the-shelf technical components, rather than be large, centralized special-purpose systems.

4. Promote Best Practice. There are examples of excellent solutions which are implemented and used in practice. However, dissemination of such best practices is limited. A survey should be conducted of best practices. This is particularly important for making government information accessible online inexpensively, efficiently and in forms that are easy to use by the public. Today, inefficient access to information is one of the major weaknesses of democracies, despite many efforts. Pilot projects should then be funded to implement these best practices in a number of different jurisdictions. Information on best practices and pilot projects should be made available to the public in easily accessible formats.

5. Support Open-Audit Systems. Research on electronic voting systems has shown that our approach to security assurance should be redefined. Traditional certification by trusted bodies should be continued, however in order to provide undeniable evidence open-audit concepts should be developed. In particular, current field trials of open-audit voting systems should be carefully assessed and documented. When they are successful, larger-scale trials should be encouraged.

6. Learn from Web 2.0 Innovations. Public officials and system designers should draw on the experience of Web-based social networks. There are substantial technical and social challenges related to Web 2.0, but there are opportunities as well. This should be taken into account when planning online systems for democratic decision making.

7. Address Conflicting Requirements. Quite often, requirements for e-democracy systems are in conflict. A prominent example are e-voting systems, which have to provide strong privacy of vote casting and voters’ identification at the same time. Since according to the present state-of-the-art the answers for many fundamental questions are still missing, more research should be directed towards new technologies that have the potential to reconcile between such conflicting requirements. This concerns in particular privacy enhancing technologies, identity management and cryptographic protocols.

8. Gain Public Acceptance. One of preconditions for introducing technical systems supporting democratic processes is gaining understanding, acceptance and confidence by the lay, non-scientific public. A failure to do so would immediately undermine the citizens’ will to engage in the process. Therefore technical solutions for e-democracy that support democratic processes should be made simple enough, or must be so widely endorsed by the scientific community and other trusted societal leaders. Democratic technologies should be designed with widespread public acceptance as a key design parameter.

9. Fund Civic Engagement Experiments. Since in the field of e-democracy we are entering unknown grounds, a lot can be learned from examples. For this reason, governments should be encouraged to fund experimentations with technologies that support greater online civic engagement in democratic processes (voting, information acquisition, collaborative participation in government decisions). On the one hand, such government funding will encourage technological research as well as provide computer scientists with the priorities they require. On the other hand, these experimentations will allow the citizens to influence design evolution so that it goes in the right direction.

10. Share Knowledge Between Disciplines. Lack of interaction and sometimes even barriers for interdisciplinary work is one of the main risk factors for development of e-systems supporting democracy. Therefore, various contributions made by different disciplines to e-democracy development can be strengthened through forums that encourage (not only verbally) dialogue between multidisciplinary groups of computer and social scientists, legal scholars, practitioners and policy experts.

For more about results of the seminar see the article in Social Sciences Research Network Machiavelli Confronts 21st Century Digital Technology: Democracy in a Network Society published by the workshop participants.

Related Seminars

• 07311: “Frontiers of Electronic Voting “ (2007)

Presentations ranged from sweeping historical treatments on coping with the complexity of evolving social and technical systems (Sander Van der Leeuw) and the rise of an information age (Luciano Floridi) to conceptually focused discussions of such issues as trust (Gloria Origgi). My presentation was more empirically grounded (almost out of place), as I focused on trends over the last decade with respect to the Internet that raised issues for the future, such as closing digital divides and responding to a rising push for greater regulation of the Internet in ways that will not undermine its vitality and openness. I of course noted some emerging developments of central importance to my own work, such as collaborative network organizations and the Fifth Estate. Most discussion was around issues of futures studies and visions, while everyone seemed equally skeptical of any ‘futurology’, which seems to be the catch-all term for undisciplined future gazing.

Albert Borschette Conference Center

I found it especially useful in reinforcing my sense that the study of the Internet and related ICTs is reaching a new stage. It is moving from work that focused on whether the Internet or other ICTs will improve on old ways of doing things, to accepting the increasing centrality of the Internet and related ICTs, and focusing more attention on how the Internet and related ICTs should be designed, implemented and used. What kind of Internet will support pro-social and other societal agendas, whether privacy, freedom of expression, green technology or sustainability.

On a more instrumental level, the meeting provided a valuable perspective on the EC that was helpful and positive. Chaired by Robert Madelin, the Information Society and Media Director-General, we heard briefly on the views from major program heads. It was clear that there is a great deal of potential for synergy across the various programs, many of which are strongly oriented around developments in emerging ICTs and society, and an openness to multidisciplinary dialogue. Everyone appreciated the difficulties of fostering constructive dialogue across disciplines*, but also across those more focused on empirical inquiry and those with a strong orientation to futures research. The need to bring these perspectives together, such as around common boundary spanning objects, such as case studies or particular technical developments, seemed to gain support. The chairman kept reminding all that we need to be modest about our own views, and open to working with others, and this seemed to sit well with the whole tenor of the day. Generally, I came away with a far more optimistic view on the role that the social sciences can play in EC research on the information society.

*Dutton, W. H., Carusi, A., and Peltu, M. (2006), ‘Fostering Multidisciplinary Engagement: Communication Challenges for Social Research on Emerging Digital Technologies’, Prometheus, 24(2): 129-49.

International Perspectives on Privacy, Security, Trust, and Freedom in a Networked World

Status: 2010 –

Results from this study will be published in the World Economic Forum’s 2010-2011 Global Information Technology Report, which will be made available in March 2011.

Research Team includes:

Professor Soumitra Dutta, e-Labs, INSEAD

Professor Sumitra Dutta at WEF

Professor William H. Dutton, Oxford Internet Institute

Ginette Law (Research Assistant), INSEAD

Derek O’Halloran (Research Assistant), World Economic Forum

Partners and Sponsors:

The Global Internet Values Project is a collaborative research project between INSEAD, the Oxford Internet Institute (OII), the World Economic Forum (WEF) and ComScore.

Abstract:

The Internet and related information and communication technologies (ICTs) are being integrated into everyday life and work in a growing number of nations.

Over a quarter of the world’s population has access to the Internet, with more than 80 percent of the global online population participating on one or more social networking sites. Nearly 80 percent of the world’s population has access to mobile phones, which are increasingly converging with the Internet. The consequences of these trends include growth in electronic commerce, which is rising at double-digit rates internationally, and a change in patterns of information consumption and creation.

As a result of this, Internet stakeholders ranging from governments to civil organisations to businesses and industries have become increasingly concerned about issues of online privacy, trust, security, and freedom. How are individuals experiencing change in their expectations and concerns surrounding such issues as their control over personal information, the credibility of information sources, the safety of their information, and their ability to express themselves online? These issues are of particular importance to track at this time as nations are introducing new Internet policies and regulations that could reshape the public’s experiences online – for better or worse.

Understanding and Comparing Global Internet Values

Many experts failed to anticipate the societal implications of ICTs that have unfolded over the last 40 years of the Internet. Even when the Internet became commercial and accessible to citizens 15 years ago, most pundits did not foresee the scale of its diffusion and impact. However the change has been rapid and today we are faced with some important questions in the context of increasingly ubiquitous technology.

• How has the use of new information and communication technologies transformed the way people live, work and connect today?
• What are the attitudes and behaviours of individual citizens with respect to pervasive concerns such as privacy, trust, security and freedom of choice and expression?
• To what degree are these issues perceived as important values for Internet users and do individuals and households of different countries and demographics regard them in the same way?
• How can government, business, and civil society, inspire an appropriate level of trust and confidence—in both people and transactions—online?

Methodology:

This research aims to identify patterns and trends in individual attitudes and behaviours related to online trust, privacy, security and freedom. A conceptual framework has been developed to help identify a typology of Internet users, regarding these issues. From this, a questionnaire was designed to understand individual values, opinions and behaviours regarding various matters such as the protection and dissemination of personal information online, the use of security mechanisms and safeguards, the degree of trust in other online actors as well as perceived levels of freedom online. Measures for high-tech households, patterns of Internet use and online activities were also included in the questionnaire.

Oxford Internet Institute

Data is currently being collected from adult Internet users from countries worldwide through the use of online surveys, designed by the research team, and administered by ComScore. This data collection will enable a more cross-national and cross-regional comparative perspective than previous Internet surveys that tend to be limited to a single locale or nation. The findings will complement research undertaken through the Oxford Internet Surveys (OxIS) and the World Internet Project (WIP), which includes OII researchers.

The research team fielded the survey in early November 2010, and expect data collection to continue to the end of November, when the team will begin to focus on its initial reports. Results from this study will be published in the World Economic Forum’s 2010-2011 Global Information Technology Report, which will be made publicly available in March 2011.

Thursday 30 September 2010  12:30-14:00

Location: Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, 1 St Giles’ Oxford OX1 3JS

Registration: Free but please e-mail your name and affiliation, if any, to events@oii.ox.ac.uk or telephone +44 (0)1865 287 209

Speakers:

• Heather Blanchard, Co-Founder of CrisisCommons
• Andrew Turner, Co-Founder of CrisisCommons

Overview

Founded in March 2009, CrisisCommons is a global network of volunteers who help people in times and places of crisis. Its vision is to create and sustain ‘a culture of information sharing, improving emergency management and humanitarian activities’. See: http://crisiscommons.org/about-us/ For example, during the response to the Haiti Earthquake, CrisisCamp emerged as one of many vehicles where the public could participate in the response to help search for information. For instance, the network created new maps of Port au Prince and developed prototype tools such as Tradui, the first Kreyol mobile translator, and provided surge capacity for existing organizations such as Ushahidi and OpenStreetMap. During this time CrisisCamp volunteers worked with many agencies such as UN OCHA, USAID and the World Bank.

Granlund Haiti

Is such an activity sustainable? How can such a network link with the larger crisis response community, the privacy sector, philanthropists, and academia?

The founders of CrisisCommons and the barcamp series, CrisisCamp, will present their findings at the Oxford Internet Institute regarding how ad hoc volunteer networks can provide assistance and discuss future directions for innovation in crisis response activities at local and global levels. During this roundtable CrisisCommons will present their findings and request feedback on their market assessment, sustainability model, infrastructure model and the case for inclusion of ad hoc networks to the global response efforts.

About the Speakers

Heather Blanchard is a advocate and a communications professional. Heather is working on helping government be more collaborative, participatory and transparent through the adoption of Web 2.0 technology. Her driving passion centers around helping people be better connected during times (and places) of crisis.

Andrew Turner is a neogeographer involved in helping to build the geospatial web. He is the CTO of FortiusOne, where he and his colleagues are building GeoCommons, a platform that makes it easy for people to build and share collaborative maps and customize their slice of the GeoWeb. He is also developing a number of other open-source tools such as GeoPress and Mapstraction.

Slides that will support the presentation are available at: http://www.slideshare.net/poplifegirl/08-31-10-berkman-presentation