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.

As part of the EC-funded ULab project, the Oxford Internet Institute at the University of Oxford is organizing an online competition to identify the most innovative outreach and public engagement activities carried out by European Universities. Both individuals and groups may apply for awards.

Competition submissions must be for an activity that has been initiated and sustained at any university or higher education institution within the 27 EU member states, including projects that might have involved collaboration with institutions outside the EU. The entry can be from one or a number of cooperating universities.

The three winning entries will each receive a 5000 EUR prize for their institution as well as funding for a representative to attend the award ceremony at the University of Oxford on 8 June 2012.

Criteria

Entries will be judged on the following equally weighted criteria:

• Clarity of purpose: Clear definition of the objectives of the initiative; awareness of, and strategies to meet, the needs of different target audiences (25%).
• Impact: Reporting and evaluation of the impact of the initiative; making use of quantitative measures (such as attendance rates, web traffic, surveys) and / or qualitative ones (such as interviews, focus groups) (25%).
• Originality: Evidence of creativity and originality, including innovative ways of measuring impact (25%).
• Sustainability: Evidence of sustainability for future use of the initiative by your own institution or by others (e.g. through open access, open licencing) (25%).

Application Procedure

Entries should be submitted online at www.engageawards.org by 15 March 2012.

For each entry, please submit:

• 1,000 word description and evaluation (in English) of your outreach and public engagement initiative, making sure you address all of the assessment criteria (listed above), including links to any relevant information (which can be in any European language).
• 150 word abstract in English.
• A letter from your host institution, indicating their agreement for the case to be submitted to the competition.

The three winning entries will be announced on the 23rd of April 2012.

The competition is open to anyone from any European university or higher education institution. Awards will be made to institutions (or units) rather than to individuals. All entries will be made public on the website, forming part of an online repository of good practice in outreach.

More information

For more information about the judges and the awards ceremony see www.engageawards.org. For specific enquiries please email engageawards@oii.ox.ac.uk.

ULab is an innovative think-tank of five leading Technical and Research-intensive European Universities: the Technical University of Madrid, the Polytechnic University of Turin, the Technical University of Munich, the Paris Institute of Technology and the University of Oxford. It is a two year project funded by the EC http://www.ulab-fp7.eu/

However, the vitality of the Internet, Web and related technologies is being placed at risk by an ideologically blinkered standoff between two single-issue groups – one seeking to protect copyright versus another protecting freedom of expression. The Internet and Web grew out of a culture of sharing and free expression within academic communities, but to this day, over 40 years since the invention of the Internet, users around the world are very supportive of online freedom of expression. In fact, Internet users in the New Internet World are as supportive of free expression as are those in the Old Internet World of North America and West Europe. And support is growing with experience with the Internet. Given the high levels of support for this underlying culture of Internet use, it should not be surprising that threats to freedom of expression have created major counter-reactions.

Threats have come from legislation aimed at criminalizing and putting a stop to illegal file sharing of music, films and other copyrighted materials, such as through the UK’s Digital Economy Act and, in the US, through the Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (Pipa). The music industry and other creative industries are trying to use the law to protect business models that are not sustainable in the digital age. These legislative routes to protecting copyright would have a chilling effect on the Internet, as they would usher in greater surveillance of Internet users, and governmental sanctioning of the blocking of Internet content as well as the disconnection of Internet users. That is why Wikipedia, Google and other responsible stakeholders in the Internet have protested SOPA and Pipa, such as by Wikipedia blocking its own content for one day.

At the very moment that protests over these legislative actions appeared to be gaining ground among US elected officials, the Department of Justice raised the stakes. It took the domain names of a file sharing Web site (Megaupload) offline, charged its founders with violating piracy laws, and arrested four employees. In response, an Internet ‘hackivist’ group, Anonymous, launched a denial of service attack on FBI, DoJ, and music industry Web sites. The actions of nearly every stakeholder in this conflict have been seriously uncompromising.

In the short-run, it is time to talk and to stop these flame wars. Each side has failed to be open to discussion, but that is exactly what is needed. In the long-term, the creative industries must focus on new business models that are sustainable in the digital era. Government can help support the research and development to enable these innovations.

More generally, all stakeholders need to understand that freedom of expression and copyright cannot be pursued as single issues. Both are part of a larger ecology of policies that have major interactions. Responsible policy discussions need to reign in single-issue politics. It is tempting to say that freedom of expression trumps all other values and interests, but the evidence is right before us that freedom of expression is being eroded by copyright, liability, privacy and data protection, public safety and other concerns. Single-issue political posturing could undermine the Internet’s future.

References

Dutta, S., Dutton, W. H. and Law, G. (2011), The New Internet World: A Global Perspective on Freedom of Expression, Privacy, Trust and Security Online: The Gobal Information Technology Report 2010-2011. New York: World Economic Forum, April. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1810005

Dutton, W. H., Dopatka, A., Hills, M., Law, G., and Nash, V. (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.

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).

This report provides a richly detailed and reliable account of who uses the Internet in Poland, who does not, and what difference it makes for everyday life and work. It is based on high-quality data – face-to-face interviews with a probability sample of individuals that permits the authors to project to the population of Poland as a whole. It is a valuable resource for the country on its own terms, but has added value for being part of the World Internet Project (WIP). The findings can be compared with those of over 30 other nations that have joined this collaborative WIP project.

You will find in these pages that the Internet makes a difference that is truly distinctive. It is not television, or radio, or a phone, but complements all of these related communication technologies. It is not a book or a newspaper, but complements these and other information technologies. As it does, the Internet is bit by bit reshaping access to information, people, services, and technologies, such as making millions of computers around the world accessible to anyone with a personal computer or smart phone linked to the Internet. It changes how we access information, but also what we know. It changes how we communicate with people, but also with whom we communicate. These are implications that can transform everyday life and work, but also once in a lifetime decisions.

What do the people of Poland think about these changes?

You will see that the authors provide a descriptive account that does not try to prove a pre-determined point of view or either promote or undermine the Internet as an innovation. This report is crafted for the reader to draw conclusions of relevance to their own interests and questions. However, several general themes emerge from the findings of this report, and I am sure that readers will find even more as they look for patterns across the various topics explored in the following pages. But let me point to themes that you might wish to consider as you develop your own interpretation of the meanings and significance of the results.

First, Poland has clearly joined that league of nations that have widely adopted the Internet, with two-thirds of the county over the age of 14 having access to this technology. And most (three-quarters) of those with Internet access use broadband, enabling always on access. As in most other nations with widespread adoption, use is anchored primarily in the household, and through a personal computer.

Second, the jury is still out on the Internet in Poland. Coming from outside the country, and looking through the lens of this survey, it appears that the public as a whole and Internet users have a healthy skepticism towards the Internet. Many have yet to make up their minds on whether or not the Internet will improve their lives. They do not demonstrate a blind trust in the Internet, or an overly optimistic perspective on its promise. Nevertheless, most people in Poland have integrated it into their life and work and are adopting new technologies that will enhance the role of the Internet in their lives.

Thirdly, Poland needs to address many of the same issues as other nations, including concerns over digital divides. A third of the population does not have access to the Internet and those without access are disproportionately concentrated among less well to do and the older and retired public. A quarter of users still do not have access to broadband Internet services. There is also an urban-rural divide in Poland that is less pronounced than in other nations, such as the UK.

Fourthly, I sense between the numbers and statistics that Poland is on the verge of crossing a tipping point at which the public will begin to value the Internet more, and integrate this technology more fully in their lives. Internet users in Poland have a good deal of experience online, but it will take longer for the nation to have a greater store of Polish language content, and applications focused on their particular needs and interests. Already, however, younger users in Poland are more engaged in living an Internet-style of life, with more positive attitudes toward the Internet. Three-quarters of users visit social networking sites, a proportion higher than Britain and many other nations. And it is already apparent that many users are moving into the next generation of access to the Internet by adopting more devices, such as laptops and smart phones that complement the household personal computer as the central point for access and enable greater mobility.

Finally, the report shows that users are concerned about issues surrounding their freedom of expression and privacy online. It is critical that government and Internet Service Providers in Poland focus on ensuring that users trust the Internet as a space for democratic expression, open communication, and access to trusted sources of information. The continued economic and social development of Poland depends in part on the vitality of the Internet, and inappropriate or over-regulation of the Internet could undermine that vitality. Too many users believe that government and corporations watch what they do online.

Poles love television, and are wary of new information and communication technologies. They are not excited about the Internet transforming their lives. Nevertheless, the Internet is evolving in Poland in ways that will empower individual users and reach a point in the near future that will be transformative for users and the nation. As it does, issues over digital divides, the quality of the infrastructure, and regulation of the Internet will become more critical to the future of the Internet in Poland. This longitudinal study of the Internet in Poland will help the nation describe and understand these transformations and address the problems that they raise.

I urge you to use this report to develop your own perspective on the role of the Internet in Poland. It is one of the most significant technological innovations of the 21^st Century and how Poland adopts, uses, and governs this new infrastructure will shape the communication power of individuals and the nation in an increasingly networked world.

William Dutton, Oxford, October 2011

—

In Warsaw, I was interviewed about my talk at the WIP Poland Event. My interview is available online as well as another more general WIP Poland video,  which provides a nice overview of the event, primarily in Polish. It can be found here: http://www.blog.tp.pl/korporacyjny/entry/co_nowego_w_internecie

Comments or alternative perspectives on any of my points would be most welcome. Thank you.

Paris, 9-10 November 2011 (noon on 9 November – noon on 10 November)

International Diplomatic Academy

A UK ESRC Digital Policy Forum in Collaboration with the International Diplomatic Academy, Paris, organized by the International Diplomatic Academy and the Oxford Internet Institute as one of a series of seminars on ‘Digital Policy’. This seminar is supported by Afilias and the ESRC Seminar Series, entitled ‘Digital Policy: Connectivity, Creativity & Rights’[1].

Purpose

Digital policy initiatives are emerging in nations across the world amidst a transnational effort to coordinate Internet governance, most prominently through the Internet Governance Forum. This seminar brings together key participants in global and national initiatives to govern the Internet. The seminar will seek to describe the state of developments within the IGF, and discuss the ways that national developments interact with transnational efforts, such as the IGF.  Each aspect will be addressed in one of the half-day sessions.

Outline Agenda

1 – Evolution of the global IGF

The meeting will begin at noon on 9 November, with a first half-day session focusing on developments within the IGF, reflecting on the 2011 IGF in Nairobi. It will discuss the differing views regarding how much change can be brought to the IGF without losing what makes its value, at what speed such improvements can be introduced, and the role of the IGF within the larger ecosystem of organizations and actors dealing with Internet-related issues, particularly the UN, ITU, or ICANN. The session will not aim at developing a consensus, but seek to inform and stimulate debate about the future of the IGF.

Discussion will continue informally over a reception and dinner.

2 – National Internet Governance and Policy: Recent Initiatives and their Implications

The second half-day session on 10 November (9am to noon) will focus on national developments, including the role of national IGFs, but include any initiatives in policy or governance of the Internet. The objective is to understand the possible implications of national efforts to govern the Internet and their impact on international efforts.

Participation

Participation in the seminar will be limited to about 25 invited participants, but a summary of the discussions will be prepared for a wider audience. All participants will be encouraged to prepare a very short (1 page) position paper on each of the two topics that will be explored.

Organizers

William Dutton, Professor of Internet Studies, OII

Bertrand de La Chapelle, Program Director at the International Diplomatic Academy and member of the ICANN Board of Directors

Desiree Miloshevic, Senior Public Policy Adviser at Afilias, ISOC Advisory Council Co-Chair, Afilias, and Visiting Industry Associate, OII

‘Digital Literacy and Self-Regulation Online: Insights for Policy’
Friday November 18 2011, University of Leicester, UK

(Hosted by the Department of Media and Communication)

This seminar explores different understandings and roles of digital literacy and issues of online self-regulation. It works against the background of shifts towards individualization in the digital economy and the implications for policy. It approaches policy in the broad sense recognizing the role of varied stakeholders including nongovernmental actors and organizations and the importance of informal as well as formal processes. It considers the nature of online technologies and access and their fast changing nature and the impacts on regulatory environments, and specific contexts within which regulation can and should take place.

The seminar will address a range of issues related to digital literacy – what it is, where it should be developed, who should be responsible for it? How and what kinds of organizations and processes are relevant to it now, as well as what kinds of developments should there be in the future? Other questions will include: what does online safety mean and what are its key components; is there too much emphasis on technical rather than informational literacy; how do market drivers affect self-regulation; what are the generational issues that need to be addressed? The seminar will examine the nature of self-regulation online including in relation to the broader regulatory environment and other actors engaged with it.

Confirmed speakers include: Brian Simpson (University of New England, Australia), Peter Lunt (University of Leicester), Gillian Youngs (University of Wales, Newport), Dr Martin L Poulter (Wikipedia) and Josie Fraser (Social & Educational Technologist and consultant)

Call for Papers

We still have room for more papers and would welcome proposals from PhD students, academics and media and other practitioners and policymakers working in this area.

Participation

We have a limited number of places for the seminar so would like to hear from anyone who would like to take part as soon as possible. There is no charge for attending and lunch will be provided. We can meet UK travel costs (standard rail fare) for speakers and PhD students. Contact

Paper proposals and requests to participate should be sent to Tracy Simmons (tas11@le.ac.uk) who is organizing this seminar as soon as possible. The seminar series is led by Gillian Youngs (University of Wales, Newport) in collaboration with Tracy Simmons (University of Leicester), William Dutton (Oxford Internet Institute) and Katharine Sarikakis (University of Vienna). Weblink for seminar series: http://www.newport.ac.uk/research/researchcentres/Institutes/iab/projects/ESRCSeminarSeries/Pages/default.aspx

YouTube clip http://www.youtube.com/user/DigitalPolicyUWN.

These are early days in the development of such facilities, but they seem to be the most responsible response to increasing demands for content regulation. The closer decisions can be moved to the user and the household, the more appropriate the are the controls from most perspectives on the rights of Internet users. Enabling more effective self-regulation by users and households might take some pressure off policy-makers and regulators to apply Internet filtering regimes. Earlier efforts have not been a great success, such as the US Violence-Chip or V-Chip, during President Clinton’s administration. However, these initiatives deserve support and research to determine how they can be good enough to head off far blunter approaches that take control away from users and households.

I am not aware of research on these measures, but would encourage it and would be delighted to hear from any experts and researchers focusing on this area. The OII is doing some work on the home hub, in a study of future home networks and services, which is a promising locus for content controls in the future, and I would be particularly interested in any related work with this focus.

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.

in celebration of the Oxford Internet Institute’s tenth anniversary

Thursday 22 September 2011 16:30 – 18:30

Location: Nelson Mandela Lecture Theatre, Said Business School, Park End Street, Oxford OX1 1HP.

This public plenary panel is the centrepiece of the iCS-OII Symposium on A Decade in Internet Time, and the 10^th Anniversary celebration of the OII. A distinguished panel has been asked to reflect on the defining developments of the past ten years and the key challenges and opportunities that the next decade may bring. We hope this special session will stimulate and inform debate over the future of the Internet and our field.

Chair: Bill Dutton, Professor of Internet Studies, Oxford Internet Institute

Speakers:

Manuel Castells, Wallis Annenberg Chair in Communication, Technology and Society, University of Southern California, ‘Internet and the Network Society’

Vint Cerf, Chief Internet Evangelist, Google, ‘ Everything is Connected to Everything’

Andrew Graham, Master of Balliol College, University of Oxford, ‘The Internet: Looking Back and Looking Forward’

Wendy Hall, DBE, FRS, FREng is Professor of Computer Science at the University of Southampton, UK, and Dean of the Faculty of Physical and Applied Sciences, ‘A Web Wise World’

Professor Eli Noam, Columbia Institute for Tele-Information, Columbia University, ‘Next-Generation Policy Research for Next-Generation Internets’

Dame Stephanie Shirley BSc, CEng, FREng, The Shirley Foundation

18:30 – 19:30 Wine reception (Lobby, Said Business School)

Dr Taylor is one of the OII’s most highly recognized teachers. He designed and teaches the OII’s options course on the economics of the Internet, which he builds on to offer this professional offering.

Greg Taylor

OII, 1 St Giles’, Oxford from 12-13.00 on 8 September 2011

Michael has written: “I’ll start this talk by describing the Polymath Project, an ongoing experiment in “massively collaborative” mathematical problem solving. The idea is to use online tools — things like blogs and wikis — to collaboratively attack difficult mathematical problems.  By combining the best ideas of many minds from all over the world, the Polymath Project has made breakthroughs on important mathematical problems.

What makes this an exciting story is that it’s about much more than just solving some mathematical problems.  Rather, the story suggests that online tools can be used to transform the way we humans work together to make scientific discoveries.  We can use online tools to
amplify our collective intelligence, in much the same way as for millenia we’ve used physical tools to amplify our strength.  This has the potential to accelerate scientific discovery across all disciplines.

Michael Nielsen

This is an optimistic story, but there’s a major catch.  Scientists have for the most part been extremely extremely conservative in how they use the net, often using it for little more than email and passive web browsing.  Projects like Polymath are the exception not the rule.  I’ll discuss why this conservatism is so common, why it’s so damaging, and how we can move to a more open scientific culture.”

Background reading:

“The Future of Science”

The talk is based on the book “Reinventing Discovery“, to be published by Princeton University Press on October 21, 2011.

Michael Nielsen is an author and an advocate of open science.  His book about open science, Reinventing Discovery, will be published by Princeton University Press in October, 2011.  Prior to his book, Michael was an internationally known scientist who helped pioneer the field of quantum computation.  He co-authored the standard text in the field, and wrote more than 50 scientific papers, including invited contributions to Nature and Scientific American.  His work on quantum teleportation was recognized in Science Magazine’s list of the Top Ten Breakthroughs of 1998. Michael was educated at the University of Queensland, and as a Fulbright Scholar at the University of New Mexico. He worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory, as the Richard Chace Tolman Prize Fellow at Caltech, was Foundation Professor of Quantum Information Science and a Federation Fellow at the University of Queensland, and a Senior Faculty Member at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. In 2008, he gave up his tenured position to work fulltime on open science.

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

Question 1

What could a healthier communications market look like? How can the right balance be achieved between investment, competition and services in a changing technological environment?

Many of the questions in this review focus on aspects of competition and industrial policy, however it is our view that for the economic benefits of the Internet to be maximised, attention must also be devoted to closing the digital divide. Efforts such as Race Online 2012 demonstrate that the UK government realizes the significance of access to the Internet in supporting efforts to erase the digital divide, increase participation and enhance digital media literacy. Yet less than 30 percent of adults in the UK report receiving training in media literacy, even though training could promote participation among those with little to no experience (Ofcom, 2011; Livingstone & Wang, 2011). Our view is that access must be paired with understanding of options and risks to promote a healthier communications market.  Based on our 2011 OxIS survey findings, 73 percent of individuals in the UK use the Internet, leaving more than a quarter of the population off the Internet.  Efforts to increase Internet use among Britons has critical significance for 21st century economic and civic participation, but need adequate resources to promote understanding of the associated opportunities and risks.

For earlier OxIS figures see:

Dutton, W. H., Helsper, H. J., and Gerber, M. M. (2009), The Internet in Britain. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford.

Livingstone, S. & Wang, Y. (20110) Media Literacy and the Communications Act. London: LSE.

Ofcom (2011b). UK adults’ media literacy. London: Ofcom.

Question 3

Is regulatory convergence across different platforms desirable and, if so, what are the potential issues to implementation?

This question was discussed at a recent policy forum convened by the Oxford Internet Institute, in which field-leading academics with media, communications and regulatory expertise were asked to consider the proposed Review of the Communications Act. This forum served to reinforce our view that it would be a significant mistake to seek regulatory convergence across platforms if this means imposing a model of broadcast regulation on the Internet. It is often assumed that the Internet is a modern era ‘Wild West’, lawless and unregulated. In fact, the opposite is true – there is already extensive regulation of Internet service provision, content and activities. We would argue that traditional regulatory models for broadcasting, common carriers (such as post or telecommunications) and the press cannot be imposed wholesale on the Internet without serious risks to its vitality and its contribution to the UK economy as well as potential chilling effects of speech. Further analysis of this point can be found in: Dutton, W. H. (2010b), ‘Aiming at Copyright Infringers and Hitting the Digital Economy’, Prometheus, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 385-388, December 2010. Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=1778422

Question 13

Where has self- and co-regulation worked successfully and what can be learnt from specific approaches? Where specific approaches haven’t worked, how can the framework of content regulation be made sufficiently coherent and not create barriers to growth, but at the same time protect citizens and enable consumer confidence?

Many different regulatory models have been applied to various aspects of the Internet. Mobile operators in the UK voluntarily adopted industry codes of conduct to limit Internet access to adult content to minors, and to limit the use of location-aware services. Similarly the UK-licensed Internet gambling industry has proved that age verification (at least for the 18 threshold) is possible, and further has been widely recognised to have implemented this so successfully that even the child protection lobby have registered their satisfaction with this system. The UK model for control of illegal content, such as child pornography and hate speech, could undoubtedly benefit from more transparency and judicial oversight, but has broadly proved an effective way to limit the distribution of such material. Such measures are almost all co-regulatory – individual businesses and industry bodies signing up to common codes of conduct or unofficial norms, with the backing (or threat) of legislation.

We do not believe that the Internet requires further heavy-handed regulation, and would propose two principles as a suitable basis for advance:

·       A presumption in favour of ‘democratised regulation’, namely pushing more control to the users and producers of communication and information services – the public. This is not simply another term for self-regulation, as it requires regulatory support at many levels (see below). A good example of democratised regulation would be the currently evolving system for content regulation whereby only extremely limited forms of illegal content (such as child pornography) might be blocked by mandate or on a centralized basis, with users having access to PC-based tools, a ‘home hub,’ or an ISP filtering system that enables them to choose how much content (if any) they want filtered. In this sense, parents, educators and users generally, could be given more control over their own communications infrastructure in a way that is low cost for government and industry.

·       A presumption in favour of regulation only where it is needed to ensure the preservation of a fair, accessible and open Internet, or to protect the most fundamental rights such as freedom of speech or protection from abuse.

I would also like to draw your attention to related post by Roger Darlington at http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/commswatch/?p=2900 Roger has been posting links to other submissions here: http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/commswatch/

Roger Darlington’s Website: http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/convergence.html

David Grahams’ Blog: http://www.attentional.com/david-grahams-blog/2011/05/a-new-communications-bill-is-coming/

An excellent discussion of the many dimensions of convergence was written years ago by Nicholas Garnham, see: N. Garnham, ‘Constraints on Multimedia Convergence’, pp. 103-19 in Dutton, W. H. (1996, reprinted 2001), Information and Communication Technologies – Visions and Realities (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

There are serious issues around notions of ‘Internet addiction’ and we have studied this at the OII. However, the idea of addiction to technologies like the Internet, and disconnecting yourself from these devices, is not new. My students and I studied the impact of a pager blackout in the late 1990s, when journalists across the US argued that the pager blackout was like a ‘snow day’, freeing people from the demands of everyday life.* Our research found that this was true for middle-class managers and professionals, such as doctors and journalists, but far less the case for those more marginal, such as the unemployed, women v men, minorities, and those who depended on the pager for their next job, such as construction workers. To them, the pager was more central to their connections with family, friends, and employment. The pager freed them from remaining by a phone, for example, just as the Internet can free an individual from being where they need to be to get information or connect with a friend or associate.

We are hoping to study Internet addiction and other risks tied to Internet use, but it is important to note that these impacts are likely to be socially distributed in quite meaningful ways. Technologies seldom fit into everyone’s life in the same way. In many respects, that is the nice aspect of this new app – anyone complaining about the Internet undermining their productivity no longer has a real excuse.

Reference

*Dutton, W. H., Elberse, A., Hong, T., and Matei, S. (2001), ‘Beepless in America: The Social Impact of the Galaxy IV Pager Blackout,’ pp. 9-32 in S. Lax (ed.), Access Denied in the Information Age, London: Macmillan.

Summer Palace 2011

I have been attending a conference, entitled ‘Interne and Society: Challenge, Transition, and Development’. It has been organized by XIE Xinzhou (Director) for the School of Journalism and Communication at Peking University as one activity associated with the 10th Anniversary of the School, when communication joined the former school focused on journalism. I spoke on the 20th of May, discussing what I am calling ‘The New Internet World‘, and was joined by a number of other academics from abroad, primarily from the US, including Pamela Shoemaker (Newhouse School at Syracuse), Professors James Katz (Rutgers), Stephen Reese (University of Texas at Austin), S. Shyam Sundar (Penn State, but also visiting Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul), and from Europe, Richard Ling (IT University of Copenhagen). We were joined by many professors from Peking University, Renmin, Wuhan, and other universities in China, plus some outstanding representatives from industry, including WANG Liang (President of Radio Beijing Corp), LI Fang (Deputy Editor of Tencent Inc), and GUAN Jianwen (VP of People’s Daily Online).

No Name Lake at Peking Un

My presentation is on slideshare at: http://www.slideshare.net/WHDutton/the-new-internet-world