Fia presentatie

© 2011 The SESERV Consortium 1

Cross-Disciplinary Lessons for the Future InternetAnne-Marie Oostveen, Isis Hjorth, Brian Pickering, Michael Boniface, Eric Meyer, Cristobal Cobo and Ralph Schroeder

Future Internet Assembly, Aalborg, 11 May 2012


SESERV project objectivessome people

study the Internet some people

build the Internet

those that study andthose that build

need to talk

June 2011 SESERV workshop at University of Oxford where experts in FI technology engaged with social scientists, economists, policy makers and other stakeholders.


Topics of discussion• Content analysis on 2 recent reports (Towards a Future

Internet and Social Impact of ICT Studies):

• 98 representatives from FP7 FI Projects rated the relevance.• 6 key issues: privacy, online identity, security of

communications, online communities, internet of things, cloud computing.

Societal concerns for the Future Internet

Regulation E-democracy

Privacy and data protection Digital Citizenship

Online Identity Digital Inclusion

Green Issues Online Communities

Security of Communications Internet of Things

Content Regulation Consumers and Suppliers

Cloud Computing Distributed Knowledge

Trust Cybercrime and Cyber law


Cross-cutting socio-economic challenges1. Call for increased transparency2. Call for more user-centricity and control3. Continuing need for further multi-disciplinary bridging4. Striking a balance between extremes in debates and

design5. Facilitating the development of digital literacy6. Addressing the lack of common vocabularies and

definitions7. Need for clarity about digital rights and digital choice8. Enabling global regulatory frameworks


Ad 1. Increased transparency

• Systems & applications should offer end-users tools that allow for filtering of information and sharing of content.

• End-users should know exactly who has access to, for example, the contents of their online social network.

• Transparency also relates to ISPs and data storage, particularly in move towards cloud-based services.

• Many companies run services on 3rd party infrastructure which is not sufficiently transparent.

• Providers could publish monthly statistics on attacks.• End-users able to identify where and how their data is

stored and how it is, or will be used.


Ad. 2 User-centricity & control

• Need for increased user-centricity in design of applications.

• Give users some means of influencing systems on ongoing basis.

• Creative uses could feed back into systems to improve them and innovate further.

• Latent scope for more user control:• Users should be able, in a more granular manner, to

opt-out of services or elements of services• A range of different choices for how user data is stored• Better ways of assessing and controlling security risks


Ad. 3 Multi-disciplinary bridging

• Need for greater knowledge-exchange, dialogue, and collaboration across and beyond academic fields, industry, developers, designers and users.

• Create frameworks for knowledge exchange• Facilitate connections between, for example, technical

and legal analysts to avoid siloization or pillarization.• Multi-disciplinary engagement between human

resources and institutions from early stages of technology development and design


Ad. 4 Balance in debate & design

• Call for more balanced and nuanced approaches in design avoiding dichotomized thinking.

• For example: an acknowledgement of identity as existing on a continuum from stable to dynamic.

• For example: eHealth privacy practices. It might be beneficial to seek a middle ground that allows proportionate access rather than relying on either laissez-faire approaches or over-formalization (extreme regulation) of access.

• For example: Discourses on privacy tend to lack balance (IoT often perceived as ‘big brother’).


Ad. 5 Digital Literacy

• Digital literacy skills will equip users with more sophisticated tools for managing and understanding identity in online and hybrid contexts and thus solve some of the problems encountered with privacy concerns

• Security risks could be managed better if best practice guidelines were available and there was more awareness.


Ad. 6 Common vocabulary

• Cloud computing: current definitions are diverging. Some refer exclusively to infrastructure, while others include social uses and online activities.

• Internet of Things: definitions are currently too academic, lack focus on design, and are therefore difficult to apply in technology development.

• Related to the call for multi-disciplinary bridging and collaboration, there is a need for an adequate vocabulary and definitions that can be applied across sectors and contexts


Ad. 7 Digital rights & choice

• There is a need to clarify digital rights and digital choices: what level of anonymity should be granted, and to whom, and in which context?

• To which extent should digital rights include the ‘right to be forgotten’?

• Digital choice can be exemplified in relation to the Internet of Things, where off-line alternatives should be available (the right to not make use of technologies without being penalized).


Ad. 8 Global frameworks

• Global regulatory frameworks are particularly pertinent to the discussions of security, online communities and cloud computing.

• There should be consistency across jurisdictions for data breaches, as well as for anonymity.

• Increased trans-national legislation could ensure that providers are not discouraged from operating in certain countries.


Finally,

More information:http://www.seserv.org

Participate. Fill out our questionnaire:http://tinyurl.com/fiasurvey

Thank you!

http://www.seserv.org/

http://tinyurl.com/fiasurvey

Fia presentatie

Technology

Transcript of Fia presentatie