posted 6 Sep 2011, 06:33 by Cristóbal Cobo
[
updated 28 Sep 2012, 02:10 by Eric Meyer
]
The SESERV consortium organised a scientific workshop during June 2011 'The Future Internet: The Social Nature of Technical Choices' at the University of Oxford, UK. Here you will find different pages with useful resources collected during the workshop.
Cross-thematic themes
1.1 Call for increased transparency (data use and systems) |
Security |
• To reduce security risks through increased trans-parency: requires that cloud service providers publish statistics e.g. on monthly attacks.
Transparency metrics are needed for users to determine 'trustworthiness' of providers.
|
Privacy |
• Increased access to transparent data on who has access to e.g. online social network information can help users shape their behaviour.
• Transparency is often not desirable in context of privacy questions. When propagating data, it might for example be better if peer-to-peer or information-centric networks are unaware of what information is transferred. |
Identity |
• Systems should afford users increased trans-parency by offering advan-ced information filtering options. |
Internet of Things |
• End-users should be clearly informed by providers about advantages and disadvantages of given Internet of Things technologies.
|
Online communities |
• Transparent filtering options for users should be implemented for ease of self-management of interwoven and synchronised online networks.
• Transparent filtering option will assist users in managing smaller communities that align with cognitive limits of social ties (c.f. Dunbar's number).
|
Cloud Computing |
• Cloud providers have access to meta-data of uses (locations, activities, content, interactions). How his data is used and stored could be disclosed better.
|
↑Top
1.2 Call for more user-centricity and control |
Security |
• Users have little scope for assessing and analysing security risks related to domesticated ICT uses.
|
Privacy |
• Privacy principles are persuasive and propagate through the environment, influencing people's behaviour. More user-centric, and user-influenced approaches are needed.
• User self-organisation and structure are important elements of social networks that must be acknowledged in design.
Privacy-concerns argue against increased user-influence: by constraining user innovation, lock-in can be achieved, which increases privacy. |
Identity |
• Users need better tools to help them manage/control how identities are shared and stored |
Internet of Things |
• Users should be able to opt out of Internet of Things services.
• Different levels of 'sign-off' options should be available.
• User-centricity can be achieved if users are invited to have a role in design development.
|
Online communities |
• Currently providers dictate terms of use; users lack influence and control.
• Creative uses by users should be feed into ongoing system/ application development.
|
Cloud Computing |
• Users should be able to control where their data is stored.
|
↑Top
1.3 Continuing need for further multi-disciplinary and cross-sectoral bridging |
Security |
• Need for facilitating dialogue between technical and legal analysts to develop a better understanding of risks, and to assess new/future risks.
|
Privacy |
• Important to acknowledge different commu-nities' expertise.
• Counter-movements such as Mydex, diaspora, Internet of Subjects, should be seen as important sources of information.
• A gulf exists between practitioners and IT supply (e.g. practice driven innovation vs. principle approach. |
Identity |
• Need for multi-disciplinary research on identity that can be translated into the design of socio-technical systems. |
Internet of Things |
• Privacy research and IoT engineering are disconnected. Actors of the two domains should be brought together in the early stages of design phases.
• Policy makers should set up frameworks bridging the gap between IoT users and designers.
|
Online communities |
• Examine frequency of multi-disciplinary conference, and possibly fund larger numbers of multi-disciplinary resarch centres.
|
Cloud Computing |
• Important to avoid silozation of cloud computing development and research.
• Initiating frameworks for knowledge-exchange between users, developers, regulators and researchers can help avoid silozation.
• ISP and cloud providers should develop stronger relationships. Revenues might be shared.
|
↑Top
1.4 Striking balances between outer-poles in debates and design |
Security |
Not discussed during the session
|
Privacy |
• eHealth privacy practices and discussions (e.g. patient records) could benefit from seeking a middle solution that allow proportionate access, rather than relying on either lassez-faire approaches or access over-formalisation (extreme regulation). |
Identity |
• Important to allow for understandings and discussions of identity that acknowledge it as existing on a continuum ranging from stable to dynamic. |
Internet of Things |
• Privacy concerns must be balanced with affordances of Internet of Things technologies.
• There is a danger of moral panic in discussions on Internet of Things.
• Ethical considerations should stand central to discussions on Internet of Things potentials.
|
Online communities |
• There is a need to balance bottom-up and bottom-down technology development. New forms of communities or structures might emerge to drive design and development.
|
Cloud Computing |
Not discussed during the session.
|
↑Top
1.5 Facilitating further digital literacy development |
Security |
• Learning best practice and offering guidelines could help users assess and evaluate security and risk management related to their domestic ICT usage.
|
Privacy |
Not discussed during the session
|
Identity |
• Better digital literacy skills could equip users with more sophisticated tools for managing and understand-ing identity in online and hybrid contexts.
• There is a need to raise awareness of issues related to identity-management. |
Internet of Things |
• Privacy concerns must be balanced with affordances of Internet of Things technologies.
• There is a danger of moral panic in discussions on Internet of Things.
• Ethical considerations should stand central to discussions on Internet of Things potentials.
|
Online communities |
• Providing further digital literacy education can help solve problems related to privacy concerns and management.
|
Cloud Computing |
Not discussed during the session.
|
↑Top
1.6 Addressing lack of common vocabularies and definitions |
Security |
Not discussed during the session
|
Privacy |
Not discussed during the session
|
Identity |
• Confusion about definitions. In the context of digital spheres, questions of identity is closely related to questions of privacy, data and rights.
• In broader societal contexts, identity is considered stable. |
Internet of Things |
• Current definitions are too academic with too little focus on design and application.
• There is a need to develop vocabularies enabling discussions on multi-device Internet of Things interaction.
|
Online communities |
• Indirectly addressed: need for vocabulary to address issues relating to health of networks/ communities (e.g. development, growth, maintenance).
|
Cloud Computing |
• Current definitions are diverging: some refer exclusively to infrastructure, while others include social uses.
• It is suggested that Cloud Computing is understood in the context of providing a service on top of which users can create customized solutions.
|
↑Top
1.7 Need for clarifying digital rights (including digital choice) |
Security |
Not discussed during the session
|
Privacy |
• Need for clarifying the right to full anonymity (e.g. in eHealth), while allowing for identifiers that can help identify emerging health issues. |
Identity |
Not discussed during the session |
Internet of Things |
• It is vital to provide offline access to IoT services to ensure that people are not penalized because of digital choices.
|
Online communities |
• There is a need to address to which extend the right to have content/information permanently deleted should form part of a set of digital rights (what e.g. about crimes against humanity?).
• Personal preferences should be not be compromised when providers change their terms of use.
|
Cloud Computing |
Not discussed during the session.
|
↑Top
1.8 Inviting global regulatory frameworks |
Security |
• Need for streamlining legal frameworks across countries, or some providers might not offer their service there. In Italy, for instance, YouTube- Google are enforced by law to take liability for their users. Providers who are not using measures that match local legislation might be discouraged.
• Need for determining approach to regulatory frame-works for distribution of security responsibilities for e.g. cloud computing services: market-driven, self-regulating, or regulated?
|
Privacy |
Not discussed during the session
|
Identity |
Not discussed during the session
|
Internet of Things |
Not discussed during the session
|
Online communities |
• Need for consistent regulatory framework which guarantees anonymity (condition-ally / dependent on domain, e.g. politically sensitive topics).
• Personal preferences should be not be compromised when providers change their terms of use.
|
Cloud Computing |
• There is a need for international cooperation and consistency in laws across jurisdictions (e.g. data breach and notification).
• It is important to ensure bottom-up feedback from users in this process
|
↑Top
Last update 15.08.11 20:00hrs |
|