Workshop Memories and Mediascapes

panel

To download the report of the breakout session, click the image above in the section of your interest.

On the 28th of June 2011 the SESERV consortium organised a scientific workshop 'The Future Internet: The Social Nature of Technical Choices' at the University of Oxford, UK.

The workshop aimed to bridge the gap between those who study and those who build the Internet by supporting discussion and debate within the multidisciplinary community of researchers and professionals working on various aspects of the Future Internet. The main objective of the workshop was to explore and discuss with a community of experts the socio-economic aspects that affect the Future Internet, and conversely the way that the Future Internet will affect society, government, and business.

The participants of the event were researchers (such as social scientists and economists), IT practitioners, policy experts and other stakeholders who discussed how the latest technology developments are encountering socio-economic realities.

Presentation webcasts

1.Keynote: The Future Internet: The Social Nature of Technical Choices: (William Dutton)
2. The Future Internet: Pushing the Technology Boundaries: SAIL (Luis Correia)
3. The Future Internet: Pushing the Technology Boundaries: N4C (Elwyn Davies)
4. The Future Internet: Pushing the Technology Boundaries: PERSIST/SOCIETIES (Kevin Doolin)
5. The Future Internet: Pushing the Technology Boundaries: Fi3P (Jonathan Cave)
6. The Future Internet: Pushing the Technology Boundaries: FAME (J Martin Serrano)
7. Keynote: The Future Internet (Nicole Dewandre)
8.The Future Internet: Debate: Will the Design of the Future Internet be Driven by Technology or Societal Concerns?

Six breakout sessions facilitated by experts were organized during the workshop. Each session discussed similar themes but through different topics. If you want to browse the cross-thematic themes discussed during the workshop, please browse the following topics.

1.1. Call for increased transparency (data use and systems).
1.2. Call for more user-centricity and control.
1.3. Continuing need for further multi-disciplinary and cross-sectoral bridging.
1.4. Striking balances between outer-poles in debates and design.
1.5. Facilitating further digital literacy development.
1.6. Addressing lack of common vocabularies and definitions.
1.7. Need for clarifying digital rights (including digital choice).
1.8. Inviting global regulatory frameworks.

Download the 'Cross-thematic trends of breakout sessions' [pdf].

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