2020
Klenk, Michael; Duijf, Hein
Ethics of Digital Contact Tracing and COVID-19: Who Is (Not) Free to Go? Miscellaneous
2020.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: active responsibility, COVID-19, digital contact tracing, digital ethics, fairness, SARS-CoV-2, value:health, value:justice
@misc{Klenk2020,
title = {Ethics of Digital Contact Tracing and COVID-19: Who Is (Not) Free to Go?},
author = {Michael Klenk and Hein Duijf},
editor = {J. van den Hoven M. J. Dennis and Georgy Ishmaev},
url = {https://ssrn.com/abstract=3595394},
doi = {https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3595394},
year = {2020},
date = {2020-05-28},
urldate = {2020-05-28},
abstract = {Digital tracing technologies are heralded as an effective way of containing SARS-CoV-2 faster than it is spreading, thereby allowing the possibility of easing draconic measures of population-wide quarantine. But existing technological proposals risk addressing the wrong problem. The objective is not solely to maximise the ratio of people freed from quarantine but to also ensure that the composition of the freed group is fair. We identify several factors that pose a risk for fair group composition along with an analysis of general lessons for a philosophy of technology. Policymakers, epidemiologists, and developers can use these risk factors to benchmark proposal technologies, curb the pandemic, and keep public trust.},
keywords = {active responsibility, COVID-19, digital contact tracing, digital ethics, fairness, SARS-CoV-2, value:health, value:justice},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {misc}
}
Digital tracing technologies are heralded as an effective way of containing SARS-CoV-2 faster than it is spreading, thereby allowing the possibility of easing draconic measures of population-wide quarantine. But existing technological proposals risk addressing the wrong problem. The objective is not solely to maximise the ratio of people freed from quarantine but to also ensure that the composition of the freed group is fair. We identify several factors that pose a risk for fair group composition along with an analysis of general lessons for a philosophy of technology. Policymakers, epidemiologists, and developers can use these risk factors to benchmark proposal technologies, curb the pandemic, and keep public trust.
2018
Bennati, Stefano; Dusparic, Ivana; Shinde, Rhythima; Jonker, Catholijn M
Volunteers in the Smart City: Comparison of Contribution Strategies on Human-Centered Measures Journal Article
In: Sensors, vol. 18, no. 11, 2018, ISSN: 1424-8220.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: artificial intelligence, big data, fairness, participatory sensing, privacy, public good, smart cities, value:justice
@article{s18113707,
title = {Volunteers in the Smart City: Comparison of Contribution Strategies on Human-Centered Measures},
author = {Stefano Bennati and Ivana Dusparic and Rhythima Shinde and Catholijn M Jonker},
url = {http://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/18/11/3707},
doi = {10.3390/s18113707},
issn = {1424-8220},
year = {2018},
date = {2018-01-01},
urldate = {2018-01-01},
journal = {Sensors},
volume = {18},
number = {11},
abstract = {Provision of smart city services often relies on users contribution, e.g., of data, which can be costly for the users in terms of privacy. Privacy risks, as well as unfair distribution of benefits to the users, should be minimized as they undermine user participation, which is crucial for the success of smart city applications. This paper investigates privacy, fairness, and social welfare in smart city applications by means of computer simulations grounded on real-world data, i.e., smart meter readings and participatory sensing. We generalize the use of public good theory as a model for resource management in smart city applications, by proposing a design principle that is applicable across application scenarios, where provision of a service depends on user contributions. We verify its applicability by showing its implementation in two scenarios: smart grid and traffic congestion information system. Following this design principle, we evaluate different classes of algorithms for resource management, with respect to human-centered measures, i.e., privacy, fairness and social welfare, and identify algorithm-specific trade-offs that are scenario independent. These results could be of interest to smart city application designers to choose a suitable algorithm given a scenario-specific set of requirements, and to users to choose a service based on an algorithm that matches their privacy preferences.},
keywords = {artificial intelligence, big data, fairness, participatory sensing, privacy, public good, smart cities, value:justice},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Provision of smart city services often relies on users contribution, e.g., of data, which can be costly for the users in terms of privacy. Privacy risks, as well as unfair distribution of benefits to the users, should be minimized as they undermine user participation, which is crucial for the success of smart city applications. This paper investigates privacy, fairness, and social welfare in smart city applications by means of computer simulations grounded on real-world data, i.e., smart meter readings and participatory sensing. We generalize the use of public good theory as a model for resource management in smart city applications, by proposing a design principle that is applicable across application scenarios, where provision of a service depends on user contributions. We verify its applicability by showing its implementation in two scenarios: smart grid and traffic congestion information system. Following this design principle, we evaluate different classes of algorithms for resource management, with respect to human-centered measures, i.e., privacy, fairness and social welfare, and identify algorithm-specific trade-offs that are scenario independent. These results could be of interest to smart city application designers to choose a suitable algorithm given a scenario-specific set of requirements, and to users to choose a service based on an algorithm that matches their privacy preferences.
2017
Hoven, Jeroen
Ethics for the Digital Age: Where Are the Moral Specs? Proceedings Article
In: Werthner, Hannes; Harmelen, Frank (Ed.): Informatics in the Future, pp. 65–76, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2017, ISBN: 978-3-319-55735-9.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: computer ethics, data protection, digital ethics, privacy, responsible innovation, value sensitive design, value:justice
@inproceedings{10.1007/978-3-319-55735-9_6,
title = {Ethics for the Digital Age: Where Are the Moral Specs?},
author = {Jeroen Hoven},
editor = {Hannes Werthner and Frank Harmelen},
url = {https://link-springer-com.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-55735-9_6
https://www.delftdesignforvalues.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Van-den-Hoven_Ethics-For-The-Digital-Age-Where-Are-the-Specs.pdf},
isbn = {978-3-319-55735-9},
year = {2017},
date = {2017-01-01},
urldate = {2017-01-01},
booktitle = {Informatics in the Future},
pages = {65–76},
publisher = {Springer International Publishing},
address = {Cham},
abstract = {In the middle of the twentieth century scholars in the social sciences and humanities have reflected on how the telegraph, the telephone and TV have shaped our societies (A good example is the work of Ithiel de Sola Pool in the mid twentieth century. See for example Politics in Wired Nations, Selected Writings, Transaction Publishers, London/New York.). In the last 30 years, researchers in a variety of disciplines such as technology assessment, computer ethics, information and library science, science and technology studies and cultural and media studies have conducted research into the way new media, computers and mobile phones have turned a wired society into a full-fledged digital society. In the last 10 years we have entered a new phase of the digital shaping of society. We are trying to come to grips with artificial intelligence, big data, social media, smart phones, robotics, the Internet of Things, apps and bots, self-driving cars, deep learning and brain interfaces. New digital technologies have now given rise to a hyper-connected society. IT is not only getting in between people, but it is also getting under our skin and into our heads—often literally. Our standard ways of keeping tabs on technology by means of information technology assessment, tech policy and regulation, soft law, ethical codes for IT professionals, ethical review boards (ERBs) for computer science research, standards and software maturity models and combinations thereof, are no longer sufficient to lead us to a responsible digital future. Our attempts to shape our technologies are often too late and too slow (e.g. by means of black letter law) or too little or too weak (e.g. codes of conduct). The field of privacy and data protection is an example of both. Data protection lawyers are constantly trying to catch up with the latest in big data analysis, the Internet of things, deep learning and sensor and cloud technology. On any given day, we often find ourselves trying to regulate the technology of tomorrow with legal regimes of yesterday. This gives rise to the question `How should we make our ethics bear upon high impact and dynamical digital phenomena?'},
keywords = {computer ethics, data protection, digital ethics, privacy, responsible innovation, value sensitive design, value:justice},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {inproceedings}
}
In the middle of the twentieth century scholars in the social sciences and humanities have reflected on how the telegraph, the telephone and TV have shaped our societies (A good example is the work of Ithiel de Sola Pool in the mid twentieth century. See for example Politics in Wired Nations, Selected Writings, Transaction Publishers, London/New York.). In the last 30 years, researchers in a variety of disciplines such as technology assessment, computer ethics, information and library science, science and technology studies and cultural and media studies have conducted research into the way new media, computers and mobile phones have turned a wired society into a full-fledged digital society. In the last 10 years we have entered a new phase of the digital shaping of society. We are trying to come to grips with artificial intelligence, big data, social media, smart phones, robotics, the Internet of Things, apps and bots, self-driving cars, deep learning and brain interfaces. New digital technologies have now given rise to a hyper-connected society. IT is not only getting in between people, but it is also getting under our skin and into our heads—often literally. Our standard ways of keeping tabs on technology by means of information technology assessment, tech policy and regulation, soft law, ethical codes for IT professionals, ethical review boards (ERBs) for computer science research, standards and software maturity models and combinations thereof, are no longer sufficient to lead us to a responsible digital future. Our attempts to shape our technologies are often too late and too slow (e.g. by means of black letter law) or too little or too weak (e.g. codes of conduct). The field of privacy and data protection is an example of both. Data protection lawyers are constantly trying to catch up with the latest in big data analysis, the Internet of things, deep learning and sensor and cloud technology. On any given day, we often find ourselves trying to regulate the technology of tomorrow with legal regimes of yesterday. This gives rise to the question `How should we make our ethics bear upon high impact and dynamical digital phenomena?'