权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

DATA - PSST! Debating and Assessing Transparency Arrangements - Privacy, Security, Surveillance, Trust

数据——嘘！

基本信息

批准号：
ES/M00208X/1
负责人：
Vian Bakir
金额：
$ 3.87万
依托单位：
Bangor University
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Research Grant
财政年份：
2014
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2014 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES%2FM00208X%2F1
关键词：
DATA PSST Debating Assessing Transparency

项目摘要

Research ContextSince whistle-blower Edward Snowden's revelations of 2013 we arguably live in a qualitatively and materially different techno-cultural period. Snowden revealed the surveillance activities of US and UK government signals intelligence agencies, catching unaware academic computer scientists, information specialists and privacy experts. Meanwhile, social media have normalized the practice of people watching each other by mediated means. Given this novel techno-cultural condition of increased, normalized and forced transparency, what are the academic responses? Building on Jeremy Bentham, we suggest that today, there are at least 3 forms of transparency: 1.Liberal transparency - that opens up machinations of power for public and democratic inspection, using knowledge as a force for promoting societal net benefit and happiness; 2.Radical transparency - that opens up both public processes and the private lives of citizens for inspection;3. And what we term forced transparency - the negative consequences of radical transparency, ie where resistance to transparency is tantamount to guilt and where choice and autonomy are stripped away.Aims & ObjectivesWhile we have begun a typology of transparency, the boundaries in practice are unclear, as is the extent, and consequences, of society's move towards Bentham's vision of radical transparency. We envisage expanding this typology while exploring cases where boundaries blur. Recognizing that privacy is a qualified right, our starting point is that transparency is not inherently dystopian. Rather, we aim to understand the implications and responses to how positively conceived norms might be perverted. As such, our 2-year Seminar Series will explore, from multi-disciplinary/end user perspectives, how different aspects of transparency (whether voluntarily entered into, or state/commercially/peer-imposed) affect questions of privacy, security, surveillance and trust. These areas have been chosen, as transparency violates privacy; is argued as necessary for security; indiscriminately mass surveills; and both demands and compromises trust.To explore these topics, we will draw on perspectives from Journalism, Media, Sociology, Criminology, Law, Politics, International Relations, Intelligence, Business, History, Computer Science and Philosophy, and on end users from media, journalism, law, governing bodies, regulators, Non-Governmental Organisations, business and security.Seminars will be hosted in Bangor, Aberystwyth, Sheffield and London, and will be free to participants. We will produce: a web site hosting seminar summaries, a blog, and a Final Report outlining areas of academic consensus/dissensus; policy briefs compiled for end users; and a short documentary on transparency hosted on a video-sharing site, with a 6-second Vine clip. We will produce a Special Issue on transparency in an open-access, international, peer reviewed academic journal to illuminate and theorise social norms and consequences of transparency. We will generate an inter-disciplinary research agenda on transparency, to progress future research bids and conferences.Potential Applications & BenefitsBeyond academics, beneficiaries include: commercial and government organizations engaged in transparency; trans-national regulatory bodies, and NGOs, lawyers and media outlets concerned with transparency; and citizens engaged in, and affected by, transparency practices. Academics and end users will better understand: (a) benefits of data collection, storage and analysis; (b) challenges on issues of privacy, security, surveillance and trust; and (c) cross-overs on these issues between state and commercial institutions. Impacts are expected from starting a public debate on transparency that may change transparency-related social and cultural practices of key actors (including citizens), so contributing to social, policy and economic change (as key actors better understand evolving norms).

自2013年泄密者爱德华·斯诺登（Edward Snowden）的爆料以来，我们可以说生活在一个质量和物质上都不同的技术文化时期。斯诺登揭露了美国和英国政府信号情报机构的监视活动，抓住了不知情的学术计算机科学家，信息专家和隐私专家。与此同时，社交媒体使人们通过中介手段相互观看的做法常态化。鉴于这种新的技术文化条件的增加，正常化和强制透明度，学术界的反应是什么？在边沁的基础上，我们认为，今天至少有三种形式的透明度：1.自由透明度-为公共和民主检查打开权力的阴谋，利用知识作为促进社会净利益和幸福的力量; 2.激进透明度-为检查打开公共过程和公民的私人生活;3.自由透明度。我们称之为强制透明度-激进透明度的负面后果，即抵制透明度等同于内疚，选择和自主权被剥夺。目的与目标虽然我们已经开始了透明度的类型学，但实践中的边界尚不清楚，社会走向边沁激进透明度的程度和后果也不清楚。我们设想扩大这种类型学，同时探索边界模糊的情况。认识到隐私是一项有限制的权利，我们的出发点是透明度并不是天生的反乌托邦。相反，我们的目标是了解积极构思的规范可能被歪曲的影响和反应。因此，我们为期2年的系列研讨会将从多学科/最终用户的角度探讨透明度的不同方面（无论是自愿进入，还是国家/商业/同行强加）如何影响隐私，安全，监视和信任问题。这些领域已经被选择，因为透明度侵犯隐私;被认为是必要的安全;不分青红皂白的大规模监视;为了探索这些主题，我们将借鉴新闻学，媒体，社会学，犯罪学，法律，政治学，国际关系，情报，商业，历史，计算机科学和哲学的观点，以及媒体，新闻，法律，管理机构，研讨会将在班戈尔、阿伯里斯特威斯、谢菲尔德和伦敦举办，免费向与会者开放。我们将生产：一个网站，提供研讨会摘要、博客和概述学术共识/分歧领域的最后报告;为最终用户汇编的政策简报;以及一个视频共享网站上提供的关于透明度的简短纪录片，其中有一个6秒的Vine剪辑。我们将在开放获取，国际，同行评审的学术期刊上制作关于透明度的特刊，以阐明和理论化透明度的社会规范和后果。我们将制定一个关于透明度的跨学科研究议程，以推进未来的研究投标和会议。潜在的应用和效益除了学术界，受益者还包括：从事透明度工作的商业和政府组织;跨国监管机构，以及关注透明度的非政府组织、律师和媒体;以及从事透明度实践并受其影响的公民。学术界和最终用户将更好地理解：（a）数据收集、存储和分析的好处;（B）隐私、安全、监视和信任问题上的挑战;（c）国家和商业机构在这些问题上的交叉。预计启动关于透明度的公开辩论会产生影响，这可能会改变关键行为体（包括公民）与透明度有关的社会和文化习俗，从而促进社会、政策和经济变革（因为关键行为体更好地理解不断演变的规范）。