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

研究背景自从2013年泄密者爱德华·斯诺登的爆料以来，我们可以说生活在一个从本质上和物质上都不同的技术文化时代。斯诺登揭露了美国和英国政府信号情报机构的监控活动，抓获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，社交媒体已经使人们通过中介方式相互观看的做法正常化。鉴于这种增加、规范和强制透明度的新奇技术文化条件，学术界的反应是什么？在杰里米·边沁的基础上，我们建议今天至少有三种形式的透明度：1.自由透明--为公共和民主监督打开权力的阴谋，利用知识作为促进社会净利益和幸福的力量；2.基本透明--公开公共程序和公民的私人生活，以供检查；3.我们所说的强制透明--激进透明的负面后果，即对透明度的抵制等同于内疚，选择和自主被剥夺。目的与目标虽然我们已经开始了透明度的类型学，但实践中的边界并不清楚，社会朝着边沁的激进透明愿景迈进的程度和后果也是不清楚的。我们设想扩展这种类型，同时探索边界模糊的情况。认识到隐私是一项有条件的权利，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设想的规范可能如何被扭曲的影响和反应。因此，我们为期两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(无论是自愿加入的，还是国家/商业/同行强加的)如何影响隐私、安全、监视和信任问题。之所以选择这些领域，是因为透明度侵犯隐私；被认为是安全所必需的；不分青红皂白地进行大规模监控；以及要求和妥协信任。为了探讨这些主题，我们将从新闻学、媒体、社会学、犯罪学、法律、政治、国际关系、情报、商业、历史、计算机科学和哲学，以及来自媒体、新闻、法律、管理机构、监管机构、非政府组织、商业和安全的最终用户的角度出发。研讨会将在班戈、阿伯里斯特威斯、谢菲尔德和伦敦举行，参与者将免费参加。我们将制作：主办研讨会总结的网站、博客和概述学术共识/异议领域的最终报告；为最终用户汇编的政策简报；以及在视频分享网站上托管的关于透明度的简短纪录片，其中包括一段6秒的Vine剪辑。我们将在一份开放获取、国际同行评议的学术期刊上出版一期关于透明度的特刊，以阐明和理论化透明度的社会规范和后果。我们将制定一项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。潜在的应用和好处比德学者，受益者包括：从事透明度的商业和政府组织；关注透明度的跨国监管机构、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。学者和最终用户将更好地了解：(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；以及(C)国家和商业机构在这些问题上的交叉。预计启动一场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者(包括公民)与透明度有关的社会和文化做法，从而促进社会、政策和经济变化(因为主要行为者更好地了解不断演变的规范)。

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).