Demonstrably doing accountability in the Internet of Things

This paper explores the importance of accountability to data protection, and how it can be built into the Internet of Things (IoT). The need to build accountability into the IoT is motivated by the opaque nature of distributed data flows, inadequate consent mechanisms, and lack of interfaces enabling end-user control over the behaviours of internet-enabled devices. The lack of accountability precludes meaningful engagement by end-users with their personal data and poses a key challenge to creating user trust in the IoT and the reciprocal development of the digital economy. The EU General Data Protection Regulation 2016 (GDPR) seeks to remedy this particular problem by mandating that a rapidly developing technological ecosystem be made accountable. In doing so it foregrounds new responsibilities for data controllers, including data protection by design and default, and new data subject rights such as the right to data portability. While GDPR is technologically neutral, it is nevertheless anticipated that realising the vision will turn upon effective technological development. Accordingly, this paper examines the notion of accountability, how it has been translated into systems design recommendations for the IoT, and how the IoT Databox puts key data protection principles into practice.Comment: 31 page

Oxfam GB: Accountability Starter Pack

This guide is for those staff who would like to learn more about how to implement activities that are accountable to people and communities. It is primarily aimed at country-level staff responsible for implementing development or humanitarian projects and programmes. The pack begins with an introduction to Oxfam GB's approach to accountability. This is followed by Oxfam International's Accountability Matrix. The Matrix shows the commitments to accountability found within Oxfam International's Programme Standards, and the different levels programmes can achieve in each area. Following this is an explanation of Oxfam GB's Minimum Standards on Accountability.The rest of the pack is divided into four sections - one for each of the four Standards that Oxfam GB is focussing on. For each Standard, there is a brief explanation as to why this Standard is important, then some 'How-To' Guidelines and a Good Practice example from one of Oxfam's programmes. We have also added an extra section on how to improve greater financial transparency as we have had so many requests for guidance specifically on this

‘The Lighthouse Invites the Storm’ – Professional Regulation of Nursing in England and Wales – Under Threat

This paper explores current issues related to the professional regulation of nursing in England and Wales and considers whether self-regulation is currently under threat. In modern times there have been a significant number of serious incidents and scandals in health and social care and these have attracted adverse publicity in the media and exercised the mind of Government in the direction of public protection. Mental health practice has not escaped the critical gaze and recent homicide inquiries continue to cast a long shadow over the provision of mental health services. Recently, the Government has questioned the effectiveness of the nurses' professional body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council, and has spelt out the pressing need for tighter regulation of nursing practice. Recent policy documents aimed at ‘modernising’ nursing careers may actually circumscribe professional autonomy and subtly control the development of nursing practice and nurse education. On 1st April 2009 a new regulatory body, the Care Quality Commission will come into being and its advent will herald significant changes for health and social care. Lost in the changes will be the Mental Health Act Commission, as a stand alone visiting body

Patients as Consumers: Making the Health Care System Our Own. 9th Annual Herbert Lourie Memorial Lecture on Health Policy.

I ask you to think about our health care system. Think beyond the issues that are in front of us today: the anxiety we have about managed care, obtaining our own health care and paying for it, the survival of Medicare, and the unpredictable impact of government regulations. Think about our *health*, what we want from our health care system, what we're spending all this money for, and what we care about for ourselves and for our families. The challenge we face in the next five, ten, or fifteen years is to place the American health care system under the control of the people who pay for it, who receive the care, and who care the most about the health of the people in our communities.

Edna McConnell Clark Foundation - 2002 Annual Report

Contains president's message, fund and program information, grants list, financial statements, grant guidelines, publications list, and lists of board members and staff

Who Trusts in the Smart City? Transparency, Governance and the Internet of Things

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the community of Tillydrone in Aberdeen for giving their time to this project. A version of this work was previously made available for the Data for Policy conference 2019 (Jacobs et al, 2019) Data availability statement: The qualitative data collected as part of this research is not openly available, but may be accessed for research purposes by contacting the authors. This is for ethical reasons, due to the nature of the consent given by participants who contributed to the research. Funding statement: This research was funded through the TrustLens project, supported by the award made by the RCUK Digital Economy programme to the University of Aberdeen; award reference: EP/N028074/1. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Solving the Information Security & Privacy Crisis by Expanding the Scope of Top Management Personal Liability

While information security and privacy losses are now spiraling out of control, and have been demonstrably shown to threaten national sovereignty, military superiority, industrial infrastructure order, national economic competitiveness, the solvency of major businesses, faith and trust in the Internet as a platform for modern commerce, as well as political stability, the U.S. Congress has nonetheless to date refused to seriously address the root cause of these threats. The root cause is a legally reinforced incentive system that encourages, and further entrenches, top management decisions that provide inadequate resources for, and inadequate top management attention to, information security and privacy matters. This article explains why the current top management legally defined incentive systems are dysfunctional and how they should be modified so as to create considerably more socially desirable results. Employing a minimum-changes politically palatable strategy, the article discusses how a revival of the common law theories of negligence and recklessness, in both the criminal and civil areas, can be used to establish a new socially beneficial top management incentive system. A draft federal statute manifesting these recommendations is provided

Climates of suspicion: 'chemtrail' conspiracy narratives and the international politics of geoengineering

Concurrent with growing academic and policy interest in ‘geoengineering’ the global climate in response to climate change, a more marginal discourse postulating the existence of a climate control conspiracy is also proliferating on the Internet. Here, the term ‘chemtrails’ is used interchangeably with the term geoengineering to describe the belief that the persistent contrails left by aeroplanes provide evidence that a secret programme of large scale weather and climate modification is on-going. Despite recent calls for greater appreciation of the diverse ways in which people conceive of and relate to ideas of climate control, and widespread acknowledgement of the importance of democratic public engagement in governance of geoengineering, the chemtrail conspiracy narrative has received very little attention in academic work to date. This paper builds on work highlighting the instability of the distinction between ‘paranoid’ and ‘normal’ views, and examines the chemtrail conspiracy narrative as a discourse rather than a pathology (either psychological or sociological). The analysis finds that while some elements of the chemtrail narrative do not lend themselves to democratic processes of deliberation, and potential for engagement with more mainstream discourse appears to be low, nevertheless certain elements of the discourse (such as the moral outrage at the idea of powerful elites controlling the climate, or the importance of emotional and spiritual connections to weather and climate) highlight concerns of relevance to mainstream geoengineering debates. Furthermore, the pervasive suspicion that characterises the narrative and its reminder of the key role that trust plays in knowledge creation and the justification of beliefs, signals what is likely to be a perennial issue in the emerging international politics of geoengineering