The fifth freedom and the burden of executive power

Advanced ICTs and biometry in mass-surveillance and border control is integral to the securitization agenda which emerged in the early 2000s. This agenda has been particularly instrumental in cultivating migration anxieties and framing the problem of threat as an imperative to identify those who are dangerous to public safety. As well founded as that may be, this framing masks the pivotal role ICTs have in the supervision and surveillance of industries and markets. ICTs are essential to achieve all four freedoms of movement in European market integration, i.e., of goods, services, capital and persons. They are essential to EU-US trade and investment relations which are increasingly underpinned by cross-border data flows. Drawing on mobilities research, this chapter explores how the mobilities of materials, commodities, markets and labour are simultaneously constrained and facilitated in reference to the obligation in Europe to protect yet another freedom of movement, that of data. Against efforts to better protect personal data in these flows, narratives of threat and emergency call for immediate action, whereby any data that can be intercepted can also be gathered for investigative purposes on the basis of exceptional circumstance. The securitization agenda finds its practical utility here in the hands of executive powers, avoiding the legislature and the judiciary. There is no evidence that authorities catch terrorists and criminals because of advanced ICTs in data intercept. The practical utility lies in the ability to target and investigate any individual, any political opposition or exercise in citizen rights to challenge the socio-economic and moral order. Under the circumstances, the only immediate defence available is self-censorship. Publics have no meaningful way of objecting to states of exception in which illiberal practices are legitimized, and neither does the legislature and the judiciary unless the checks on executive powers are adequately reined in

The convergence of the physical, mental and virtual

This editorial introduces a special issue of Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology, centring on the convergence of the physical, mental and virtual. The idea of publishing a special issue on this matter came about at a conference, ICT that makes the difference, organised by the consortium of a FP7-funded project, ICTethics. In particular, we wanted to foreground some of the material presented and debated in sessions on the role of assistive robotics, the use of RFIDs and other implants for brain/body-device interactions, and issues surrounding ‘medical access to the brain’. The special issue takes as its point of departure the gap that exists between the visionary work and experimentation undertaken by scientists, and the results of theoretical and practical reflection on issues of ethical, legal and social relevance. One of the objectives of the ICTethics project is to investigate how ELSA studies can be operationally embedded in the early stages of ICT design and development, as well as in agenda setting for S&T research. But to what extent do scientists, policy-makers, ELSA scholars and other stakeholders network and communicate to bring about improved conditions for good governance and professional accountability? The special issue brings together cutting-edge experimenters, philosophers and ELSA scholars, as both authors and commentators, to explore some of the latest developments that manifest convergence of the physical, mental and virtual, and relate them specifically to issues of selfhood, identity and responsibility, empathy, medical ethics, social robustness and accountability. In doing this, we hope to set an example of how radically different disciplines can communicate and complement each other’s work

Disciplinary orientations and method - Interdisciplinary approximations and distantiations. Documentation report of case study progress.

This deliverable provides a progress documentation of the Epinet case studies. It focusses on key factors in the coming together of disciplinary orientations and methods both within each case study and among the broader communities of expertise and experience who were involved in the embedding phase of the case studies

The archive saga:shepherds of data, documents and code, and their will to order

This thesis is an enquiry into expert-intensive work to support the aggregation and mass-dissemination of scientific articles. The enquiry draws on computer-supported actions and interactions between the people who worked as daily operators, and submitters who worked the system from remote as end-users. These recorded actions and interactions render visible matters of practical responsibility and competence with reference to reportable-accountable use of objects and devices. As a scholarly contribution, this thesis draws on the work started by Garfinkel and his followers, ie., the study programme of ethnomethodology. It poses a simple question—how do the people involved in these computer-supported actions and interactions do just what they do? In the attempt to answer that question, the enquiry shows that a competent and accountable use of system supports is manifested in reference to particular phenomena that need constant management—eg. warnings,anomalies, unknown entities, failing processes, disorderly work objects, and spurious actions—in short, phenomena of disorder. Records of how these phenomena are detected and attended to, and how particular problems are solved, reveals a complex relationship between computational functions and subtle human judgements. Without making generalised theoretical claims about this relationship, I conclude that remarkably little is known about the actual lived work that takes place in the operation and use of computer systems that are worked specifically to detect and cope with `anomalies' and thus require detective and reactionary labour. I offer this enquiry into the goings-on at this particular site as a singular opportunity to respecify problems of disorder

Disciplinarity and value commitments:interdisciplinary approach to knowledge and innovation assessment (discussion paper)

The Horizon 2020 framework programme for research and innovation is promoting an approach referred to as Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). Mandates to implement and mainstream RRI are already evident, whereby interdisciplinarity and integration are treated as pre-given in accounts of what the RRI approach is in practice. In this paper, our point of departure is to ask what to expect realistically when experts and professionals are brought together across disciplines, institutions and national borders in practical attempts to achieve interdisciplinarity and integration of approach to innovation. We revisit Woolgar's and Ashmore's treatise on social epistemology in their development of the reflexive thesis in the late 1980s, and we revisit the turn to practice in STS in the early 2000s. We present our analysis of commitment to matters of practical sensitivity and reflexivity in reference to the philosophical influences and study objectives of the reflexive thesis and the practice turn and we consider how sociological studies have articulated expert practices and the use of knowledge and skill. We address the epistemological challenges innovation assessments face in justifying the relationship they draw between study objects, observation, interpretation and representation and in justifying ideologically and methodologically their own production of knowledge about how others produce knowledge. We address the implications this work has for the development of interdisciplinarity and integration in case studies we have observed, of evaluating new-emerging innovation domains. We argue that the consequences of advancing reflexivity (or awareness of it) as a progressive step forward, rather than a problem to remedy, is critical in shaping a more balanced approach to innovation, even though achieving interdisciplinarity and integration is fragmented and partial

Ambient intelligence:a narrative in search of users (discussion paper)

The vision of Ambient Intelligence (AmI) was first developed in the late 1990s. It describes new worlds, economies and paradigms that emphasize the centrality of human experience, however, distinguished from related visions such as ubiquitous and pervasive computing. A key feature of the AmI vision are the seamless intelligent environments and gadgets, capable of anticipating people’s needs and motivations, and acting autonomously on their behalf. So what can be gleaned from exploring the conditions under which this innovation domain evolves over time and how it adapts to various criticisms and technical challenges? The AmI vision not only represents possible futures but actively creates the worlds in which AmI applications appear to be possible. Visionaries and research leaders build expectations, marshal resources and align key stakeholders. Promises and progressions toward realizing AmI have performative and generative features but the original promise of intelligence has largely failed. This outcome points to a two-sided problem. The definitional looseness of intelligence is permissive of what can be expected of the role and scope of artificial reasoning in AmI interaction paradigms, while ordinary human reasoning and knowing what people actually want and need remains persistently elusive. Grappling still with the problem of what the intelligence in Ambient Intelligence can stand for, research and development has shifted its focus toward the design of practical win-win solutions, coined synergetic prosperity

Making robotic autonomy through science and law?

This document reports on the Epinet workshop on the making of robot autonomy, held in Utrecht 16-17 February 2014. The workshop was part of a case study focused on developments in this area, in particular, autonomy for assistive robots in care and companionship roles. Our participants were of relevant expertise and professional experience: law and ethics, academic and industry robotics, vision assessment and science and technology studies (STS). The workshop was intended to explore the expectations of robot autonomy amongst our participants, against a backdrop of recent policy views and research trends that are openly pushing an agenda of "smarter", more dynamic and more autonomous systems (e.g. European Commission, 2008; EUROP, 2009; Robot Companions for Citizens, 2012). Robotics development is intimately connected with visions of robot autonomy, however, as a practical achievement, robot autonomy remains till this day part real, part promise. Ideas of robot autonomy are nevertheless powerful societally and culturally-specific visions, even if the very notion of "autonomy" is vague and inconsistent in recent accounts of future robots. These accounts still come together with considerable force in directing the efforts of researchers and experimenters, for example, in establishing funding priorities. They have a function in strategic planning for future developments. Accounts of future robots are also informing and shaping the efforts of legislators, ethicists and lawyers. To that effect, one can say that there is an official vision of future robots, a yardstick with which everyone implicated in robotics development has to measure their expectations

CANDID PRIMER: Including Social Sciences and Humanities scholarship in the making and use of smart ICT technologies

publishedVersio

Observations and reflexivity:responsibilising interdisciplinarity and integration

This policy report is based in Epinet WP2 and complements WP1 reporting on the EPINET Integrated Assessment Framework as a Tool for RRI . We present key findings from the empirical research we conducted and was designed to be an instrument of observation and reflexivity in reference to the interdisciplinary innovation assessment cases conducted as part of the Epinet project. In particular, we report on the procedural conditions in carrying out these cases as the basis on which our policy recommendations rest