Abstract
The technical details of Internet architecture affect social debates about privacy and autonomy, intellectual property, cybersecurity, and the basic performance and reliability of Internet services. This paper explores one method for practicing anticipatory ethics in order to understand how a new infrastructure for the Internet might impact these social debates. This paper systematically examines values expressed by an Internet architecture engineering team—the Named Data Networking project—based on data gathered from publications and internal documents. Networking engineers making technical choices also weigh non-technical values when working on Internet infrastructure. Analysis of the team’s documents reveals both values invoked in response to technical constraints and possibilities, such as efficiency and dynamism, as well as values, including privacy, security and anonymity, which stem from a concern for personal liberties. More peripheral communitarian values espoused by the engineers include democratization and trust. The paper considers the contextual and social origins of these values, and then uses them as a method of practicing anticipatory ethics: considering the impact such priorities may have on a future Internet.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agre, P. E. (1998). Beyond the mirror world: Privacy and the representational practices of computing. In Technology and privacy: The new landscape (pp. 29–61). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Albrechtslund, A. (2007). Ethics and technology design. Ethics and Information Technology, 9(1), 63–72.
Alsheikh, T., Rode, J. A., & Lindley, S. E. (2011). (Whose) value-sensitive design: a study of long-distance relationships in an Arabic cultural context. In Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 75–84). New York, NY: ACM. Retrieved from http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1958824.1958836.
Bauer, J. M., & van Eeten, M. J. G. (2009). Cybersecurity: Stakeholder incentives, externalities, and policy options. Telecommunications Policy, 33(10–11), 706–719.
Bendrath, R., & Mueller, M. (2011). The end of the net as we know it? Deep packet inspection and internet governance. New Media & Society, 13(7), 1142–1160.
Braman, S. (2012). Privacy by design: Networked computing, 1969–1979. New Media & Society, 14(5), 798–814.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Brey, P. A. E. (2012). Anticipating ethical issues in emerging IT. Ethics and Information Technology, 14(4), 305–317.
Citron, D. K. (2010). Civil rights in our information age. The offensive internet: Privacy, speech, and reputation (pp. 31–49). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Clark, D., & Landau, S. (2011). Untangling attribution. Harvard National Security Journal, 2(2). Retrieved from http://harvardnsj.com/2011/03/untangling-attribution-2/.
Cohen, J. E. (1996). A right to read anonymously: A closer look at “Copyright Management” in Cyberspace. Connecticut Law Review, 28, 981–1039.
Cohen, J. E. (2012). Configuring the networked self: Law, code, and the play of everyday practice. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc.
Dahlberg, L. (2010). Cyber-libertarianism 2.0: A discourse theory/critical political economy examination. Cultural Politics: An International Journal, 6(3), 331–356.
DeNardis, L. (2009). Protocol politics: The globalization of internet governance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
DeNardis, L. (2012). Hidden levers of internet control. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 720–738.
DiBenedetto, S., Gasti, P., Tsudik, G., & Uzun, E. (2012). ANDaNA: Anonymous named data networking application. In 19th Annual network & distributed system security symposium. Presented at the 19th annual network & distributed system security symposium, San Diego, CA: Internet Society. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.2205.
Fisher, E. (2007). Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics, 1(2), 155–165.
Friedman, B. (Ed.). (1997). Human values and the design of computer technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., & Borning, A. (2006). Value sensitive design and information systems. In D. Galletta & P. Zhang (Eds.), Human-computer interaction and management information systems: Applications (Vol. 6). New York: M.E. Sharpe.
Friedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1997). Bias in computer systems. In B. Friedman (Ed.), Human values and the design of computer technology (pp. 21–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fussman, C. (2008, April 24). Vint Cerf interview: Quotes from the father of the internet. Esquire.
Guston, D. H. (2011). Participating despite questions: Toward a more confident participatory technology assessment. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 691–697.
Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1–2), 93–109.
Jacobson, V., Smetters, D. K., Thornton, J. D., Plass, M. F., Briggs, N. H., & Braynard, R. L. (2009). Networking named content. Proceedings of the 5th international conference on emerging networking experiments and technologies, pp 1–12.
Johnson, D. G. (2007). Ethics and technology “in the Making”: An essay on the challenge of nanoethics. NanoEthics, 1(1), 21–30.
Johnson, D. G. (2011). Software agents, anticipatory ethics, and accountability. In G. E. Marchant, B. R. Allenby, & J. R. Herkert (Eds.), The growing gap between emerging technologies and legal-ethical oversight (pp. 61–76). Netherlands: Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-1356-7_5.
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2012). Affordances in HCI: toward a mediated action perspective. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 967–976). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2208516.2208541.
Knobel, C. P., & Bowker, G. C. (2011). Values in design. Communications of the ACM, 54(7), 26–28.
Landau, S. (2011). Surveillance or security? The risks posed by new wiretapping technologies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Lemley, M. A., & Lessig, L. (2001). The end of end-to-end: Preserving the architecture of the internet in the broadband era. UCLA Law Review, 48(4), 925–972.
Lessig, L. (2006). Code: version 2.0. New York: Basic Books.
Lofland, J., Snow, D., Anderson, L., & Lofland, L. H. (2006). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Loo, S. (2012). Design-ing ethics. In E. Felton, O. Zelenko, & S. Vaughan (Eds.), Design and ethics: Reflections on practice (pp. 10–19). London: Routledge.
Manders-Huits, N., & Zimmer, M. (2009). Values and pragmatic action: The challenges of introducing ethical intelligence in technical and design communities. International Review of Information Ethics, 10, 37–44.
Miller, J. K., Friedman, B., & Jancke, G. (2007). Value tensions in design: the value sensitive design, development, and appropriation of a corporation’s groupware system. In Proceedings of the 2007 international ACM conference on supporting group work (pp. 281–290). Sanibel Island, Florida: ACM. Retrieved from http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1316624.1316668.
National Science Foundation. (2010). Program solicitation: Future internet architectures (FIA). Retrieved February 16, 2013, from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2010/nsf10528/nsf10528.htm.
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1989). The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Rey, P. (2011, November 8). Julian Assange: Cyber-libertarian or cyber-anarchist? Cyborgology. Retrieved from http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2011/11/08/julian-assange-cyber-libertarian-or-cyber-anarchist/#more-5260.
Richards, N. M. (2013). The perils of social reading. Georgetown Law Journal, 101(3). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2031307.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.
Shilton, K. (2013a). This is an intervention: foregrounding and operationalizing ethics during technology design. In K. D. Pimple (Ed.), Emerging pervasive information and communication technologies (PICT). Ethical challenges, opportunities and safeguards (pp. 177–192). London: Springer.
Shilton, K. (2013b). Values levers: Building ethics into design. Science, Technology and Human Values, 38(3), 374–397.
Shilton, K., Koepfler, J. A., & Fleischmann, K. R. (2013). Charting sociotechnical dimensions of values for design research. The Information Society, 29(5).
Shilton, K., Koepfler, J. A., & Fleischmann, K. R. (2014). How to see values in social computing: methods for studying values dimensions. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing (CSCW 2014). Presented at the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing (CSCW 2014). Baltimore, MD: ACM.
Solove, D. J. (2010). Understanding privacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Suchman, L. (1997). Do categories have politics? The language/action perspective reconsidered. In B. Friedman (Ed.), Human values and the design of computer technology (pp. 91–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
te Kulve, H., & Rip, A. (2011). Constructing productive engagement: Pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 699–714.
Verbeek, P.-P. (2006). Materializing morality. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(3), 361–380.
Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.
Winner, L. (1997). Cyber libertarian myths and the prospects for community. SIGCAS Computers and Society, 27(3), 14–19.
Zhang, L., Estrin, D., Burke, J., Jacobson, V., Thornton, J. D., Smetters, D. K., et al. (2010). Named data networking (NDN) project (PARC technical report no. NDN-0001). Palo Alto, CA: PARC.
Zittrain, J. (2008). The future of the internet-and how to stop it. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to colleagues Jeff Burke, Jes Koepfler, Amalia Levy, and James Neal for discussions and feedback on drafts of this paper, and especially to James for assistance with data coding. Thanks also to colleagues who attended the 2013 iConference Research Paper Development Roundtable, and in particular Dr. Michael Zimmer, for invaluable feedback on earlier drafts. This work is supported by the National Science Foundation under grant # CNS-1040868.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shilton, K. Anticipatory Ethics for a Future Internet: Analyzing Values During the Design of an Internet Infrastructure. Sci Eng Ethics 21, 1–18 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9510-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9510-z