Agile ethics: an iterative and flexible approach to assessing ethical, legal and social issues in the agile development of crisis management information systems
This paper reassess the evaluation of ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI) in relation to the agile development of information systems in the domain of crisis management. The authors analyse the differing assessment needs of a move from a traditional approach to the development of information systems to an agile approach, which offers flexibility, adaptability and responds to the needs of users as the system develops. In turn, the authors argue that this development requires greater flexibility and an iterative approach to assessing ELSI. The authors provide an example from the Horizon 2020 EU-funded project iTRACK (Integrated system for real-time TRACKing and collective intelligence in civilian humanitarian missions) to exemplify this move to an iterative approach in practice, drawing on the process of undertaking an ethical and privacy impact assessment for the purpose of this project.
KeywordsAgile Crisis management Information systems Ethical and privacy impact assessment
Funding was provided by Horizon 2020 (Grant No. 700510).
- Barnard-Wills, D. (2012). Surveillance and identity: Discourse, subjectivity and the state, ashgate. Farnham: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Boersma, K., & Fonio, C. (Eds.) (2017). Big data, surveillance and crisis management. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
- Busher, M., Bylund, M., Sanches, P., Ramirez, L., & Wood, L. (2013). A New Manhatten Project? Interoperability and Ethics in Emergency Response systems of systems. Proceedings of the 10th International ISCRAM conference, Baden-Baden, Germany, May 2013.Google Scholar
- Cavoukian, A. (date unknown). ‘Privacy by design. The 7th Foundational Principles.’ [Online] https://www.ipc.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/Resources/7foundationalprinciples.pdf.
- Cavoukian, A. (2012). Operationalizing privacy by design: A guide to implementing strong privacy practices. Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ontario, Canada, December 2012.Google Scholar
- De Hert, P., Kloza, D., Wright, D., Wadhwa, K., Hosein, G., & Davies, S. (2012). Recommendations for a privacy impact assessment framework for the European Union. Deliverable for the PIAF Project [Online] http://www.piafproject.eu/ref/PIAF_D3_final.pdf.
- DeLaet, D. (2006). The global struggle for human rights: Universal principles in world politics. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Co Inc.Google Scholar
- Dette, R. (2016). Do no digital harm: Mitigating technology risks in Humanitarian contexts. Global Public Policy Institute [Online] https://cooperation.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/cooperation/files/Tech4Dev%202016/1282-Dette-SE01-HUM_FullPaper.pdf.
- Finn, R., Friedewald, M., Gellert, R., Gutwirth, R., Hüsing, B., Kukk, P., Mordini, E., Schûtz, P., Venier, S., & Wright, D. (2011). Privacy, data protection and ethical issues in new and emerging technologies: Five case studies. Deliverable for the Prescient Project [Online] https://www.prescient-project.eu/prescient/inhalte/documents/deliverables.php.
- Hoelscher, K., et al. (2015). Understanding attacks on humanitarian aid workers. Conflict Trends, vol. 6, PRIO: Oslo.Google Scholar
- Humanitarian Outcomes (2015). Aid worker security report: Figures at a glance—2016. [Online] https://aidworkersecurity.org/sites/default/files/HO_AidWorkerSecPreview_1015_G.PDF_.pdf.
- Iannelli, O. (2018). D3.2—Socio-cultural considerations for future development. Deliverable for the iTRACK project [Online] https://www.itrack-project.eu/.
- ICO. (2014). Conducting privacy impact assessments code of practice. [Online] https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1595/pia-code-of-practice.pdf.
- International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners (2009). International Standards on the Protection of Personal Data and Privacy: The Madrid Resolution. Madrid. [Online] https://icdppc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-Madrid-Resolution.pdf.
- Kerasidou, X., Petersen, K., & Büscher, M. (2017). Intersecting ingelligence. In K. Boersma & C. Fonio (Eds.), Big data, surveillance and crisis management. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Kroener, I., & Wright, D. (2015). Privacy impact assessment policy issues. In A. R. Lombarte, R. G. Mahamut (Eds.) Hacia Un Nuevo Derecho Europeo De Protección De Datos. Valencia: Towards A New European Data Protection Regime, Tirant lo Blanch.Google Scholar
- Langheinrich, M. (2001). Privacy-by-Design: Principles of Privacy-Aware ubiquitous computing. In: Umbicomp 2001: International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 273–291).Google Scholar
- Lyon, D. (2007). Surveillance studies: An overview. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Monahan, T. (2010). Surveillance in the time of insecurity. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
- Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: Technology, solutionism and the urge to fix problems that don’t exist. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
- Oliver, I. (2014). Privacy Engineering. CreateSpace, USA.Google Scholar
- Petersen, K. (2015). ELSI guidelines for collaborative design and database of representative emergence and disaster events in Europe. Deliverable 2.2, SecInCoRe project. [Online] http://www.secincore.eu/.
- Soanes, C. (2002). Paperback oxford english dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Vinck, P. (2013). Humanitarian technology. World disasters report 2013, international federation of red cross and red crescent societies, [Online] http://www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/134658/WDR%202013%20complete.pdf.
- Wadhwa, K., & Wright, D. (2014). Following best practices in privacy impact assessments. Privacy Laws and Business, January.Google Scholar