Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 1–18 | Cite as

Anticipatory Ethics for a Future Internet: Analyzing Values During the Design of an Internet Infrastructure

  • Katie ShiltonEmail author
Original Paper


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.


Anticipatory ethics Values in design Technology ethics Internet architecture 



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.


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Albrechtslund, A. (2007). Ethics and technology design. Ethics and Information Technology, 9(1), 63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Bauer, J. M., & van Eeten, M. J. G. (2009). Cybersecurity: Stakeholder incentives, externalities, and policy options. Telecommunications Policy, 33(10–11), 706–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braman, S. (2012). Privacy by design: Networked computing, 1969–1979. New Media & Society, 14(5), 798–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brey, P. A. E. (2012). Anticipating ethical issues in emerging IT. Ethics and Information Technology, 14(4), 305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, D., & Landau, S. (2011). Untangling attribution. Harvard National Security Journal, 2(2). Retrieved from
  11. Cohen, J. E. (1996). A right to read anonymously: A closer look at “Copyright Management” in Cyberspace. Connecticut Law Review, 28, 981–1039.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, J. E. (2012). Configuring the networked self: Law, code, and the play of everyday practice. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Dahlberg, L. (2010). Cyber-libertarianism 2.0: A discourse theory/critical political economy examination. Cultural Politics: An International Journal, 6(3), 331–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeNardis, L. (2009). Protocol politics: The globalization of internet governance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeNardis, L. (2012). Hidden levers of internet control. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 720–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Fisher, E. (2007). Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics, 1(2), 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Friedman, B. (Ed.). (1997). Human values and the design of computer technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. Fussman, C. (2008, April 24). Vint Cerf interview: Quotes from the father of the internet. Esquire.Google Scholar
  23. Guston, D. H. (2011). Participating despite questions: Toward a more confident participatory technology assessment. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 691–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1–2), 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, D. G. (2007). Ethics and technology “in the Making”: An essay on the challenge of nanoethics. NanoEthics, 1(1), 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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.
  29. Knobel, C. P., & Bowker, G. C. (2011). Values in design. Communications of the ACM, 54(7), 26–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Landau, S. (2011). Surveillance or security? The risks posed by new wiretapping technologies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. Lessig, L. (2006). Code: version 2.0. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. National Science Foundation. (2010). Program solicitation: Future internet architectures (FIA). Retrieved February 16, 2013, from
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. Rey, P. (2011, November 8). Julian Assange: Cyber-libertarian or cyber-anarchist? Cyborgology. Retrieved from
  40. Richards, N. M. (2013). The perils of social reading. Georgetown Law Journal, 101(3). Retrieved from
  41. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  42. 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.Google Scholar
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. Shilton, K. (2013b). Values levers: Building ethics into design. Science, Technology and Human Values, 38(3), 374–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shilton, K., Koepfler, J. A., & Fleischmann, K. R. (2013). Charting sociotechnical dimensions of values for design research. The Information Society, 29(5).Google Scholar
  46. 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.Google Scholar
  47. Solove, D. J. (2010). Understanding privacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  49. 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.Google Scholar
  50. te Kulve, H., & Rip, A. (2011). Constructing productive engagement: Pre-engagement tools for emerging technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(4), 699–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Verbeek, P.-P. (2006). Materializing morality. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(3), 361–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136.Google Scholar
  53. Winner, L. (1997). Cyber libertarian myths and the prospects for community. SIGCAS Computers and Society, 27(3), 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.Google Scholar
  55. Zittrain, J. (2008). The future of the internet-and how to stop it. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Information StudiesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations