Corinne Cath | University of Oxford (original) (raw)
Papers by Corinne Cath
In October 2016, the White House, the European Parliament, and the UK House of Commons each issue... more In October 2016, the White House, the European Parliament, and the UK House of Commons each issued a report outlining their visions on how to prepare society for the widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI). In this article, we provide a comparative assessment of these three reports in order to facilitate the design of policies favourable to the development of a 'good AI society'. To do so, we examine how each report addresses the following three topics: (a) the development of a 'good AI society'; (b) the role and responsibility of the government, the private sector, and the research community (including academia) in pursuing such a development; and (c) where the recommendations to support such a development may be in need of improvement. Our analysis concludes that the reports address adequately various ethical, social, and economic topics, but come short of providing an overarching political vision and long-term strategy for the development of a 'good AI society'. In order to contribute to fill this gap, in the conclusion we suggest a two-pronged approach.
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
The debate on whether and how the Internet can protect and foster human rights has become a defin... more The debate on whether and how the Internet can protect and foster human rights has become a defining issue of our time. This debate often focuses on Internet governance from a regulatory perspective, underestimating the influence and power of the governance of the Internet's architecture. The technical decisions made by Internet Standard Developing Organisations (SDOs) that build and maintain the technical infrastructure of the Internet influences how information flows. They rearrange the shape of the technically mediated public sphere, including which rights it protects and which practices it enables. In this article, we contribute to the debate on SDOs' ethical responsibility to bring their work in line with human rights. We defend three theses. First, SDOs' work is inherently political. Second, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), one of the most influential SDOs, has a moral obligation to ensure its work is coherent with, and fosters, human rights. Third, the IETF should enable the actualisation of human rights through the protocols and standards it designs by implementing a responsibility-by-design approach to engineering. We conclude by presenting some initial recommendations on how to ensure that work carried out by the IETF may enable human rights.
The debate on whether and how the Internet can protect and foster human rights has become a defin... more The debate on whether and how the Internet can protect and foster human rights has become a defining issue of our time. This debate often focuses on Internet governance from a regulatory perspective, underestimating the influence and power of the governance of the Internet's architecture. The technical decisions made by Internet Standard Developing Organisations (SDOs) that build and maintain the technical infrastructure of the Internet influences how information flows. They rearrange the shape of the technically mediated public sphere, including which rights it protects and which practices it enables. In this article, we contribute to the debate on SDOs' ethical responsibility to bring their work in line with human rights. We defend three theses. First, SDOs' work is inherently political. Second, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), one of the most influential SDOs, has a moral obligation to ensure its work is coherent with, and fosters, human rights. Third, the IETF should enable the actualisation of human rights through the protocols and standards it designs by implementing a responsibility-by-design approach to engineering. We conclude by presenting some initial recommendations on how to ensure that work carried out by the IETF may enable human rights.
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is one of the most important players in maintaining th... more The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is one of the most important players in maintaining the architecture of the Internet. It plays a crucial role in managing the logical layer of the Internet and designing the standards and protocols that define how information flows across the network. Considering the increased public and academic focus on the importance of value-sensitive design after the Snowden revelations in 2013, the limited body of literature on what role societal values could and should have in the development of Internet protocols and standards developed by the IETF is surprising. This research aims to fill this knowledge gap by presenting an in-depth ethnographic case study of the Internet Engineering Task Force.
I ask the question what the role is and should be of human rights – in particular the right to freedom of speech –in the development of IETF Internet protocols and standards.
The data presented in this research presents a window into the day-to-day workings of the IETF. This research builds primarily upon the theories of the role of social values in guiding code as laid out by Clark et al (2005) and Brown et al (2010), and the role of code as a regulator in society as presented by Lessig (2006). Through qualitative interviews, discourse analysis and participant observation I show that particular social values can be instantiated in protocols, if they have the necessary technical properties and if there is no strong commercial or political pushback. I explain how the IETF’s unique position to influence the Internet’s design comes with a moral obligation to ensure its work is aligned with fundamental human rights principles. I also argue that various political, practical and commercial realities create a situation in which it is currently not feasible – or wise – for the IETF to instantiate human rights in protocols. On the basis of these findings I present several policy recommendations to ensure the work of IETF accounts for its potential impact on human rights, and I make various suggestions for further research.
Drafts by Corinne Cath
In October 2016, the White House, the European Parliament, and the UK House of Commons each issue... more In October 2016, the White House, the European Parliament, and the UK House of Commons each issued a report outlining their visions on how to prepare society for the widespread use of AI. In this article, we provide a comparative assessment of these three reports in order to facilitate the design of policies favourable to the development of a 'good AI society'. To do so, we examine how each report addresses the following three topics: (a) the development of a 'good AI society'; (b) the role and responsibility of the government, the private sector, and the research community (including academia) in pursuing such a development; and (c) where the recommendations to support such a development may be in need of improvement. Our analysis concludes that the reports address adequately various ethical, social, and economic topics, but come short of providing an overarching political vision and long-term strategy for the development of a 'good AI society'. In order to contribute to fill this gap, in the conclusion we suggest a two-pronged approach.
In October 2016, the White House, the European Parliament, and the UK House of Commons each issue... more In October 2016, the White House, the European Parliament, and the UK House of Commons each issued a report outlining their visions on how to prepare society for the widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI). In this article, we provide a comparative assessment of these three reports in order to facilitate the design of policies favourable to the development of a 'good AI society'. To do so, we examine how each report addresses the following three topics: (a) the development of a 'good AI society'; (b) the role and responsibility of the government, the private sector, and the research community (including academia) in pursuing such a development; and (c) where the recommendations to support such a development may be in need of improvement. Our analysis concludes that the reports address adequately various ethical, social, and economic topics, but come short of providing an overarching political vision and long-term strategy for the development of a 'good AI society'. In order to contribute to fill this gap, in the conclusion we suggest a two-pronged approach.
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
The debate on whether and how the Internet can protect and foster human rights has become a defin... more The debate on whether and how the Internet can protect and foster human rights has become a defining issue of our time. This debate often focuses on Internet governance from a regulatory perspective, underestimating the influence and power of the governance of the Internet's architecture. The technical decisions made by Internet Standard Developing Organisations (SDOs) that build and maintain the technical infrastructure of the Internet influences how information flows. They rearrange the shape of the technically mediated public sphere, including which rights it protects and which practices it enables. In this article, we contribute to the debate on SDOs' ethical responsibility to bring their work in line with human rights. We defend three theses. First, SDOs' work is inherently political. Second, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), one of the most influential SDOs, has a moral obligation to ensure its work is coherent with, and fosters, human rights. Third, the IETF should enable the actualisation of human rights through the protocols and standards it designs by implementing a responsibility-by-design approach to engineering. We conclude by presenting some initial recommendations on how to ensure that work carried out by the IETF may enable human rights.
The debate on whether and how the Internet can protect and foster human rights has become a defin... more The debate on whether and how the Internet can protect and foster human rights has become a defining issue of our time. This debate often focuses on Internet governance from a regulatory perspective, underestimating the influence and power of the governance of the Internet's architecture. The technical decisions made by Internet Standard Developing Organisations (SDOs) that build and maintain the technical infrastructure of the Internet influences how information flows. They rearrange the shape of the technically mediated public sphere, including which rights it protects and which practices it enables. In this article, we contribute to the debate on SDOs' ethical responsibility to bring their work in line with human rights. We defend three theses. First, SDOs' work is inherently political. Second, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), one of the most influential SDOs, has a moral obligation to ensure its work is coherent with, and fosters, human rights. Third, the IETF should enable the actualisation of human rights through the protocols and standards it designs by implementing a responsibility-by-design approach to engineering. We conclude by presenting some initial recommendations on how to ensure that work carried out by the IETF may enable human rights.
The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is one of the most important players in maintaining th... more The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is one of the most important players in maintaining the architecture of the Internet. It plays a crucial role in managing the logical layer of the Internet and designing the standards and protocols that define how information flows across the network. Considering the increased public and academic focus on the importance of value-sensitive design after the Snowden revelations in 2013, the limited body of literature on what role societal values could and should have in the development of Internet protocols and standards developed by the IETF is surprising. This research aims to fill this knowledge gap by presenting an in-depth ethnographic case study of the Internet Engineering Task Force.
I ask the question what the role is and should be of human rights – in particular the right to freedom of speech –in the development of IETF Internet protocols and standards.
The data presented in this research presents a window into the day-to-day workings of the IETF. This research builds primarily upon the theories of the role of social values in guiding code as laid out by Clark et al (2005) and Brown et al (2010), and the role of code as a regulator in society as presented by Lessig (2006). Through qualitative interviews, discourse analysis and participant observation I show that particular social values can be instantiated in protocols, if they have the necessary technical properties and if there is no strong commercial or political pushback. I explain how the IETF’s unique position to influence the Internet’s design comes with a moral obligation to ensure its work is aligned with fundamental human rights principles. I also argue that various political, practical and commercial realities create a situation in which it is currently not feasible – or wise – for the IETF to instantiate human rights in protocols. On the basis of these findings I present several policy recommendations to ensure the work of IETF accounts for its potential impact on human rights, and I make various suggestions for further research.
In October 2016, the White House, the European Parliament, and the UK House of Commons each issue... more In October 2016, the White House, the European Parliament, and the UK House of Commons each issued a report outlining their visions on how to prepare society for the widespread use of AI. In this article, we provide a comparative assessment of these three reports in order to facilitate the design of policies favourable to the development of a 'good AI society'. To do so, we examine how each report addresses the following three topics: (a) the development of a 'good AI society'; (b) the role and responsibility of the government, the private sector, and the research community (including academia) in pursuing such a development; and (c) where the recommendations to support such a development may be in need of improvement. Our analysis concludes that the reports address adequately various ethical, social, and economic topics, but come short of providing an overarching political vision and long-term strategy for the development of a 'good AI society'. In order to contribute to fill this gap, in the conclusion we suggest a two-pronged approach.