November 17-18, 2014
This workshop was the eighth in a series of investigator meetings for the NSF Future Internet Architecture program. The plan for this meeting was to use specific use cases or scenarios to better understand the implications of the different architectures in the FIA project. The use cases have been generated by the Values in Design Council. The ViD Council is composed of experts from a number of disciplines, primarily the social sciences and law, chosen to provide a range of non-technical perspectives on network design choices.
Monday, November 17
8:30 – 9:00 Registration and Continental Breakfast
9:00 – 9:30 Introduction and review of meeting objectives (David Clark and Darleen Fisher) and (Re)introduction to Values in Design (Helen Nissenbaum)
10:00 – 10:30 Project-based breakouts
10:30 – 10:45 Break
10:45 – 12:15 Breakout groups work on scenarios A and B
12:15 – 1:45 Working lunch and capsule VID talks (Katie Shilton, “Building Values Discussions Into Development Work” and Seda Gürses, “Privacy Research Paradigms in Computer Science”)
1:45 – 2:45 Breakout groups report back on scenarios A and B
2:45 – 3:00 Break
3:00 – 3:30 Presentation of VID scenarios: Scenario B – Access and Approval (Geof Bowker and Daniel Howe) and Scenario D – The Internet of Things (Phoebe Sengers and Natasha Schüll)
3:30 – 4:30 Catch up time, project discussion, questions to ViD group.
4:30 – 5:30 Presentations on FIA and IP (kc claffy, Eben Moglen)
6:00 Reception, Dinner, and VID talks at the NYU Torch Club; (Helen Nissenbaum, “Privacy in Context” and Finn Brunton, “Values in Cryptocurrency”)
Tuesday, November 18
8:30 – 9:00 Breakfast
9:00 – 9:30 Recap of Day One/Day Two Framing (David Clark and Helen Nissenbaum)
(10:30 – Working break)
11:30 – 1:00 Working lunch and capsule VID talks (Geof Bowker, “It's Values all the Way Down: The Case of Big Data” and Phoebe Sengers, Title TBD)
1:00 – 2:00 Breakout groups report back on scenarios C and D
2:00 – 3:00 Plenary Discussion: VID Questions and Answers (David Clark and Helen Nissenbaum)
Scenario A: Incidental data / metadata
Use Case A: A small team of developers associated with a libertarian think tank wants to create a technology company that supports user application that makes its users as impervious to tracking and surveillance from outside parties as current technologies and regulations allow. The team is particularly concerned with recent media stories about the Snowden affair, Apple geolocation tracking, and controversies around Facebook’s research practices. The developers are curious as to which team can best support the libertarian approach, which these developers believe will also be the most lucrative. The scenario addresses privacy, logs, and consequences of inadvertent data mining for system robustness.
Questions for the teams:
Scenario B: Access and Approval
A startup Satellite Images is producing a fleet of satellites which will provide daily hi-res photos of every part of the earth's surface. The founders are driven both by a healthy profit motive, and by a commitment to open source and the use of their data for the greater good. It could be made available for humanitarian crises such as tracking available roads during fires or after earthquakes; or charting the effects of climate change in real time. They have a principle of making their data open to the public after a one year, with the profits being driven by users who need real time data and the set of algorithms they are designing for data analytics. The service accepts anonymous payments (in Bitcoin or variants). Second, they keep no logs, or at least the minimum as required by local law. Third, they are net-neutral, which means that for a given bandwidth, their service feels faster than the services of the large telecom providers.
Scenario C: Online Identities
Use Case A: There has been growing media attention to “real name” policies and other identification measures which challenge people who wish to maintain multiple pseudonymous identities on online services (e.g. keeping separate home and work selves, enabling membership in particular subcultures, etc). There is a growing consensus that it is good and right to allow people to use multiple identities online. While it’s easy to argue that this is an application problem, applications like Facebook would increasingly like to use the network to identify those subverting or avoiding “real name” policies. In this scenario, a social media provider seeks to force users to follow a real-name identity policy. A set of users hope to continue to use the service without revealing their real names.
Questions for the teams:
Use Case B: Anonymous participation will likely continue to be of importance to the future Internet. Anonymous participation might include making use of services ranging from crisis support to alcoholics anonymous to participation in civic activities like voting, petitions, or seeking sensitive information from government websites. Similarly, people challenging government or corporate power may have strong desires to access or publish information anonymously. Each of these forms of participation have differing anonymity and information integrity requirements. Scenario 2 focuses on a corporate whistleblower, as this is situation with a very diverse (and powerful) adversary model. A corporate whistleblower needs to verify that potentially incriminating data is what it purports to be. She has an interest in keeping the integrity and authenticity of any published documents intact (e.g., the adversary may argue that the whistleblower has produced false documents to discredit her). The whistleblower may also need to cover her tracks internally to avoid exposure, she may also want to communicate with journalists anonymously and publish documents anonymously.
Questions for the teams:
Scenario D: The Internet of Things
Use Case A: A 63 year old professional woman, Julia Stilinski, suffers from heart arrhythmia and has an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) that constantly tracks her heart and will intervene with a shock should she need it; also communicates with her doctor. She uses a wearable movement-tracking device that is integrated with her smartphone and its geolocation capacities. Julia tracks her mood and energy levels via an application that tracks her email and online shopping activity as well as data from a collection of wearable sensors (the movement-tracking device, an electronic patch that continuously tracks heart rate and perspiration, another that tracks her posture). The mood/energy tracker is integrated with her home sensors (for lighting, fireplace, temperature, stereo playlist), so that her home can sense through the GPS in her car and phone when she is coming home and can dynamically respond to her current state – by dimming the lights, warming the air, and putting relaxing music on if she needs calming down from a stressful day, or by putting on peppy music and brighter lights if she’s had a slow and boring day and needs a more stimulating environment. This tracker is provided free of charge by her credit card company, in return for the right to use the collected data to adjust its internal model of her credit rating. The scenario raises a range of questions involving net neutrality and loci of control.
Questions for the teams:
Hosted by the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory at MIT under agreement with NSF.
Contact David Clark <email@example.com> with questions or comments.
Content of this page extracted from NSF FIA solicitation and press release. See links above for full text.