Tag Archives: Editorial responsibility


Values in Emerging Science and Technology

The Ethicomp series of conferences fosters an international community of scholars and technologists, including computer professionals and business professionals from industry. Since 1995, conferences have been scheduled across Europe and Asia, with our main events coming every 18 months. Ethicomp considers computer ethics conceived broadly to include philosophical, professional, and practical aspects of the field. CEPE (Computer Ethics Philosophical Enquiry), as the name implies, is more narrowly focused on the philosophical aspects of computer and information ethics. CEPE events have been held every 18 months since 1997. Since the CEPE community overlaps considerably with the Ethicomp community, it makes sense for our two conference series to work together. In light of this, our next conference will be a jointly sponsored event, hosted at the Università degli Studi di Torino (University of Turin), Turin, Italy in June of 2017.

In the two decades since the inception of Ethicomp and CEPE, computing has gone from being esoteric and newfangled to ubiquitous and everyday. The ensuing transformations of our cultural and social institutions are liable to accelerate and metastasize as information technologies find their ways into every field of research and every pursuit. Our shared mission of promoting the ethical use of computer technology consequently demands an inquiry into values as these relate broadly to emerging sciences and technologies.


UnBias @ Ethicomp2017

We will be at Ethicomp to present at paper on:
Editorial responsibilities arising from personalization algorithms

Internet Society – European Chapters meeting

Agenda and Details

Wednesday 22 February

12:00 Lunch at the venue

Welcome and introductions, Frederic Donck

Introduction to trust, based on 2016 ISOC report (and discussion), Richard Hill

Editorial responsibility for online content – platform neutrality, recommender systems and the problem of ‘fake news’ (and discussion), Ansgar Koene

Future Internet Scenarios, Konstantinos Komaitis

17:30 Day 1 ends

19:00 Dinner (On Canal Boat leaving from Oosterdok in front of the hotel)

Thursday 23 February

9:00 Day starts

Collaborative security introduction, Olaf Kolkman

Real life examples of collaborative security in action meeting, Andrei Robachevsky

User-Trust, with regard to longevity and security of IoT devices (and discussion), Jonas Jacek

Round table on current issues related to user trust in Europe

12:30 Working lunch at the venue

Search ranking technologies (and discussion), Brandt Dainow

ISOC-NL presentation

Way forward: meeting on next steps, concrete actions for ISOC and chapters

16:00 Day 2 ends

Libel, Privacy, Data Protection and Online Legal Action A Practitioner’s Guide

Legal training half day seminar on internet law organized by the Belfast Solicitors’ Association (“BSA”), in cooperation with the Bar of Northern Ireland.


12.30 – 1pm LUNCH

WELCOME NOTE: @ 1PM (3 mins)

Chairman Bar Council Liam McCollum QC / Chairman BSA Olivia O’Kane (5 mins)

  1. KEY NOTE: (30- 45 mins?)
    Honourable Mr Justice Stephens –  INSERT TALK TITLE
  2. INSERT TALK TITLE (15-20)
    Olivia O’Kane, Solicitor
  3. Defamation Practice-Some Reminiscences and Lessons Learnt (15-20)
    David Ringland QC
  4. 2.40pm REFRESHMENTS
  5. Responsibility and accountability in algorithm mediated services – a look at regulatory and policy concerns (30 mins)
    Dr. Ansgar Koene, Senior Research Fellow: Digital Economy Research Institute, University of Nottingham
  6. Privacy – A poor man’s defamation law? (15 – 20mins)
    Ronan Lavery QC
  7. Computer Prefetch, Shellbags, and Mounted devices – what information can they glean for you? (30 mins)
    Paul Birch, BDO Computer Forensics


News, algorithms bias and editorial responsibility

unbias_conversationIn an almost suspiciously conspiracy-like fashion the official launch of UnBias at the start of September was immediately accompanied by a series of news articles providing examples of problems with algorithms that are making recommendations or controlling the flow of information. Cases like the unintentional racial bias in a machine learning based beauty contest algorithm, meant to remove bias of human judges; a series of embarrassing news recommendations on the Facebook trending topics feed, as a results of an attempt to avoid (appearance of) bias by getting rid of human editors; and controversy about Facebook’s automated editorial decision to remove the Pulitzer prize-winning “napalm girl”  photograph because the image was identifies as containing nudity. My view of these events? “Facebook’s algorithms give it more editorial responsibility – not less (published today in the Conversation).