Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.5325/JINFOPOLI.9.2019.0037
Daniel Susser
The dominant legal and regulatory approach to protecting information privacy is a form of mandated disclosure commonly known as “notice-and-consent.” Many have criticized this approach, arguing that privacy decisions are too complicated, and privacy disclosures too convoluted, for individuals to make meaningful consent decisions about privacy choices—decisions that often require us to waive important rights. While I agree with these criticisms, I argue that they only meaningfully call into question the “consent” part of notice-and-consent, and that they say little about the value of notice. We ought to decouple notice from consent, and imagine notice serving other normative ends besides readying people to make informed consent decisions.
{"title":"Notice After Notice-and-Consent: Why Privacy Disclosures Are Valuable Even If Consent Frameworks Aren't","authors":"Daniel Susser","doi":"10.5325/JINFOPOLI.9.2019.0037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5325/JINFOPOLI.9.2019.0037","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The dominant legal and regulatory approach to protecting information privacy is a form of mandated disclosure commonly known as “notice-and-consent.” Many have criticized this approach, arguing that privacy decisions are too complicated, and privacy disclosures too convoluted, for individuals to make meaningful consent decisions about privacy choices—decisions that often require us to waive important rights. While I agree with these criticisms, I argue that they only meaningfully call into question the “consent” part of notice-and-consent, and that they say little about the value of notice. We ought to decouple notice from consent, and imagine notice serving other normative ends besides readying people to make informed consent decisions.","PeriodicalId":55617,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Policy","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82099361","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0043
N. Couldry
This article reviews debates about the application of Amartya Sen's capabilities theory to the understanding and regulation of media and communications. It argues that Sen's insistence on the complexity of ethical reasoning, and the underlying complexity of “the good,” makes the capabilities approach the most suitable general approach for considering what media justice is. In particular, the advantages of Sen's approach compared with Martha Nussbaum's specification of particular human capabilities are discussed. Possible supplements of capabilities thinking by the concept of recognition are also discussed, and their limits noted.
{"title":"Capabilities for What? Developing Sen's Moral Theory For Communications Research","authors":"N. Couldry","doi":"10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0043","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article reviews debates about the application of Amartya Sen's capabilities theory to the understanding and regulation of media and communications. It argues that Sen's insistence on the complexity of ethical reasoning, and the underlying complexity of “the good,” makes the capabilities approach the most suitable general approach for considering what media justice is. In particular, the advantages of Sen's approach compared with Martha Nussbaum's specification of particular human capabilities are discussed. Possible supplements of capabilities thinking by the concept of recognition are also discussed, and their limits noted.","PeriodicalId":55617,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82593784","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.5325/jinfopoli.9.1.0148
Daniel Susser
Abstract The dominant legal and regulatory approach to protecting information privacy is a form of mandated disclosure commonly known as “notice-and-consent.” Many have criticized this approach, arguing that privacy decisions are too complicated, and privacy disclosures too convoluted, for individuals to make meaningful consent decisions about privacy choices—decisions that often require us to waive important rights. While I agree with these criticisms, I argue that they only meaningfully call into question the “consent” part of notice-and-consent, and that they say little about the value of notice. We ought to decouple notice from consent, and imagine notice serving other normative ends besides readying people to make informed consent decisions.
{"title":"Notice After Notice-and-Consent: Why Privacy Disclosures Are Valuable Even If Consent Frameworks Aren't","authors":"Daniel Susser","doi":"10.5325/jinfopoli.9.1.0148","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.9.1.0148","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The dominant legal and regulatory approach to protecting information privacy is a form of mandated disclosure commonly known as “notice-and-consent.” Many have criticized this approach, arguing that privacy decisions are too complicated, and privacy disclosures too convoluted, for individuals to make meaningful consent decisions about privacy choices—decisions that often require us to waive important rights. While I agree with these criticisms, I argue that they only meaningfully call into question the “consent” part of notice-and-consent, and that they say little about the value of notice. We ought to decouple notice from consent, and imagine notice serving other normative ends besides readying people to make informed consent decisions.","PeriodicalId":55617,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Policy","volume":"97 3","pages":"148-173"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138506553","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.5325/jinfopoli.9.1.0307
Robert Hunt,Fenwick McKelvey
Abstract The word “algorithm” is best understood as a generic term for automated decision-making. Algorithms can be coded by humans or they can become self-taught through machine learning. Cultural goods and news increasingly pass through information intermediaries known as platforms that rely on algorithms to filter, rank, sort, classify, and promote information. Algorithmic content recommendation acts as an important and increasingly contentious gatekeeper. Numerous controversies around the nature of content being recommended—from disturbing children's videos to conspiracies and political misinformation—have undermined confidence in the neutrality of these systems. Amid a generational challenge for media policy, algorithmic accountability has emerged as one area of regulatory innovation. Algorithmic accountability seeks to explain automated decision-making, ultimately locating responsibility and improving the overall system. This article focuses on the technical, systemic issues related to algorithmic accountability, highlighting that deployment matters as much as development when explaining algorithmic outcomes. After outlining the challenges faced by those seeking to enact algorithmic accountability, we conclude by comparing some emerging approaches to addressing cultural discoverability by different international policymakers.
{"title":"Algorithmic Regulation in Media and Cultural Policy: A Framework to Evaluate Barriers to Accountability","authors":"Robert Hunt,Fenwick McKelvey","doi":"10.5325/jinfopoli.9.1.0307","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.9.1.0307","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The word “algorithm” is best understood as a generic term for automated decision-making. Algorithms can be coded by humans or they can become self-taught through machine learning. Cultural goods and news increasingly pass through information intermediaries known as platforms that rely on algorithms to filter, rank, sort, classify, and promote information. Algorithmic content recommendation acts as an important and increasingly contentious gatekeeper. Numerous controversies around the nature of content being recommended—from disturbing children's videos to conspiracies and political misinformation—have undermined confidence in the neutrality of these systems. Amid a generational challenge for media policy, algorithmic accountability has emerged as one area of regulatory innovation. Algorithmic accountability seeks to explain automated decision-making, ultimately locating responsibility and improving the overall system. This article focuses on the technical, systemic issues related to algorithmic accountability, highlighting that deployment matters as much as development when explaining algorithmic outcomes. After outlining the challenges faced by those seeking to enact algorithmic accountability, we conclude by comparing some emerging approaches to addressing cultural discoverability by different international policymakers.","PeriodicalId":55617,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Policy","volume":"97 4","pages":"307-335"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138506552","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.5325/JINFOPOLI.9.2019.0214
Kim, Atkin
The present study examines the assumption that online users would be influenced by widely reported privacy threats; namely, that public servants might monitor personal online communications between instant messenger users, and compel the Korean domestic social network service (SNS) providers to cooperate with their surveillance efforts. Utilizing uses and gratifications (U&G) theory, we integrate previous research on government surveillance, privacy concern, and motivation variables regarding SNS use. A survey of South Korean users reveals that privacy concern is mediating the relationship between governmental online surveillance and SNS switching intention. Structural equation modeling results suggest that SNS switching intention is predicted positively by interaction motivation and negatively by convenience motivation. Privacy concern mediates the relationship between governmental online surveillance and SNS switching intention. These findings illustrate the measures that users take in response to telecommunication policy actions, particularly those that might logically pose a threat to online privacy. Study findings thus help provide support for a novel theoretical framework that illustrates the utility of media U/G variables in the context of online privacy conceptions stemming from perceived threats of online government surveillance. We conclude by discussing implications for policymakers stemming from user remedies to circumvent state surveillance initiatives.
{"title":"How Government Surveillance Policies Modify SNS Use in South Korea","authors":"Kim, Atkin","doi":"10.5325/JINFOPOLI.9.2019.0214","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5325/JINFOPOLI.9.2019.0214","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The present study examines the assumption that online users would be influenced by widely reported privacy threats; namely, that public servants might monitor personal online communications between instant messenger users, and compel the Korean domestic social network service (SNS) providers to cooperate with their surveillance efforts. Utilizing uses and gratifications (U&G) theory, we integrate previous research on government surveillance, privacy concern, and motivation variables regarding SNS use. A survey of South Korean users reveals that privacy concern is mediating the relationship between governmental online surveillance and SNS switching intention. Structural equation modeling results suggest that SNS switching intention is predicted positively by interaction motivation and negatively by convenience motivation. Privacy concern mediates the relationship between governmental online surveillance and SNS switching intention. These findings illustrate the measures that users take in response to telecommunication policy actions, particularly those that might logically pose a threat to online privacy. Study findings thus help provide support for a novel theoretical framework that illustrates the utility of media U/G variables in the context of online privacy conceptions stemming from perceived threats of online government surveillance. We conclude by discussing implications for policymakers stemming from user remedies to circumvent state surveillance initiatives.","PeriodicalId":55617,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Policy","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88824306","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-02-01DOI: 10.5325/JINFOPOLI.9.2019.0014
Max Hänska
In the social sciences, we often face normative questions, not least because many areas of inquiry intersect with public policy. Understanding and explaining media and communications is one task, deciding how communication systems should be organized quite another, but normative analysis receives scant attention. This article explores normative analysis: what is involved in answering questions about justice and communication, about how sociopolitical and indeed communicative arrangements ought to be organized.
{"title":"Normative Analysis in the Communications Field: Why We Should Distinguish Communicative Means and Ends of Justice","authors":"Max Hänska","doi":"10.5325/JINFOPOLI.9.2019.0014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5325/JINFOPOLI.9.2019.0014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In the social sciences, we often face normative questions, not least because many areas of inquiry intersect with public policy. Understanding and explaining media and communications is one task, deciding how communication systems should be organized quite another, but normative analysis receives scant attention. This article explores normative analysis: what is involved in answering questions about justice and communication, about how sociopolitical and indeed communicative arrangements ought to be organized.","PeriodicalId":55617,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Policy","volume":"69 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2019-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79236573","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0280
William H. Dutton, S. Creese, R. Shillair, Maria Bada
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC-BY-NC-ND ABSTRACT National cybersecurity capacity building involves the development of managerial, technical, social, legal, policy, and regulatory initiatives by a growing ecology of actors to enhance the resilience of nations to cybersecurity breaches, cybercrime, and terrorism. Capacity building is therefore resource intensive, requiring attention across sectors of society, ranging from governments to Internet users. However, it is difficult to justify commitments to capacity building when the benefits of building national cybersecurity capacity are largely based on logical reasoning, limited case studies, anecdotal evidence, and expert opinion rather than systematic empirical evidence. To explore the value of capacity building, this article reports on the early phase of a systematic effort to bring together cross-national data from multiple sources to examine whether indicators related to the cybersecurity capacity of a nation help explain the experiences of Internet users—one of the final payoffs of cybersecurity capacity building.
{"title":"Cybersecurity Capacity: Does It Matter?","authors":"William H. Dutton, S. Creese, R. Shillair, Maria Bada","doi":"10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0280","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0280","url":null,"abstract":"This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC-BY-NC-ND ABSTRACT National cybersecurity capacity building involves the development of managerial, technical, social, legal, policy, and regulatory initiatives by a growing ecology of actors to enhance the resilience of nations to cybersecurity breaches, cybercrime, and terrorism. Capacity building is therefore resource intensive, requiring attention across sectors of society, ranging from governments to Internet users. However, it is difficult to justify commitments to capacity building when the benefits of building national cybersecurity capacity are largely based on logical reasoning, limited case studies, anecdotal evidence, and expert opinion rather than systematic empirical evidence. To explore the value of capacity building, this article reports on the early phase of a systematic effort to bring together cross-national data from multiple sources to examine whether indicators related to the cybersecurity capacity of a nation help explain the experiences of Internet users—one of the final payoffs of cybersecurity capacity building.","PeriodicalId":55617,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Policy","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78578897","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0132
Bonini Baldini
{"title":"Narrative Capability: Self-Recognition and Mutual Recognition in Refugees' Storytelling","authors":"Bonini Baldini","doi":"10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0132","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.9.2019.0132","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55617,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Policy","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85465543","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-03-01DOI: 10.5325/jinfopoli.8.1.0401
Manuel Sánchez de Diego
The right to one's own image is a relatively young right that, in Spain, has its roots in the dignity of the person and it was first recognized in the 1978 Constitution. It is a right that arises from the self-determination of the human being and that is related with other rights such as the right to honor, privacy, protection of personal data, even with older ones such as the right to the inviolability of the home and the right to secrecy of communications. This characteristic makes it different from a purely commercial right, although it can't be denied that, possibly, this is the constitutional right with the greatest economic content.
{"title":"Right to One's Own Image in Spain: What It Is and What It Is Not","authors":"Manuel Sánchez de Diego","doi":"10.5325/jinfopoli.8.1.0401","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.8.1.0401","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The right to one's own image is a relatively young right that, in Spain, has its roots in the dignity of the person and it was first recognized in the 1978 Constitution. It is a right that arises from the self-determination of the human being and that is related with other rights such as the right to honor, privacy, protection of personal data, even with older ones such as the right to the inviolability of the home and the right to secrecy of communications. This characteristic makes it different from a purely commercial right, although it can't be denied that, possibly, this is the constitutional right with the greatest economic content.","PeriodicalId":55617,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Policy","volume":"82 2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73055859","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-03-01DOI: 10.5325/JINFOPOLI.8.2018.0227
Jayakar
This essay is an introduction to the special issue of the Journal of Information Policy (JIP) on the workshop titled “Broadband Research in a Changing World” that met at the American University Washington College of Law, on September 10, 2017. It provides an overview of the multistage process that resulted in the September 10 workshop, introduces the two articles included in the special issue, and summarizes the views and opinions of workshop participants on the means of further stimulating and carrying forward a national dialog on broadband research.
{"title":"Introduction to the Special Issue: Outreach to the Scholarly Community on the National Broadband Research Agenda: Overview of the Workshop","authors":"Jayakar","doi":"10.5325/JINFOPOLI.8.2018.0227","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5325/JINFOPOLI.8.2018.0227","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This essay is an introduction to the special issue of the Journal of Information Policy (JIP) on the workshop titled “Broadband Research in a Changing World” that met at the American University Washington College of Law, on September 10, 2017. It provides an overview of the multistage process that resulted in the September 10 workshop, introduces the two articles included in the special issue, and summarizes the views and opinions of workshop participants on the means of further stimulating and carrying forward a national dialog on broadband research.","PeriodicalId":55617,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Information Policy","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9,"publicationDate":"2018-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89483545","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：