- Air-L - lists.aoir.org

CfP ASCA Workshop: Resistance, Refusal, Fugitivity
by Hannah Poon 02 Feb '24

02 Feb '24

Dear colleagues, We warmly invite you to submit an abstract to the ASCA (Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis) International Workshop: Resistance, Refusal, Fugitivity held at the University of Amsterdam on 5-7 June 2024 The deadline for submission is 15 March 2024. Please find below or this link<https://asca.uva.nl/programme/workshops/resistance-refusal-fugitivity/rrf.h…> for the details of the workshop. If you have any question, please contact us at ascaworkshop2024(a)gmail.com. Best wishes, Hannah Poon, Oscar Talbot, Safae El Khannoussi El Bouidrin PhD candidates, University of Amsterdam ------------------------------------------ Call for Papers ASCA International Workshop: Resistance, Refusal, Fugitivity (5-7 June 2024) Asymmetries of power continue to be felt, lived in, and subverted. Where there is power there is resistance, but the forms of these counteractions are myriad and various (e.g. Foucault; Fraser; Scott; Feldman; Bargu). Understanding these struggles, whether they come from the resurgent decolonial movements, the embattled struggles that have emerged as we face the Anthropocene, or the re-composition of our media-landscape through the whims of the billionaire class, is one of the most pressing tasks of our time. This workshop will bring together theorists, historians, practitioners, and media researchers to understand the multiplicities contained within contemporary resistance. At the same time, the fugitive, a figure of the subaltern is making their presence known (M'Charek; Harney and Moten; Spivak). Networks of actors whose very life is made illegal are forced to seek refuge outside of systems of control and surveillance. In response, large-scale civil society organising, from migration to abortion networks, have made significant impact on Dutch, European, and global society through strategies of resistance, refusal, and fugitivity (Emejulu; Lewis). The aesthetics of these defiant and subversive practices colour our cultural and media landscapes like never before. Authors, artists, content creators, and cultural institutions continue to reconstitute gender, sexuality, adulthood, nationality, coloniality, and capitalism in response to the constraints of the past. This workshop aims to provide an interdisciplinary platform for a pressing and multifaceted investigation of resistance, refusal and fugitivity, including but not limited to: * Historical perspectives: analysing resistance movements and fugitive acts throughout history, from enslaved individuals escaping captivity to contemporary political and civil society struggles. * Theoretical frameworks: examining the rich tapestry of academic theories that underpin the concepts of resistance, refusal and fugitivity, encompassing fields such as sociology, history, political science, anthropology, and critical race studies, as well as media analysis, ethnography, and auto-theory. * Contemporary applications: investigating the relevance of resistance and fugitivity in the contemporary context, including discussions of social movements, grassroots activism, and their impact on policy and social change. * Object analysis: specific sites of resistance have formed the nodes of these conflicts and tensions, from housing estates, 5G network towers, forests, prisons, message boards, advert display panels, to films, literature, artworks and popular culture. Possible themes or lines of enquiry might include: * Ecological breakdown – Managing, resisting, and survival in the climate collapse. We particularly welcome contributions that consider ecology and land back struggles. * Digital Activism – How do online spaces and cultures act as nodes of resistance? * (Counter/Anti) Violence – What are the scopes and possibilities of counter-conduct amid state-sanctioned violence, ever expanding abandonment, and racial necropolitics? * Undercommoning – What strategies are employed to challenge dominant systems of power and knowledge, and create alternative spaces and ways of existence? * Anarchives (Brozgal) – What are the possibilities of archives beyond sterile and fixed conceptions of historical narratives? How should we approach the lacunas in knowledge, the hidden and invisible knowledge that has been lost to colonial violence? * Hidden transcripts (Scott) – How do critiques of power take place ‘offstage’, beyond the direct control of the powerholders, particularly in repressive settings? * Aesthetics and politics – How do cultural objects and artistic practices disrupt dominant discourses? * Gentrification – How are the gentrification of places of refuge and domiciles resisted? * Affect and subjectivity – How can resistance be understood in terms of affects and as a mode of subjectivity? * Activist-scholarship – How do activism and scholarship intersect? What does it mean to be an activist-scholar? * How can we see these acts of resistance and moments of refusal as parts of decolonial struggle? Confirmed keynotes Jia TAN (The Chinese University of Hong Kong) Nicholas Thoburn (University of Manchester) General information ASCA Workshop 2024 is a three-day in-person event taking place in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Please note that we cannot accommodate virtual presentations. How to apply? We welcome individual applications in the form of academic and artistic research. Please submit a 300-word abstract and a 100-word bio. Presentations should be up to 15 minutes in length. If you are considering a different presentation format, please get in touch with us and we will do our best to accommodate your request. Events such as workshops, roundtables or seminars are also welcome. Please submit a proposal that includes a title, a short description (300 words) and a list of participants. Applications should be submitted by March 15, 2024 to ascaworkshop2024(a)gmail.com. Specify if you are a rMA student or PhD candidate and to which university/program you are affiliated. We will notify the applicants about the selection by April 14, 2024.

1 0

Call for Book Chapter
by Hakikur Rahman 01 Feb '24

01 Feb '24

Call for book chapters: Call for Book Chapters: "Blockchain for Knowledge Management: A Comprehensive Guide to Blockchain Technologies and Their Applications in Knowledge Management." Editor: Hakikur Rahman, Asian University of Bangladesh, Bangladesh Publisher: IGI Global, USA. Introduction: The book aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of blockchain technologies for knowledge management. The book will cover the following topics: - Blockchain technologies for knowledge management - Blockchain-based knowledge management systems - Blockchain-based knowledge sharing and collaboration - Blockchain-based knowledge discovery and innovation - Blockchain-based knowledge security and privacy - Blockchain-based knowledge governance and regulation Objective of the Book: The objective of the book is to provide a comprehensive understanding of blockchain technologies for knowledge management. The book will be a valuable resource for researchers, academicians, students, and professionals working in the field of knowledge management. Target Audience: The target audience of the book includes, but is not limited to, researchers, academicians, students, and professionals working in the field of knowledge management. Recommended Topics: Contributors are welcome to submit chapters on the following topics related to blockchain technologies for knowledge management: - Blockchain-based knowledge management systems - Blockchain-based knowledge sharing and collaboration - Blockchain-based knowledge discovery and innovation - Blockchain-based knowledge security and privacy - Blockchain-based knowledge governance and regulation - Blockchain-based knowledge transfer and exchange - Blockchain-based knowledge representation and reasoning - Blockchain-based knowledge preservation and curation - Blockchain-based knowledge discovery and analytics - Blockchain-based knowledge sharing economy Submission Procedure: Researchers and practitioners are invited to submit on or before March 03, 2024, a chapter proposal of 1,000 to 2,000 words clearly explaining the mission and concerns of his or her proposed chapter. Authors will be notified by April 07, 2024 about the status of their proposals and sent chapter guidelines. Publisher: This book is scheduled to be published by IGI Global, USA (http://www.igi-global.com) Important Dates: Chapter Proposal Submission Deadline: March 03, 2024 Notification of Acceptance: April 07, 2024 Full Chapter Submission Deadline: June 16, 2024 Inquiries: Inquiries can be forwarded to the editor at mailto:email@hakik.org. If you are interested to submit a book chapter, please visit the link below and submit: https://www.igi-global.com/publish/call-for-papers/call-details/7211

1 0

NSF Civic Innovation Challenge (CIVIC)
by Joly MacFie 01 Feb '24

01 Feb '24

The Civic Innovation Challenge (CIVIC) is a research and action competition designed to build a more cohesive research-to-innovation pipeline and foster a collaborative spirit between communities and researchers. CIVIC aims to flip the community-university dynamic by empowering communities and researchers to jointly identify civic priorities ripe for innovation and to address these priorities as equal partners. Together, academic and civic partners leverage scientific and community expertise to make progress towards addressing the themes in the two tracks specified in this solicitation. https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/civic-innovation-challenge-civic/… > CIVIC aims to accelerate the transition to practice of foundational > research and emerging technologies and approaches into communities through > civic-engaged research, while deepening cooperation and information sharing > across sectors and regions. Whereas many community-university partnerships > take years to provide tangible benefits to communities, CIVIC funds > projects that rapidly pilot state-of-the-art technologies and ideas over 12 > months, following a six-month planning phase, and have the potential for > lasting impact in the partnering community as well as the potential to be > scaled and implemented in other communities. -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- -

1 0

Call for Abstracts: Panel on AI Imaginaries for #AoIR2024
by Natalia Stanusch 01 Feb '24

01 Feb '24

Dear All, We are writing to inquire if any of you are currently engaged in research or projects related to AI imaginaries. If so, would you like to join forces for a panel on AI Imaginaries for #AoIR2024? Below please find the panel call. We would like to receive your 1,000-word abstract by February 16th. If you have any questions, feel free to contact us at n.b.stanusch(a)uva.nl<mailto:n.b.stanusch@uva.nl> and R.A.Rogers(a)uva.nl<mailto:R.A.Rogers@uva.nl>. Best regards, Natalia Stanusch Richard Rogers Media Studies University of Amsterdam Panel proposal: AI Industry Expectations and Underperforming Imaginaries Convenors: Natalia Stanusch and Richard Rogers (University of Amsterdam) AI industry expectations from labor-savings and helpful, harmless automation but also media manipulation and existential threat currently represent dominant strands of the discourse. But what of the counter-imaginaries? The panel takes up AoIR’s theme of how industry pre-mediates the future of internet technology and its effects and inquires into alternatives. How can we utilize ideas from controversy and issue mapping as well as from the study of sociotechnical imaginaries and develop further the study of counter-imaginaries to critically survey, analyze, and reimagine artificial intelligence (AI) within and beyond the AI industry? We welcome empirical and theoretical contributions that locate, map and critically examine AI imaginaries together with counter-imaginaries that engage with and intervene in those of the AI industry. As both Bruno Latour (2005) and Sheila Jasanoff (2013) have argued, albeit with somewhat different thrusts, there are certain moments in the course of technology development when for its critical study it is especially doable to map debate and appropriate to invoke the notion of imaginaries. It is when an industry and science are in palpable motion, not quite stabilized. It is also when controversies concerning failures or accidents prompt actor positioning and when visions of desirable trajectories and impacts compete. These are instances when it is opportune to undertake mappings. This panel seeks to take this analytical opportunity to map the discursive landscape of AI technology developments, welcoming multiple approaches to do so. The mapping approach, from controversy and issue mapping (Venturini & Munk, 2021; Rogers et al., 2015), would place emphasis on how actor associations, both discursive as well as through connective action, assemble agendas and build worlds. The imaginaries point of departure focuses on how visions are articulated and performed, together with the kinds of social orders they promote and cement. Other approaches are also welcome. The panel also responds to invitations to map the AI industry (Crawford 2021), such as an extraction industry. The AI pipeline, so to speak, relies on raw materials and finished products, such as edited newspaper articles. Some of these materials become visible through traces, such as when Reddit turns up in Google autocompletion or periodical titles appear in AI platform responses. Guardrails (or injection guards) seek to wipe these remnants of training materials, so their trace mapping is challenging. The panel is also interested in the part played by so-called Big Tech. As stated in the recent report by the AI Now Institute, “there is no AI without Big Tech” (Kak & West, 2023). The related magazine article had as its headline: ‘Make no mistake—AI is owned by Big Tech’ (Kak et al., 2023). Reference here is made especially to chatty large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, which recently have become inseparable terminologically from AI. A Big Tech framework for considering how it guides AI would include the study of beta releases, which enable its assessments and harms to be identified by users ex post rather than by the company a priori (Marres 2017). Another would be the application of commercial content moderation (Roberts 2019; Gillespie 2018), where low-wage, outsourced laborers are tasked with removing undesirable content. There are also policy linkages and imaginaries shared by actors to be mapped. As Big Tech, does the relatively centralized AI industry share interests in similar regulatory policies and narratives? Where self-regulation once was a refrain of industry, now there are invitations for regulators to step in. How does industry imagine regulation? This call for abstracts is thus a response to engage in the study of AI as new media concentration (Bode & Goodlad, 2023). While reassembling how Big Tech’s imaginaries may be stabilizing, the more normative question concerns the monopoly position. How to map out the alternatives to Big Tech’s visions of AI? By employing the notion of counter-imaginaries of AI, we are interested in a variety of temporal and spatial framings. With respect to temporalities, we are interested in ‘horizons talk’ and how time chunking of the future marks discourse. A shifting of the space of debate and imagination is also fruitful. Where are AI futures distinctive from the extractive, Big Tech trajectory? We seek contributions that engage with mapping AI imaginaries and counter-imaginaries on both methodological and conceptual levels. Some of the possible topics include but are not limited to: · Past, contemporary, and emerging mappings of AI imaginaries and visions of the future · Sector specific (e.g. LLMs, facial recognition, chat bots), process specific (e.g. data labeling, training, deployment of models), or industry-wide AI imaginaries · Resistance practices to industry-driven AI imaginaries and counter-imaginaries of AI · Critical studies of AI industry’s marketing material and business talk · Folk theories around AI and people’s AI imaginaries · Digital research methods for mapping AI imaginaries · Global AI imaginaries from outside of Silicon Valley · Historical and media archeological AI imaginaries · AI-related visuality and image studies · Identity and AI imaginaries · Studies of fiction and works of art engaging with AI and AI processes Individual submissions to the panel should include an extended abstract of 1000-1200 words (excluding reference list) for each of the constituent papers in the standard AoIR paper submission template. Please let us know if you are interested in participating. The abstracts are due on February 16th and can be sent to both n.b.stanusch(a)uva.nl<mailto:n.b.stanusch@uva.nl> and R.A.Rogers(a)uva.nl<mailto:R.A.Rogers@uva.nl>. References Bode, K. and Goodlad, L. M. E. (2023). “Data Worlds: An Introduction.” In Critical AI (2023) 1(1-2). 10.1215/2834703X-10734026. Crawford, K. (2021. The Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. Yale University Press. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. Yale University Press Jasanoff, S. (2015) “Future Imperfect: Science, Technology, and the Imaginations of Modernity.” In Jasanoff, S. and Kim,S.-H. (eds), Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power, University of Chicago Press. Jasanoff, S. and Kim, S. (2013). “Sociotechnical Imaginaries and National Energy Policies.” Science as Culture. 22, pp. 189-196. 10.1080/09505431.2013.786990. Kak, A, West, S. M., and Whittaker, M. (December 5, 2023). “Make no mistake—AI is owned by Big Tech.” MIT Technology Review. Kak, A. and West, S. M. (April 11, 2023). “AI Now 2023 Landscape: Confronting Tech Power”, AI Now Institute. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social – An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press. Marres N. (2017). Digital Sociology: The Reinvention of Social Research. Polity Press. Roberts, S. T. Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of Social Media. Yale University Press, 2019. Rogers, R., Sánchez-Querubín, N., and Kil, A. (2015). Issue Mapping for an Ageing Europe. Amsterdam University Press. Venturini, T. and Munk, A. K. (2022). Controversy Mapping: A Field Guide. Polity Press.

1 0

WEBCAST FEB 1 – NTIA 2024 Spectrum Policy Symposium
by Joly MacFie 01 Feb '24

01 Feb '24

This is about to begin. First since 2022 as the NTIA skipped 2023. Not an ISOC webcast, so no real time text from me, but there will be closed captions. The initial YouTube link is https://youtu.be/NaaFb6Sh61E but that may change at lunch. [image: isoc live] <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=f321525630e94477d7c5628…> On *Thursday, Feb. 1, 2024*, *9am-4:30pm EST* (14:00-21:30 UTC) the *National Telecommunications and Information Administration <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=b1b3babbe192b3c643402d0…>* (NTIA) will hold its sixth *Spectrum Policy Symposium <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=9f378cf49b35894cc74441d…>* at the National Press Club in Washington DC. This year’s Symposium will focus on implementation of the *National Spectrum Strategy <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=57145da5ae25f3d9c3171db…>*, including panel discussions aligned with each pillar of the strategy, highlighted by keynote remarks from policymakers from the White House, Congress, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, and the Federal Communications Commission. (No times specified) *Welcome* *Gina Raimondo*, U.S. Secretary of Commerce *Alan Davidson*, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications & Information, U. S. Department of Commerce *Keynote Speeches* *Don Graves*, Deputy Secretary, U. S. Department of Commerce *Anne Neuberger*, Deputy National Security Advisor for Cyber and Emerging Technologies, National Security Council *Anna Gomez*, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission *Pillar 1 Panel Discussion: A Spectrum Pipeline to Ensure U.S. Leadership in Spectrum-Based Technologies* *Robert Hampshire*, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Department of Transportation *Jonathan Campbell*, Legal Advisor–Wireless, International & Space, Office of the Chairwoman, Federal Communications Commission *Jennifer Warren*, VP–Regulatory Affairs & Public Policy, Lockheed Martin *Umair Javed*, Senior VP for Spectrum, CTIA *James Assey*, Executive VP, NCTA Moderator: *Charles Cooper* *Pillar 2 Panel Discussion: Collaborative Long-Term Spectrum Planning to Support the Nation’s Evolving Spectrum Needs* *Mary Brown*, Advisor to WIFI Forward *Brett Kilbourne*, representing Utilities Technology Council (UTC) *John Kuzin*, VP – Spectrum Policy & Regulatory Counsel, Qualcomm *Flynn Rico-Johnson*, Deputy Chief of Staff, Congresswoman Doris Matsui *Tomasz Wojtaszek*, Director, Radio Frequency Management Division, Office of the Chief Information Officer, NOAA Moderator: *Derek Khlopin* =LUNCH= *Pillar 3 Panel Discussion: Unprecedented Spectrum Access and Management through Technology Development* *Dr. John Chapin*, Special Advisor for Spectrum, National Science Foundation *Dr. Monisha Ghosh*, Professor, Electrical Engineering, University of Notre Dame *Dr. Charles Dietlein*, Senior Research Engineer, Institute for Telecommunication Sciences *Dr. Andrew Clegg*, Spectrum Lead, Google *Dr. Brian Kelley*, Principal Investigator & SME, FutureG Applied Research, DoD Moderator: *Paul Ransom* *ITS Overview and ISART Conference Preview* *William Kozma*, Institute for Telecommunication Sciences, Boulder, Colorado *Pillar 4 Panel Discussion: Growth of the Spectrum Workforce, Increased Understanding of Spectrum, and Raised Awareness of Spectrum’s Importance to the Country* *Dr. Nick Laneman*, Director. SpectrumX / Co-Director, Wireless Institute, University of Notre Dame *RJ Balanga*, Deputy Director, Spectrum Policy and Planning Division, NASA *Phil Karn*, President, Amateur Radio Digital Communications (ARDC) *Dr. Sheryl Genco*, VP–Advanced Technology, Ericsson Moderator: *Phil Murphy* *Looking Forward: A Roundtable Discussion on Implementation Next Steps* *Austin Bonner*, Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Policy, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) *Matthew Pearl*, Director and Special Advisor for Emerging Technologies, White House National Security Council (NSC) *Scott Blake Harris*, Senior Spectrum Advisor and Director–National Spectrum Strategy, NTIA *Wrap-up and closing remarks* *LIVESTREAM https://www.ntia.gov/other-publication/2024/2024-ntia-spectrum-policy-sympo… <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=55b8e358994c726825fd236…> * (CC) *REGISTER: Email Name/Affiliation to spectrumsymposium(a)ntia.gov <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=028bf4a2006b7731cd1a635…> with the subject line "Livestream Registration"* *REAL TIME TEXT* (see *ISOC.LIVE <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=f321525630e94477d7c5628…>*) (if available) *TWITTER #spectrumsymposium <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=5db2f498b70253b7cbbf6dd…> @NTIAgov * *MASTODON https://mastodon.social/tags/spectrumsymposium <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=032416c31c793f1bd21eb66…> * *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/ntia-spectrum-policy-symposium <http://isoc.live/?action=user_content_redirect&uuid=505df4b5bf74660d1248110…>* *Permalink https://isoc.live/17285 <https://isoc.live/17285>* - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- -

1 0

CfP: 'Futures Work' panel at 4S/EASST
by Jessica Ogden 01 Feb '24

01 Feb '24

Hi all I suppose more apologies are in order for posting *yet another* (!) 4S/EASST Amsterdam CfP, but we are still seeking proposals for our ‘Futures Work’ panel on STS and all things ‘futuring’, and I thought folks within this community might be interested! IMO it would be great to get some folks talking about web/internet futures :) *Abstract* Futures of one kind or another have been at the centre of STS work from its inception. Early concerns to counter over-simplified forms of determinism (MacKenzie and Wajcman, 1999), for example, encouraged explorations of a broader range of standpoints in relation to the future. Work on technology and society in-the-making (Callon, 1987), practices of innovation (Akrich, 1992) and the broadening of science studies to incorporate technology (Woolgar, 1991), each carried with them putative concerns for making sense of things emerging or yet to be. Futures have since flourished in STS conceptually and methodologically. In the last few years, we have seen a broad range of activities from events focused on nuclear futures (Lancaster, 2022) to future humans (Harvard, 2022). And we have seen groundbreaking research on futures and education (Dix, 2019), genes (Horst, 2005), soil (de la Bellacasa, 2015), promissory organizations (Pollock and Williams, 2010), and expectations (Brown and Michael, 2003), among many other areas. Methodologically, STS has found itself in the company of speculative futures, future labs and digital futures institutes and in different forms these each continue to push for the future to be a key matter of concern. Within this work, the futures of STS itself has also come under continual scrutiny: just what are the consequences of STS being conscripted to do futures work? In this panel we seek to explore this varied ‘futuring’. We would be delighted to receive abstracts on: futures thinking and methodologies; digital futures and emerging technology; histories of the future; how STS approaches, perhaps in tandem with other disciplines (including STEM), can shape alternative, even better, futures; concerns for the futures of STS itself; experiments with different forms of futures work. Abstracts are due by 12th February and details on the panel submission can be found here: https://www.easst4s2024.net/open-panels/#14094 Thanks all and hope to connect with many AoIR folks there! All the best Jessica ---- Dr Jessica Ogden Lecturer in Digital Futures Bristol Digital Futures Institute // School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies University of Bristol Twitter: @jessogden<http://twitter.com/jessogden> // Web Profile: https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/persons/jessica-ogden Latest publications: Ogden, Summers & Walker (2023). Know(ing) Infrastructure: The Wayback Machine as object and instrument of digital research<https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565231164759>. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies Ogden (2022). “Everything on the internet can be saved”: Archive Team, Tumblr and the cultural significance of web archiving<https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2021.1985835>. Internet Histories: Digital Technologies, Culture and Society. Shah & Ogden (2021). Immigration, Race, and Nation in the UK: The Politics of Belonging on Twitter<https://doi.org/10.1177/13607804211029968>. Sociological Research Online.

1 0

UN Cybercrime AHC - Day 2 notes
by Joly MacFie 01 Feb '24

01 Feb '24

Lot of hacking through Otter to make notes. How many days I can keep this up, i don't know, but I will continue running it into Otter. https://joly.substack.com/p/51969f5d-7820-4672-9bec-0df5dd5cf3ef Day 2 had delegates getting into the body of the draft text, discussing some sections that were hopefully just about ready for primetime. Any which didn't gather consensus were 'parked' i.e. punted off to 'informal' sessions.. Also, the Chair introduced a 3 minute timer, after which speaker's microphones would be automatically cut. Before we got into it, Costa Rica got in its 2c on human rights and gender in the preamble. Costa Rica believes that human rights are not simply just rhetoric. It is > not an item of the agenda that can be included or deleted. Human rights are > intrinsically related to the dignity of human beings. This is why they are > present in a cross kind of way in all international documents. So, taking > this into account, we do not see it possible for the preamble of the > convention not to have a solid reference to the importance of protecting > human rights in cyberspace. Costa Rica strongly believes that all rights > are applicable in cyberspace and should be guaranteed in the same way as > they are outside of cyberspace. It would not be possible to build an > instrument that establishes a commoncriminal policy with the purpose of > protecting society from cybercrime, as mentioned in paragraph four in the > preamble, without taking into account the protection of human rights, we > cannot leave outside a specific mention in paragraph 10, on the importance > of incorporating a gender perspective, in all efforts to prevent and combat > crime in cyberspace. Because Costa Rica regrets that gender violence online > is just as serious as real gender violence, it's very important for this > convention to take into account the adverse and diverse differentiated > impact of gender violence that also extends to cyberspace. This is why we > support the dimensions that included in the preamble should be maintained > in the next version of the text. We aspire to a free, open, safe and > peaceful cyberspace for all people. Then we were on to Chapter I - General provisions - Article 1 > Article 1. Statement of purpose The purposes of this Convention are to: (a) Promote and strengthen measures to prevent and combat [cybercrime] [the > use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes] > more efficiently and effectively; (b) Promote, facilitate and strengthen international cooperation in > preventing and combating [cybercrime] [the use of information and > communications technologies for criminal purposes]; and [agreed ad > referendum] (c) Promote, facilitate and support technical assistance and > capacity-building to prevent and combat [cybercrime] [the use of > information and communications technologies for criminal purposes], in > particular for the benefit of developing countries. A lot of countries wanted the inclusion of 'technology transfer' in c), however not the U.S, which thought it should go in Article 54, a whole section dedicated to technical assistance. Some countries agreed. This was eventually parked til 54 itself be fully defined. Then, on to Chapter II - Criminalization. This contains articles 6 to 16, much referred to later, which listed criminal behaviors. > Article 6. Illegal access > Article 7. Illegal interception > Article 8. Interference with [computer data] [digital information] > Article 9. Interference with [a computer system] [an information and > communications technology device] > Article 10. Misuse of devices > Article 11. [Computer] [Information and communications technology]-related > forgery > Article 12. [Computer] [Information and communications technology]-related > theft or fraud > Article 13. Offences related to online child sexual abuse or child sexual > exploitation material > Article 14. Solicitation or grooming for the purpose of committing a > sexual offence against a child > Article 15. Non-consensual dissemination of intimate images > Article 16. Laundering of proceeds of crime The chair asked delegates to be "flexible' Noting that in Article four of this convention, we reiterate the principle > of sovereignty of states, and therefore, no one takes away your right to > make laws within your domestic jurisdiction. It will however, be difficult > for us to reach consensus if we continue to insist that what is peculiar to > us must also be imposed on every other person. However, many of the articles have the wording: > Each State Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be > necessary to establish as criminal offences under its domestic law The USA noted that Article 16 > is drafted can be read to include money laundering offenses that have no > connection whatsoever to cybercrime, so > To remedy this, we would propose a new paragraph three that would make > clear that in offense is only considered an offense under the article where > the predicate offense is an offense established in accordance with articles > six to 15. They also noted a tautology in the article > Each State Party shall include as predicate offences, relevant offences > established in accordance with this Convention; since article 16 itself is in the Convention! Russia complained about the lack of time spent on preparing these articles, adding > once again, we have to note with great regret the lack in the draft of the > convention, articles that we proposed as recognizing as offenses using > ICTs, for terrorist purposes, for the proliferation of weapons, drugs, > incitement to illegal activities, or other activities. inducement to > suicide, rehabilitation of Nazism, justification of genocide and illegal > impact on critical infrastructure. before they were cut off by the timer. The Chair responded suggesting delegates focus on what was in the draft, not what wasn't. Russia got back on the mic and, somewhat grudgingly agreed. Articles 6 & 7 contains the phrase "dishonest intent". Russia wanted it changed to "unlawful aim", Mauritania "illegal intent",. Cameroon "criminal intent". The Chair insisted that states could use whatever language they wanted, but Cameroon responded > Mr. Chairman, what we're doing here, no, don't don't try to present this > as kind of light or or inconsequential work, we are expressing positions as > sovereign states. So, please let us go to the end of what we're trying to > express. You can't just say that afterwards, each state can do as it > wishes, no, once we have a convention, if we adopt a convention that each > state has already agreed to this, the specific provisions, so Mr. Chairman, > I really would like to support your methodology. However, the adaptions of > ad referendum, which are increasing in number, will ultimately, could > actually, muzzle states. So, we should not in any way restrict the > sovereign right of states to to express their views on the wording or the > provisions of this convention. without mention of 6, 7 was parked. On to article 8 - Interference with data, which is > when committed intentionally and without right, the damaging, deletion, > deterioration, alteration or suppression of [computer data] [digital > information]. Russia wanted "copying," added before "damaging". However the U.S, suggested copying was covered in Article 6 (Access), and other delegates. Russia wouldn't back down. .Parked. On to Article 9 - Interference with a device. No objections. On to Article 10 - Misuse of devices This essentially pertained to hacks aka "devices". Russia objected to > A State Party may require by law that a number of such items be possessed > before criminal liability attaches. . as vague. Parked. On to Article 11 - Forgery > deletion or suppression of [computer data] [digital information] resulting > in inauthentic data with the intent that they be considered or acted upon > for legal purposes as if they were authentic, regardless of whether or not > the data are directly readable and intelligible One would imagine this would include deep fakes etc, but that is creation rather than "deletion or suppression". Senegal took this up. > We have a proposal for the wording of the criminalization of the use of > falsified computer data. We think that there should be a specific offense > here through the insertion of a specific text that criminalizes the fact of > using computer data that is falsified. The Chair suggested they draft it as a separate offense, They agreed. Russia wanted to delete para 2 > A State Party may require an intent to defraud, or a similar dishonest > intent, before criminal liability attaches. but was laughed off by EU, US, and even Egypt, since "may" indicates the provision is voluntary. No further objections. On to Article 12 - ICT related theft or fraud Again, Russia wanted "dishonest" changed to "illegal", but Australia pushed back. > We believe it's confusing and circular to add an additional unlawful > intent element. And that dishonest intent is appropriate here. Dishonest > intent provides clear parameters about when conduct will be an offence, > where it is done with dishonest intent and not limited only to intentional > conduct. So we consider that the existing references to dishonest intent > actually enhance the flexibility of the convention, applying to a range of > different legal systems. There was much discussion on 'fraud' vs 'theft'.. Some wanted theft removed, however India, Iran, China and Russia all wanted to retain. At this point the session timed out and Meeting #3 was concluded The afternoon session Meeting #4 started out on Chapter IV - procedural measures and law enforcement, > Article 23. Scope of procedural measures > Article 25. Expedited preservation of stored [computer data] [digital > information] > Article 26. Expedited preservation and partial disclosure of traffic data > Article 27. Production order > Article 28. Search and seizure of stored [computer data] [digital > information] > Article 29. Real-time collection of traffic data > Article 30. Interception of content data On Article 23 - scope SIngapore kicked things off by suggesting that the scope be tightened to the offenses define in Articles 6 to 16, A lot of countries supported this. The US had reservations: 1) 6 to 16 still being defined 2) "we don't yet know the fate of article 17" Article 17 reads > Article 17. Offences relating to other international treaties > States Parties shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be > necessary to ensure that offences established in accordance with applicable > international conventions and protocols also apply when committed through > the use > of [a computer system] [an information and communications technology > device]. CARICOM wanted Article 17 to be moved out of the Criminalization Chapter to elsewhere in the Convention, Iran wondered about the meaning of the word 'specific' in the phrase "specific criminal investigation". Others responded that it was required as a safeguard against creep. Russia opposed Singapore, saying > We do not think that law enforcement bodies at the national level, we > don't believe that they shouldn't have the opportunity to use all possible > authority and measures to prevent and counter this kind of these kinds of > offenses. They also wanted some mention of 'prevention', and to delete 'specific', suggesting it would lead to "legal uncertainty". However, nobody else supported them. Article 23 was parked. On to Article 25. Expedited preservation of data. This includes the wording > State Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be > necessary to oblige that person to preserve and maintain the integrity of > [those computer data] [that digital information] for a period of time as > long as necessary, up to a maximum of ninety days, to enable the competent > authorities to seek its disclosure. Many countries, led by Russia, wanted 'maximum' changed to 'minimum'. India wanted 'person' changed to 'legal person'. On Article 28 - Production, Austria Before Russia was cut off earlier, they talked about this, and wanted emphasis on "state party's territory" for clarity. It would seem that this clause does not mean that that States are required to produce for external case, however Austria later cautioned > If you say that the competent authorities should search or similarly > access in the territory of that state party, that means that the access is > going to take place in the territory of the state party, but the data or > the computer system might be anywhere else in the world. And I was > wondering, those delegations who hold sovereignty aspects very dearly, > whether they would want to live with this effect that access is going to > take part in Austria, for example, but the data or the computer system > would be in Russia or in China. I don't think we want to have that effect. > Right? I hope we can all agree to that. Russia said they would think about that. On articles 29 and 30, the 'snooping' clauses, the EU withdrew it's earlier objections, based on proposed safeguards in Chapter V - International cooperation. Malaysia, Switzerland, Mexico voiced similar concerns. Norway noted that all these articles are dependent on Article 20 - Statute of Limitations as a safeguard, but Article 20 actually calls for extending or even suspending SoL's for 'serious cybercrimes'. Australia argued that determining the "serious' threshold should be left to states, rather that the definition in Article 2 (h) > “Serious crime” shall mean conduct constituting an offence punishable by a > maximum deprivation of liberty of at least four years; Then focus turned to articles 31 to 34 > Article 31. Freezing, seizure and confiscation of the proceeds of crime > Article 32. Establishment of criminal record > Article 33. Protection of witnesses > Article 34. Assistance to and protection of victims Article 31 - Japan regretted that its earlier proposal to limit confiscations to serious crimes had not garnered support, but was trying again. Sweden, Albania, &.Iceland support. EU supports and wants to limit the scope to 6 to 16. Costa Rica, Korea, Vanuatu and Paraguay supportalso for 32, 33. Nigeria, Iran oppose. China opposes as premature / repetitive Russia also opposes saying: > in fact,we don't understand what doubts countries can have the country the > reference to to specific articles rather than the scope of the current > convention. Re; "serious" language, presumably in japan's proposalUS notes para 10 wording > Nothing contained in this article shall affect the principle that the > measures to which it refers shall be defined and implemented in accordance > with the provisions of the domestic law of a State Party. I guess, agreeing with China & Russia that there is no real reason to be specific, since states can define for themselves. Article 32-33. Singapore wanted scope changed to 6-16. Russia wanted the opposite, 34 too..Australia wanted to delete "in good faith" pertaining to witnesses, for more flexibility. Presumably bad faith witnesses also need protecting? Tanzania wants to change 'domestic law' to 'domestic legal system' and also add the word 'prosecutive' to the existing 'investigative'. Article 34 ( Victims) Egypt wanted to get rid of "with relevant stakeholders', and drop the "particular circumstances' para 8 entirely (gender). Argentina and Tanzania wanted to add "subject to its domestic law." Canada spoke up for gender. USA wanted to limit the scope from "Convention" to Articles 6 to 16, and yay to gender, NZ, Colombia, Iceland, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Panama, Albania also yay to keeping gender in there. Nigeria is non-committal, saying > Nigeria is paying very close attention to the reference to gender in > article 34 paragraph four, I understand that different jurisdiction have > different understanding of gender, especially in this context. For Nigeria, > gender in this context means sex, and if perhaps, it cannot any other > meaning other than what is defined in domestic legislation. Perhaps it may > be important to further clarify that as we make progress. Norway said > we have supported at the last session more inclusive language in Article > Five, we did agree to delete the language there, but that was really that > was really because we saw that it was included other in other places. So > deleting it also here would would not be acceptable. On 33 and 34, Burkina Faso wants to add protection for whistleblowers, experts, and witnesses. Russia, Canada, Mauritania, Nigeria support.. Finally, Yemen argues for applicability to trump scope restrictions > We are now discussing offenses that had to do with information, and if > they are serious, and they develop from day to day, and there are new > crimes that appear every day. And we are looking here at an expanding in > applicability, especially that the crimes referenced from six to 16 are not > are not all of the crimes in ICT. So therefore, we were for expanding the > applicability and the scope of application in procedural and content as > long as the purpose here is to promote cooperation in fighting cyber > crimes. So therefore, we believe that combating it, combating these crimes > would would include all crimes electronic or content, even at any level or > at the minimum level, as we say, and because we discover new crimes and > these crimes develop and they they reappear and therefore, if we were to > resolve the scope of applicability, --

1 0

Call for Contributions OA book on "AI Infrastructures and Sustainability"
by Anne Mollen 01 Feb '24

01 Feb '24

Hi all, We are inviting chapter proposals for an edited book as part of the ECREA Open Access Book Series <https://ecrea.eu/ECREA-Book-Series> on AI Infrastructures and Sustainability Editors: Anne Mollen, Sigrid Kannengießer, Fieke Jansen, Julia Velkova Amidst the hype around generative AI, critical approaches are demonstrating how technologies of automation foster forms of exploitation in relation to natural resources and the environment, labour and working conditions as well as social injustice. This edited volume seeks to contribute a comprehensive media and communication research perspective on the socio-ecological relations that emerge from practices of use and development of “AI”. We are looking for contributions that analyze the manifold social processes and related tensions that contribute towards manifesting AI infrastructures, with their underlying ideologies, power dynamics, forms of exploitation, extractivism, inequalities etc. Deadline: February 29, 2024 Further information can be found here <https://www.uni-muenster.de/Kowi/institut/arbeitsbereiche/call-for-contribu…>. Best Anne — Dr. Anne Mollen Institut für Kommunikationswissenschaft Universität Münster Bispinghof 9-14 D-48143 Münster Tel.: +49 251 83-24259 anne.mollen(a)uni-muenster.de https://www.uni-muenster.de/Kowi/personen/Anne-Mollen.html

1 0

CFP 'Transforming Methods' Panel @ EASST/4S Amsterdam
by Guillaume Latzko-Toth 31 Jan '24

31 Jan '24

Dear fellow AoIRers, Apologies for another message related to the EASST/4S conference in Amsterdam. Thrilled to meet so many of you there! We are still seeking proposals for our open panel titled "Transforming Methods for Digital Research." Here is the short description: "Responding to the computational turn in social sciences, qualitative researchers have adapted, extended, and transformed their methods. The panel aims to map and consolidate these methodological innovations, contributing to an extended repertoire of qualitative and mixed methods for the digital age." Please follow the link to the submission page (https://nomadit.co.uk/conference/easst-4s2024/p/14435) to read a more detailed description of the topic. Note that it is a ‘combined format’ panel, which means that your proposal can take many forms, from a formal paper presentation to a hands-on demo or a contribution to a roundtable. In short, we welcome a variety of contribution formats and diverse perspectives. Please, make sure to be as specific as possible on what your contribution will be about and what form it would preferably take–we may have to ask you to change the format depending on the number of sessions we will be assigned by the conference organizers. In accordance with the conference guidelines (https://www.easst4s2024.net/callforabstracts/) a typical submission should include: - a title - the name/s and email address/es of author/s - a short abstract (max 300 characters) - a "long" abstract (max 250 words) As you know already, the deadline for submissions is February 12, 2024. Should you have any inquiries, please do not hesitate to contact us by replying to this email. We look forward to your contributions to this conversation on methods and hope to see you in Amsterdam. Guillaume Latzko-Toth, Laval University, Quebec City Florence Millerand, Université du Québec à Montréal Mélanie Millette, Université du Québec à Montréal David Myles, Institut national de la recherche scientifique, Montréal

1 0

Upcoming Deadline for Call for Proposals: The Ethics of Large-Scale Models
by Nicole McAlee 31 Jan '24

31 Jan '24

The deadline for this call for proposals is approximately two weeks away, on February 16, 2024. We hope you will consider applying. Thank you! Notre Dame-IBM Technology Ethics Lab 2023-2024 Call for Proposals The Ethics of Large-Scale Models ---------------------------------------- OVERVIEW ---------------------------------------- Large-scale models are drawing significant widespread public interest, driven by an increased focus on applications that leverage this technology, such as ChatGPT, LLaMa, DALL-E, or Midjourney. Large-scale models are artificial intelligence (AI) systems pre-trained on large datasets for general-purpose use, often adapted for a specific task using a fine-tuning process. Their adoption and impact are accelerating, driven by their potential in various contexts. With the increased adoption of large-scale models, multiple stakeholders have raised concerns regarding the ethical issues surrounding their design, development, and use. While these models raise many of the same high-level tech ethics concerns as other forms of AI, they drive specific concerns around their potential to spread inaccurate information, violate intellectual property rights, and create increased data privacy risks, to name a few. In addition, medium- to long-term impacts of using these technologies also have the potential for unexpected impacts in critical sectors, such as education and health. The Notre Dame-IBM Technology Ethics Lab, under the auspices of the Notre Dame Ethics Initiative, invites proposals for projects that grapple with these challenges, providing new insights or suggesting innovative solutions. Potential applications for study include industry (e.g., healthcare, financial services), artistic creation, sustainability, neurotechnologies, politics, emergency and disaster management, advertising, social media, smart cities, and others. Examples of areas for research and scholarship include, but are not limited to, the following: - Society, Community, and Culture - Inclusive stakeholder dialogue - Education - Future of work and upskilling - Community awareness and engagement - Impact to culture - Governance and Policy - Governance of organizations and systems - Informed and inclusive policy development - Guiding principles - Frameworks for adoption and decision-making - Interdisciplinary - Developing trustworthy systems - Design principles - Human-AI collaboration - Return on investment (ROI) - Other topics not described here Successful applications will propose a defined deliverable (e.g. research papers, draft policy, teaching materials, and impact assessments) that addresses the challenges described in the call to be completed between April 1, 2024 and December 31, 2024. ---------------------------------------- KEY DATES ---------------------------------------- 2023 - December 7 - Application period opens 2024 - February 16 - Application period closes - April 1 - Projects kick off - April - Virtual recipient workshop - October - Virtual recipient workshop - December 31 - Projects close and deliverables due 2025 - January - Tech Ethics Forum at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, USA ---------------------------------------- PROJECT AWARDS ---------------------------------------- Recipients may apply for up to $60,000 USD in award funding and will have from April 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024 to complete their project, including preparation, research, execution, and deliverables. A detailed budget and timeline should be submitted as part of the application. ---------------------------------------- TO APPLY ---------------------------------------- For full details of the call, including eligibility criteria, proposal preparation guidelines, and a link to the application form, please visit https://techethicslab.nd.edu/call-for-proposals/. Questions may be directed to techlab(a)nd.edu.

1 0