Agora exibindo 1 - 3 de 3
ItemFinal report: technologist code of ethics roundtable(CEPI FGV Direito SP, 2023-04) Latini, Lucas Maldonado Diz; Klafke, Guilherme Forma; Silveira, Ana Carolina Rodrigues Dias; Maito, Deíse Camargo; Costa, Enya Carolina Silva da; Balbi, Guilherme; Schippers, Laurianne-Marie; Guimarães, Tatiane; Silva, Alexandre Pacheco da; Feferbaum, MarinaCEPI FGV Direito SP hosted a one-and-a-half-day event on December 15th and 16th, 2022, with the participation of several stakeholders (e.g., representatives of private companies, public sector, academia, and organized civil society) involved in the debate of ethics and technology in Brazil. Here are some of the key takeaways from the debate on the creation of a global code of ethics: Need of justification. The need for a global code of ethics for technologists is not self-evident. It must be justified to ensure that people from different backgrounds, both in the Global North and South, feel covered; Concepts and definitions. The definition of “technologists” may vary, and since there is not a single approach to ethics, the discussion could benefit from exploring different conceptions of ethics, such as biocentric, virtue, deontological, consequentialist, and others. For example, it would be possible to have a list of virtues that one should develop in the technology sector; Past experiences. . The creation process of a global code of ethics could benefit from previous experience with international cooperation in standards-setting processes, such as those that have taken place within the UN or organizations that look after the Internet (ICANN, IETF, etc.); Ethics by design. Ethics must be infused into individuals and organizations, since “ethics is within people, not within codes”. Such a code should be accompanied by proposals to promote a culture of ethics by design within companies; Culture of error. Following the discussion on a culture of ethics by design, participants highlighted the importance of constant feedback and making room for mistakes. Technologists should be able to openly discuss errors and solutions; Multisectoral structures. The code should highlight the importance of multisectoral structures in the organizations, such as ombudsman offices or ethics committees, and also promote diversity within these structures;Measure and visibility of value. The discussion on a global code of ethics could benefit from studies that quantify and evaluate the value generated by compliance and ethics policies in technology projects in companies. The participants were unaware of comparative and extensive research on the subject; Vulnerable population. Organizations must be mindful of the impact of technology on vulnerable populations. Technology severely impacts children and adolescents, for example. Thus, they and other vulnerable groups should have a voice in the process of creating a global code of ethics; Contact between fields of knowledge. Technologists should have more contact with professionals from the Humanities in their training and daily work, while their autonomy and freedom of judgment should be preserved; Diversity. A global code of ethics should strive for diversity both at the top and at the bottom of the organizations’ structure. It would benefit from suggestions of initiatives such as seals, scholarship programs, and others; Leadership engagement. In addition to the engagement of all stakeholders, leaders need to enforce the code in their workplaces and support its implementation. ItemSecurity in cyberspace: dynamics, limits, and opportunities: a workshop report(FGV Direito SP, 2020-07) Alcântara, Bruna Toso de; Pinto, Danielle Jacon Ayres; Klafke, Guilherme Forma; Cravo, Vanessa CopettiThis is the report of the workshop "Security in Cyberspace: dynamics, limits, and opportunities", held on the 14th of May 2020 and jointly organized by the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), the São Paulo Law School of the Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV-Direito SP) and the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG). The deep interlacing between society and cyberspace has been changing human interactions in several societal spheres, such as the economic, legal, and political ones. Specifically, regarding interstate communications, these changes present themselves in such a dynamic way that digital actions usually mismatch traditional strategic thinking, leaving room for uncertainties and possible unforeseen effects in the physical world. Thus, at the same time that cyberspace presents opportunities for society, it can also provide a new venue for vulnerabilities, maximized by the fear of deviant online actions targeting critical infrastructure and the imbalances between digital openness and surveillance. These dynamics with their limits and opportunities need to be better assessed and discussed by the various actors present in cyberspace, and that was the aim of the workshop. The workshop was an effort to link North and South concerns toward security, liberty, conflicts, and power relations in the digital domain. Specifically, it sought to bring together Brazilian and European scholars in order to demystify the perception that cyber issues are constrained to a very few “great powers” like China, Russia, and the USA. Moreover, it demonstrated that good practices and some institutional approaches may offer alternative ways of conducting actions in cyberspace. To this end, the workshop encompassed four panels, each touching upon one central issue. The first panel addressed the possible implications of framing cyberspace as a war domain for society and interstate relations. The second panel focused on the discussion on the tensions between security and liberty online. The third panel focused on cyber-security frameworks in Brazil and Europe. The final panel synthesized how all the previous topics relate to power relations in the digital realm. ItemGovernança da internet no espaço regulatório global: o idiossincrático modelo de gestão da ICANN(2015) Liguori Filho, Carlos AugustoThis paper aims to analyze and describe the institutional evolution of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), an organization responsible for the management of domain names and Internet communications protocols throughout the world. Beginning its trajectory as a private institution bound to the U.S. department of commerce, ICANN undergoes severe structural reforms in the past decade by adopting a multistakeholder decision-making approach in its activities. However, ICANN still maintains some structural connections to the U.S., something that often causes controversy for those that seek a more democratic Internet.