L4D Learning for Democracy

" It seems that a whole new world is out there, a virtual or a ‘digital’ one, the Net, running
almost in parallel to our normal physical world. The new world does not require our
physical presence; individuals assume various different ‘digital’ identities, their ‘digital’
self becoming an extension of their physical one. We surf the net, search for information,
socialise, transact and buy CDs or books or tickets; we leave many ‘digital’ traces behind
us while doing so. At the same time, and because of this, the requirements for
identification and authentication have increased in the digital environment. The collection,
storage and exchange of sets of personal data, some of which may be sensitive, pose many
new challenges to online identity and raise serious considerations regarding our privacy
and protection of our personal data.
Extensive research and studies have been devoted to privacy during the last thirty years.
Privacy may be defined in terms of the physical distance from others; it is an iterative,
ever-changing ‘boundary-regulation process in which a person or a group sometimes wants
to be separated from others and sometimes wants to be in contact with others’. In order to
achieve the desired level of privacy, which is highly dynamic, a balance between public
and private has to be reached. In the digital world, it appears that privacy is far easier to
violate and far more difficult to protect: the default in cyberspace is more likely to be
privacy invasive, thus always requiring appropriate action from the user. The advent of an
Ambient Intelligence (AmI) environment, i.e. a vision of the future Information Society
where people will be surrounded by intelligent intuitive interfaces that are embedded in all
kinds of objects (furniture, clothes, vehicles and smart materials), renders data protection
and privacy issues even more difficult to address, especially when considering that the
collection, storage and exchange of personal data are a requirement for such an
environment to function properly.
Laws, regulations and international standards have already been gradually established, in
order to protect personal data. And yet these practices often prove to be inadequate towards
ensuring the protection of our privacy and personal data in the digital space, since
sometimes they cannot be enforced adequately or cannot keep up with rapid technological
developments and social changes. Perhaps the existing legal framework may need to be
improved to ensure the citizen’s trust in the Information Society?
In this context and to address these considerations, IPTS has engaged in research on
developing a concept that would allow individuals to manage distance and boundaries, the
‘territories’, in a social and legal sense, in this new space, while also providing a proper
balance between security and privacy. The idea of ‘territory’ has been present in the
physical space almost as long as human presence on earth. Legal rules and tacit sociocultural
norms and even traditions constitute the guidelines for people’s understanding of
what is private or public space or what is socially accepted as private or public space.
Although the distinction is not always that clear, people have learnt to become aware of the
boundaries between them and act accordingly.
At this point, the Digital Territories (DT) concept is brought forward to provide an
appropriate way to protect privacy and personal data in the digital world, while promoting
freedom of expression and enhancing collaboration and communication in public places of
the digital world. It is considered equally important to protect the ‘openness’ of these
public places in the digital world, as to protect the private space and personal data of an
individual. Specific examples are drawn from present ‘on-line’ applications, namely
Google, MySpace.com, Blogs and Wikis, as well as from potential future or emerging
applications, which seem to raise even more concerns (e.g. RFID implants) to better
describe the DT concept.
                                    The benefits of DT
DT as a concept provides a more systematic way to conceptually represent data and
information flows, explicit or implicit user consent, as well as map dynamically and
flexibly the borders between private / public spaces and the ‘grey’ areas in between and
thus becoming a systematic and analytical tool towards defining such boundaries.
DT as a framework could be also used to supplement appropriately the current legislation
on privacy and data protection. It could contribute to mapping personal data sufficiently,
thus rendering easier the task of its legal regulation and its enforcement. Software
developers and service providers could also use the DT framework to design their products
and services in such a way so that these merit being labelled as 'privacy-enhancing
technologies'.
Moreover, DT could assist in promoting awareness of people regarding the privacy and
security risks in the digital world, so that they could then decide what they should try to
protect and what they do not need or cannot protect. It could also enhance users’ awareness
regarding the security practices that they would have to follow themselves in order to
protect their data.
With regard to the use of surveillance and its social implications, the setting of boundaries
in the digital sphere would provide a basis for consensual resolution. In this context, it
could be used in the development of AmI products or services to enhance the offered level
of security and privacy. Security and privacy requirements could be considered from the
initial development phase (‘privacy by design’).
DT – An overview of the concept
In the context of our study, we have identified three different types of digital territories
(DT), according to the degree of control that individuals exercise on their data in the
specific space and the relative duration of the individuals’ claims to the space: Primary or
Personal DT, Secondary or Group DT, and Public DT.
Primary or Personal DT relates to a person’s digital space and encompasses the
individual’s digital identities as well as all digital personal data of a person (including any
data which are generated by the person’s on-line activities). The second DT type, the
Secondary or Group DT, is a hybrid as it combines both the total and pervasive control
allowed to participants in primary territories and the almost-free use of public territories by
all persons; it corresponds to groups of individuals that share common interests or purposes
and hence it is also referred to as a group DT. Finally, the Public DT is a space where
almost any individual has access and may exercise a low level of control. It is a kind of
‘commons’ in digital space, a free territory, open to the society members at large, fostering
freedom of expression and open circulation of ideas and points of view.
We have also identified four DT components that are necessary in order to enable a
functional DT: namely, bubbles, borders, markers and bridges. Firstly, the (digital) bubble
is a dynamic personal info-sphere, or better data-sphere, since it basically ‘holds’ the
person’s personal data, and is used to set the borders, restricting and / or allowing data /
information coming in or going out of it. The notion of bubble encompasses all the
interfaces, formats, rights and agreements etc. needed for the management of personal data
and informational interactions.
The size of the bubble may vary as a result of its information content, the form of
interaction the individual wants to perform and the overall ‘trust’ assigned to the
environment of the interaction. Using a cell-membrane analogy, the bubble has a two-way
exchange with the environment – sometimes from the inside of the cell out to the
environment and sometimes from the environment into the cell.
The second component of a DT, the borders, are seamless, fictitious lines that draw its
perimeter, implementing the permissions set through the bubble. Therefore, these borders
are always under negotiation and they adapt to different situation or spaces, they are also
not autonomous but are set by the bubble; they thus change, decrease or increase,
according to the ‘will’ of the bubble, and the boundaries that it wishes or is obliged to set.
The way of expressing and making boundaries visible, is by setting markers. In the
physical world a marker would be the ‘Keep Out!’ sign placed in one’s garden, informing
other people that this is a private space where trespassing is not permitted. In digital space,
it could be the log-in screens for accessing one’s personal computer or it could be the
‘private’ tag put in one’s folder.
The bridge is the fourth component of a DT. It differs from the other components in the
sense that it is not a component per se, but provides the link between the physical and
digital / virtual world. As the boundaries between these two worlds become blurrier with
the development of new technologies in a future AmI environment, the concept of the
bridge will become increasingly important in relation to the identification of the personal
data-space and the drawing of the DT boundaries.
Furthermore, within the context of DT, IPTS has developed the concept of ‘Virtual
Residence’ (VR), which projects the concept of a legally or through the adoption of social
norms, protected ‘residence’ in the on-line, digital world. It relates to the individuals’ lives
and the personal data stored at home, which at times need to be remotely accessible from
the digital world. VR is also an attempt to address the need for more privacy enhancing
initiatives, at least in the ‘home environment’. VR has been considered a special DT case,
especially since it constitutes a first clear example of territory (physical and digital) that
requires regulatory protection, and as such it has been studied separately. It is an attempt to
identify alternative legislation to protect data of a personal nature, exactly as it is protected
in our physical homes now. VR is a DT, made up by the integrated DTs of the ‘home’
residents who take turns in managing the ‘shared’ data, since in many cases more than one
persons use the same physical infrastructures. VR could become the first DT application
area, since current applications put additional pressure on taking relevant action and the
issues posed are perceived as easier to address."