
ISIS Summit Vienna 2015—The Information Society at the Crossroads
Part of the International Society for Information Studies series
3–7 Jun 2015, Vienna, Austria
- Go to the Sessions
-
- I. Invited Speech
- S1. Conference Stream DTMD 2015
- S2. Conference Stream ICPI 2015
- S3. Conference Stream ICTS 2015
- T1. Conference Track: (Big) history of information
- T1.0. Conference Track: Advanced hair-splitting (combinatorics)
- T1.0.1. Conference Track: Andrew Feenberg's technical politics and ICTs
- T1.1. Conference Track: As we may teach
- T1.2. Conference Track: China and the global information society
- T1.3. Conference Track: Communication, information and reporting
- T1.4. Conference Track: Cyberpeace
- T2. Conference Track: Emancipation or disempowerment of man?
- T2.1. Conference Track: Emergence of and in (self-)organizing work systems
- T2.2. Conference Track: Emergent systems, information and society
- T3. Conference Track: Empowering patients
- T3.0. Conference Track: Homo informaticus
- T3.1. Conference Track: Human resilience and human vulnerability
- T3.2. Conference Track: ICT and literature
- T3.3. Conference Track: ICTs and power relations
- T4. Conference Track: Information in the exact sciences and symmetry
- T5. Conference Track: Informational warfare
- T6. Conference Track: Multi-level semiosis
- T7. Conference Track: Music, information and symmetry
- T7.1. Conference Track: Natural disasters
- T7.2. Conference Track: Progress in Information Studies in China
- T8. Conference Track: Searching to create a humanized civilization
- T8.1. Conference Track: The ethics of foundations
- T9. Conference Track: The Global Brain
- T9.1. Conference Track: Transdisciplinary response and responsibility
- T9.2. Conference Track: Triangular relationship
- T9.3. Conference Track: Weaving the understanding of information
- Event Details
Conference Chairs
Wolfgang Hofkirchner
[Not defined]
[email protected]
Dietrich Rordorf
MDPI AG
[email protected]
Sessions
I. Invited SpeechS1. Conference Stream DTMD 2015
S2. Conference Stream ICPI 2015
S3. Conference Stream ICTS 2015
T1. Conference Track: (Big) history of information
T1.0. Conference Track: Advanced hair-splitting (combinatorics)
T1.0.1. Conference Track: Andrew Feenberg's technical politics and ICTs
T1.1. Conference Track: As we may teach
T1.2. Conference Track: China and the global information society
T1.3. Conference Track: Communication, information and reporting
T1.4. Conference Track: Cyberpeace
T2. Conference Track: Emancipation or disempowerment of man?
T2.1. Conference Track: Emergence of and in (self-)organizing work systems
T2.2. Conference Track: Emergent systems, information and society
T3. Conference Track: Empowering patients
T3.0. Conference Track: Homo informaticus
T3.1. Conference Track: Human resilience and human vulnerability
T3.2. Conference Track: ICT and literature
T3.3. Conference Track: ICTs and power relations
T4. Conference Track: Information in the exact sciences and symmetry
T5. Conference Track: Informational warfare
T6. Conference Track: Multi-level semiosis
T7. Conference Track: Music, information and symmetry
T7.1. Conference Track: Natural disasters
T7.2. Conference Track: Progress in Information Studies in China
T8. Conference Track: Searching to create a humanized civilization
T8.1. Conference Track: The ethics of foundations
T9. Conference Track: The Global Brain
T9.1. Conference Track: Transdisciplinary response and responsibility
T9.2. Conference Track: Triangular relationship
T9.3. Conference Track: Weaving the understanding of information
Instructions for Authors
Procedure for Submission, Peer-Review, Revision and Acceptance of Extended Abstracts
The conference will accept extended abstracts only. The accepted abstracts will be available online on Sciforum.net during and after the conference. Papers based on the extended abstracts can be published by authors in the journal of their choice later on. The conference will not publish a proceedings volume.
Submissions of abstracts should be done by the authors online. If you do not already have an user account with this website, please create one by registering with sciforum.net. After registration, please log in to your user account, and use the Submit New Abstract. Please chose the ISIS Summit Vienna 2015 conference in the first step. In the second step, choose the appropriate conference stream or conference session. In the third step you will be asked to type in the title, abstract and optionally keywords. In the fourth and last step, you will be asked to enter all co-authors, their e-mail addresses and affiliations.
- Scholars interested in participating in paper sessions of the Summit can submit their extended abstract (about 750 to 2'000 words) online on this website until 27 February 2015.
- The International Program Committee will review and decide about the suitability of abstracts for the ISIS Summit Vienna 2015. All authors will be notified by 20 March 2015 about the acceptance of their extended abstract.
- If the abstract is accepted for this conference, the authors will be asked to send the a formatted version of the extended abstract as a PDF file by end of May 2015.
- Please register with the conference before or once your abstract is accepted. Please note that the acceptance of an abstract will not automatically register you with the conference. The abstract submission and conference registration are two separate processes.
Please use the abstract template. The formatted version of the extended abstracts must have the following organization:
- Title
- Full author names
- Affiliations (including full postal address) and authors' e-mail addresses
- Extended Abstract (750 to 2'000 words)
- References
- Paper Format: A4 paper format, the printing area is 17.5 cm x 26.2 cm. The margins should be 1.75 cm on each side of the paper (top, bottom, left, and right sides).
- Paper Length: The manuscript should be about 3 pages long (incl. references).
- Formatting / Style: Please use the template to prepare your abstract (see on top of this page).
- References & Citations: The full titles of cited papers and books must be given. Reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [4] or [1-3], and all the references should be listed separately and as the last section at the end of the manuscript.
- Authors List and Affiliation Format: Authors' full first and last names must be given. Abbreviated middle name can be added. For papers written by various contributors a corresponding author must be designated. The PubMed/MEDLINE format is used for affiliations: complete street address information including city, zip code, state/province, country, and email address should be added. All authors who contributed significantly to the manuscript (including writing a section) should be listed on the first page of the manuscript, below the title of the article. Other parties, who provided only minor contributions, should be listed under Acknowledgments only. A minor contribution might be a discussion with the author, reading through the draft of the manuscript, or performing English corrections.
- Figures, Schemes and Tables: Authors are encouraged to prepare figures and schemes in color. Figure and schemes must be numbered (Figure 1, Scheme I, Figure 2, Scheme II, etc.) and a explanatory title must be added. Tables should be inserted into the main text, and numbers and titles for all tables supplied. All table columns should have an explanatory heading. Please supply legends for all figures, schemes and tables. The legends should be prepared as a separate paragraph of the main text and placed in the main text before a table, a figure or a scheme.
Copyright to the extended abstracts will stay with the authors of the paper. Authors will be asked to grant MDPI AG (Publisher of the Sciforum platform) and ISIS (organizer of the conference) a non-exclusive, non-revokable license to publish the abstracts online and possibly in print under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license. As authors retain the rights to their abstracts and papers, papers can be published elsewhere later.
List of accepted submissions (217)
Id | Title | Authors | Presentation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sciforum-004414 | Origami and Technological Prospectives in Mathematical Education | N/A |
Show Abstract |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Origami is the Japanese art of paper folding, (折り紙; oru - bending, kami-paper). Definition of origami says that you should fold paper without using scissors and glue, and the result of the folding is variety of forms that imitate the nature and things that are uses in everyday life. When origami is mentioned, people are usually associated with paper cranes and flowers, but it is much more due to its axiomatization. In the 20th century origami has been connected scientifically with mathematics. Humiaki Huzita designed a set of six basic ways of defining a single fold by aligning various combination of excising points, lines, and the fold line itself. These six operations are known as Huzita’s Axioms. In 2001, Koshiro Hatori added one more axiom. Huzita-Hatori axioms define what can be constructed with single fold in terms of lines and points. Some of the basic origami notions are: common shape used in origami is square, a line in origami is a crease made by a paper fold of the boundary of the paper and a point is the intersection of two lines (Alperin & Lang, 2009). An ancient Japanese origami skill can be used in math lessons related. Folding paper into three-dimensional geometric object is a kind of an exercise. Mathematics learning through the model from the close environment of students and new methods of teaching mathematics such as discovery learning, improve teaching process and increase student interest and motivation. By folding paper students experience possible solutions, the multiform of the problem and path to accomplishment. The research has shown that origami is a beneficial method for teaching mathematics (Boakes, 2009, Robichaux and Rodrigue, 2003, Cipoletti and Wilson, 2004). It contributes developing mathematical vocabulary, special abilities and visualization. “Mathematics come alive in the mind of young students”, is said by Huse, Bluemel and Taylor (1994). Mathematical concepts can be conveyed to students by hands-on activities where the atmosphere in the classroom is more relaxed and motivating to students. Students become more curious and interested in investigating mathematical topics more profoundly (Budinski, 2009). Features of origami such as creating a model and following the procedure, spatial manipulation, generalizing procedures of different models or cooperation, application and students oriented activities are beneficial to process of learning and teaching mathematic (Meyer &Meyer, 1999). Presentation gives examples of how to use origami in teaching mathematics, on different levels, from elementary to the advanced mathematical concepts. The fundamental problem of origami design is how to fold a square to produce a representation of desired object. The mathematics underlying origami address: existence, complexity and algorithms (Lang, 2008). There are many mathematical contents interwoven in origami and that connection influenced the mathematical education. There are more and more examples of beneficial application of origami in the classroom and some of them are supported by technology. It is an interesting combination of ancients and contemporary techniques (Fenyvesi et al, 2014). Both reach the solution successfully and comprehensibly even to average teenage student. It gives students opportunity to solve one problem in different perspectives. Combining different aspect of solving problem in the math lesson, we can improve problem solving and reasoning skills of the students. Mixed approaches to one problem can overcome weakness of a single and give students clearer picture about the problem and solution. Origami requires following procedures of folding paper, while GeoGebra allows creating set of procedures that will lead to the solution. One hand, origami is based on one solution, while GeoGebra, on the other hand provide creation lots of examples. Also, origami requires accuracy and neatness. Combination of origami with dynamic-geometry-algebra systems, such as GeoGebra, can provide new knowledge to students. In the example constructions that combine origami and GeoGebra, we have adjusted some already known examples (Hull, 2006). Those examples are known as basic hands-on mathematics-origami, and suitable for learning various mathematical concepts. Through our examples, students solved, for example “ancient unsolvable problems” and investigated mathematical concepts that have inspired lots of mathematicians through centuries. References and Notes Alperin, R. and Lang, R. J. (2009). One-, two-, and multi-fold origami axioms. Origami 4, 371-393, A K Peters, Natick, MA. Boakes, N. (2009). Origami instruction in the middle school mathematics classroom: Its impact on spatial visualization and geometry knowledge of students. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 32(7), 1-12. Cipoletti, B., & Wilson, N. (2004). Turning origami into the language of mathematics. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 10(1), 26-31. Fenyvesi, K., Budinski, N. and Lavicza, Z. (2014). Two Solution to An Unsolvable Problem: Connecting Origami and GeoGebra in a Serbian High School, Proceedings of Bridges 2014: Mathematics, Music, Art, Architecture, Culture, 95–102. Hull, T. (2006). Project Origami: Activities for Exploring Mathematics. A K Peters, Ltd. Huse, V., Bluemel, N. L., & Taylor, R. H. (1994). Making connections: From paper to pop-up books. Teaching Children Mathematics, 1(1), 14–17. Lang, R. J. (2008). From Flapping Birds to Space Telescopes: The Modern Science of Origami. Usenix Conference, Boston, MA. Meyer, D. and Meyer, J. (1999). Teaching Mathematical Thinking through Origami. BRIDGES, Mathematical Connections in Art, Music, and Science, Winfield, Kansas. Robichaux, R. R., & Rodrigue, P. R. (2003). Using origami to promote geometric communication. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 9(4), 222-229. Будински, Н. (2009). Оригами- пример за примену у настави математике, Педагошка Стварност, LV (9-10), 932-944. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sciforum-005228 | Europe at the Crossroads: Is Economizing on Democracy the Future | N/A |
Show Abstract |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Our continent has never enjoyed as much peace between states as during the European integration process that started approximately half a century ago with the Treaty of Rome. European integration promised and for a long time also delivered policy output (economic, prosperity, environmental protection, reduction of inequalities, protection of minorities, etc). Though social scientists and legal scholars have warned of the deep democratic deficits of the existing model, as long as it delivered output, the problematic citizens’ input in European integration was not contested, until recently. National politicians tactfully kept the attention of publics away from Europe. Brussels, they argued, was geographically too far to concern ordinary citizens; moreover, it was too technocratic to interest them. However, the current crisis brought to the light the thus far (hidden) inter-relationship of European and domestic policy. Compared to previous crises in European integration, this one attracted unprecedented public attention. Across the Union, very few party politicians, interest spokesmen, financial analysts, journalists or television pundits could remain indifferent to what EU officials were saying. EU-jargon moved beyond university lecture halls and parliaments and penetrated the national media and personal discussions around the continent. Citizens in all 28 EU MSs found themselves sharing anxieties and reflecting on the same issues. Electoral outcomes in one member were increasingly recognized as affecting the governing coalitions’ vulnerability in other members and the European Union (EU) as a whole. Thus, EU concerns penetrated deeply (and for the first time) in the conduct and results of national parliamentary elections. What is going on in the other member states, what government officials said, what public opinion wants, became suddenly daily topics in each other’s media. Through this crisis, we experience the Europeanization of the public sphere, the generation of a EU-wide discourse about Europe. I argue that at this moment when Europe is deeply politicized there is acute pressure for and firm resistance against more involvement of European citizens in EU decision-making. What are the promises and pitfalls of more democracy in the EU? Why should citizens be more involved in EU policy, and how could this be pursued in an information society? We pursue these questions with a focus on how information technology could contribute to this development. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sciforum-004023 | Computation as Information Transformation | , | N/A |
Show Abstract |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Future progress of new information processing devices capable of dealing with problems such as big data, Internet of things, semantic web, cognitive robotics, neuroinformatics and similar, depends on the adequate and efficient models of computation. We argue that defining computation as information transformation, and given that there is no information without representation, the dynamics of information on the fundamental level is physical/ intrinsic/ natural computation (Dodig-Crnkovic, 2011) (Dodig-Crnkovic, 2014). Intrinsic natural computation occurs on variety of levels of physical processes, such as the levels of computation of living organisms as well as designed computational devices. The present article is building on our typology of models of computation as information processing (Burgin & Dodig-Crnkovic, 2013). It is indicating future paths for the advancement of the field, expected both as a result of the development of new computational models and learning from nature how to better compute using information transformation mechanisms of intrinsic computation. Complexity of the Concept of Computation and Information Transformation In a variety of fields, researchers have been searching for a common definition of computation, from (Turing, 1936)(Kolmogorov, 1953)(Copeland, 1996)(Burgin, 2005) to (Denning, 2010)(Denning, 2014)(Burgin & Dodig-Crnkovic, 2011) and (Hector Zenil, 2012)(Dodig-Crnkovic & Giovagnoli, 2013). Some of these studies of computation are done in an informal setting based on hands-on and research practice, as well as on philosophical and methodological considerations. Yet other research approaches strive to build exact mathematical models to comprehensively describe computation (Denning, 2014). When the Turing machine (or Logical Computing Machine as Turing originally named his logical device) was constructed and accepted as an universal computational model, it was considered as a complete and exact definition of computation (Church-Turing thesis) (Burgin, 1987). However, the absolute nature of the Turing machine was questioned by contemporary research (Cooper, 2012) (Cooper & Leeuwen, 2013) and challenged by adopting a more general formal definition of algorithm (Burgin, 2005). Nevertheless, in spite of all efforts, the conception of computation remains too vague and ambiguous. This vagueness of the foundations of computing has resulted in a variety of approaches, including approaches that contradict each other. Abramsky summarizes the process of successive change of models of computation and their future perspectives as follows: “Traditionally, the dynamics of computing systems, their unfolding behavior in space and time has been a mere means to the end of computing the function which specifies the algorithmic problem which the system is solving. In much of contemporary computing, the situation is reversed: the purpose of the computing system is to exhibit certain behaviour. (…) We need a theory of the dynamics of informatic processes, of interaction, and information flow, as a basis for answering such fundamental questions as: What is computed? What is a process? What are the analogues to Turing completeness and universality when we are concerned with processes and their behaviours, rather than the functions which they compute? (Abramsky, 2008) Abramsky emphasizes that there is the need for second-generation models of computation, and in particular process models. The first generation models of computation originated from problems of formalization of mathematics and logic, while processes or agents, interaction, and information flow are results of recent developments of computers and computing. In the second-generation models of computation, previously isolated systems are replaced by processes and agents for which the interactions with each other and with the environment are fundamental. Hewitt too advocates an agent-type, Actor model of computation (Hewitt, 2012) which is suitable for modeling of physical (intrinsic) computation. In the historical perspective, the development of the concept of computation on the practical level related to operations performed by people and physical objects used as computing devices, while on the theoretical level computation was represented by abstract models and processes. Variety of current approaches to the concept of computation shows remarkable complexity that makes communication of related results and ideas increasingly difficult. We explicated present diversity of concepts and models in (Burgin & Dodig-Crnkovic, 2013) to highlight the necessity of establishing relationships and common understanding. The analysis of the present state of the art allowed us to discover basic structures inherent for computation and to develop a multifaceted typology of computations. We presented the structural framework of information processing and computation with triadic relationships between (information processing (computation), algorithm and device/agent); (data, context/environment and function/goal); (structure, physical and mental/cognitive); (program, device and data), etc. Those are combined to form action computation pyramid with ((data, device/agent, program) and information processing/computation). An effective methodology of our approach is to find essential features of computation with the goal to explicate its nature and to build adequate models for research and technology. Our conclusion is that different models of computation may have their specific uses and applications, and it is necessary to understand their mutual relationships and the assumptions under which they apply in order to be able to consistently use them. We underline several topics of importance for the development of new understanding of computing and its role: natural computation and the relationship between the model and physical implementation, interactivity as fundamental for computational modeling of concurrent information processing systems such as living organisms and their networks, and the new developments in modeling needed to support this generalized framework. In such a way, we achieve better understanding of computation as information processing than we had before. As there is no information without (physical) representation (Landauer, 1996), the dynamics of information in nature is implemented on different levels of granularity by different physical processes, including the level of computation performed by computing machines (designed computation), as well as by living organisms (intrinsic computation) (Dodig-Crnkovic, 2014). There are still many open problems related to the nature of information and computation, as well as to their relationships. How is information dynamics implemented/represented in computational systems, in machines, as well as in living organisms? Are computers processing only data or information or can they be made to process knowledge as well? What do we know of computational processes in machines and living organisms and how these processes are related? What can we learn from natural computational processes that can be useful for the development of information systems and knowledge management? Our aim is to contribute to the future development by the exposition and delimitation of possibilities of the unified concept of computation understood as information processing (information transformation). References and Notes Abramsky, S. (2008). Information, Processes and Games. In J. Benthem van & P. Adriaans (Eds.), Philosophy of Information (pp. 483–549). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North Holland. Burgin, M. (1987). The Notion of Algorithm and the Turing-Church Thesis. In Proc. of the VIII International Congress on Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, v.5 part 1 (pp. 138–140). Burgin, M. (2005). Super-Recursive Algorithms. New York: Springer-Verlag New York Inc. Burgin, M., & Dodig-Crnkovic, G. (2011). Information and Computation – Omnipresent and Pervasive. In Information and Computation (pp. vii –xxxii). New York/London/Singapore: World Scientific Pub Co Inc. Burgin, M., & Dodig-Crnkovic, G. (2013). Typologies of Computation and Computational Models. Arxiv.org, arXiv:1312. Cooper, S. B. (2012). The Mathematician’s Bias - and the Return to Embodied Computation. In H. Zenil (Ed.), A Computable Universe: Understanding and Exploring Nature as Computation. World Scientific Pub Co Inc. Cooper, S. B., & Leeuwen, J. van. (2013). Alan Turing. His work and impact. Elsevier Science. Copeland, B. J. (1996). What is computation? Synthese, 108(3), 335–359. Denning, P. (2010). What is computation?: Editor’s Introduction. Ubiquity, (October), 1–2. Denning, P. (2014). Structure and Organization of Computing. In J. Tucker, A., Gonzalez, T., Topi, H. and Diaz-Herrera (Ed.), Computing Handbook. Computer Science and Software Engineering. Chapman & Hall/CRC. Dodig-Crnkovic, G. (2011). Dynamics of Information as Natural Computation. Information, 2(3), 460–477. Dodig-Crnkovic, G. (2014). Modeling Life as Cognitive Info-Computation. In A. Beckmann, E. Csuhaj-Varjú, & K. Meer (Eds.), Computability in Europe 2014. LNCS (pp. 153–162). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. Dodig-Crnkovic, G., & Giovagnoli, R. (2013). Computing Nature. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. Hewitt, C. (2012). What is computation? Actor Model versus Turing’s Model. In H. Zenil (Ed.), A Computable Universe, Understanding Computation & Exploring Nature As Computation. World Scientific Publishing Company/Imperial College Press. Kolmogorov, A. N. (1953). On the Concept of Algorithm. Russian Mathematical Surveys, 8(4), 175–176. Landauer, R. (1996). The Physical Nature of Information. Physics Letter A, 217, 188. Turing, A. M. (1936). On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungs problem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 42(42), 230–265. doi:10.1112/plms/s2-42.1.23 Zenil, H. (2012). A Computable Universe. Understanding Computation & Exploring Nature As Computation. (H. Zenil, Ed.). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company/Imperial College Press. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sciforum-005236 | Ethics in IT Security Research | , , | N/A |
Show Abstract |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Introduction Research in IT security often comes with decisions and possibilities that may or may not be considered ethical. However, it is often hard for young researchers to estimate the impact of their work, possible consequences and overall morality, as well as to where to draw the line. In some cases it is likely that more than hundreds of thousands of users will be affected, and it is unclear what is in their best interest: removal of a threat? Or rather a deeper analysis of the threat, which could prevent further vulnerabilities or attacks that are similar? In most cases, this decision is then left to the advisor who may have conflicting interests. Methods In this talk we will present recent borderline papers from the ethical point of view, and their implications on users. These papers are either directly or indirectly related to our own work, meaning that we will put our own perceptions on morality and ethics in perspective. We will furthermore present fundamental ethical principles which should not only be considered for IT security research, but can be applied to research in general. We argue that the establishment of ethical guidelines or frameworks without prior discussion and consensus in the research community probably would not lead to clarity on which lines in academic research should not be crossed. Especially the world-wide context of IT research poses challenges which are not easy to overcome: while researchers at US institutions are often forced to go through an IRB approval, nothing comparable exists in the broader context of European research. On the other hand, Europe with its much stronger privacy laws has nothing comparable within the US or Asia. A good example is the analysis of a botnet [1]: malicious software which is run on thousands of computers, operated by unsuspecting users. These computers are then used for sending spam e-mails, collecting banking information, and many more severe malicious activities. The researcher is now in the dilemma: shut down the botnet which is just one among many more, or conducting a deeper analysis of the botnet? Another option would be to sanitize the computer and fix the underlying vulnerabilities of the computer, to prevent similar and future infections. Or should the user be warned, and made aware of the fact that the system is running malware including instructions on how to get rid of it? The interest of the user, in particular for experiments where the user is not informed (or asked for consensus), has to be the highest priority. Another priority should be in our opinion that watching users getting harmed is not acceptable. Watching how their personal information is stolen or their computers are being abused for sending spam e-mails is not acceptable. But where to draw the line? What is acceptable, and what isn’t? And how can unethical research be punished, when the decision for publication is made by very few, namely the chair of a program committee or the editor of a journal? Another good example is the Tor network [2], an anonymity network used by thousands of people on a daily basis to stay anonymous on the Internet. Due to the open design of the Tor network and the possibility that everyone can become part of the network and relay traffic for users, it can be tempting to modify traffic in the users best interest, e.g. by blocking malicious domains, inspecting and modifying file transfers or attacking the Tor network by trying to deanonymize its users. But how can deanonymization attacks be evaluated without assessing the impact on real users? In particular for complex systems, simulation is not always possible, and while there are simulation frameworks available for Tor, how can the researcher be sure that all important parameters of the simulation are correct and within expectation? Conclusions Neither researchers nor research subjects, e.g. malware authors, users or online services are currently in a position where they can refer to ethical principles that are accepted in the research community as well as on a larger scale. This talk is hopefully another step towards a guideline which is acceptable for all parties. However, much more research is needed in that direction, and the different interests of all stakeholders have to be balanced. Acknowledgments This talk extends prior work by the authors published in 2013 [3]. References and Notes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sciforum-003646 | Let's interPlay! Does Co-Evolution Enable or Constraint? | N/A |
Show Abstract |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The standard model of evolution assumes a fixed fitness landscape. Usually there is co-evolution, though: besides being influenced by its environment, an agent also shapes its environment (as described by niche construction (Laland, Odling-Smee, & Feldman, 2001)). View this as a swamp-like fitness landscape that changes as an agent moves through it and acts in it. This interplay is described on different similar aspects: between 'natural and cultural', 'social and infrastructure', 'function and structure', 'society and technology', 'decisions and acts', 'theory and practice' and 'micro and macro'. This mechanism can be used to explain certain dynamics. In the next paragraphs I will do so for technology and democracy. In general, out of the interactions of local elements, there is a bigger structure that emerges. This structure could then impose itself onto the agents, so that a status quo is reached: agents are influenced by the structure, while they don't have any more influence in return (Stirner, 1995, Stewart, 2014). Technology is in interaction with a certain kind of society and ideas. Technology strengthens a certain type of society, while it is also out of current ideas that a technology is created. Technology creates the circumstances, the environment, in which one can act. We can find support in technology to liberate ourselves. But technology can never liberate in itself, because you can only liberate yourself. Technology can't save us, because then we aren't the drivers, the players, of our own future. Technology can reinforce certain liberating tendencies, but if these tendencies aren't present, even the most liberating technology will evolve to serve the current system. Today’s democracy creates a sharp separation between decision making and acting. Some politicians make the decisions, which other people put into practice. This makes it possible to avoid responsibility, and creates alienation. Dreams can't evolve into acts. Distributed governance is a step in the right direction. But often there is the assumption that we should make a global decision, and then all act by that decision, for example in (Banathy, 2000). Although these decisions and acts have come about in a distributed way, there is still a separation between them. A global decision is made out of local decisions, which lead to local acts bringing forth a global act. Another practice is where local decisions lead to local acts, out of which a global behavior, a global direction, emerges. A solution to this structure that imposes itself could be a more hybrid structure, one that is constantly evolving, a variation and selection of different ways of organizing (Veitas & Weinbaum, 2014). There is not one utility measure that imposes a hierarchical ordering (Roughgarden, 2013). Instead of trying to reach a global, united decision or view, there would be local groups or individuals who develop themselves and work together to do so. It would be diverse and even contradictory. This conflict will boost a dynamic play. Only a constant opposition can work, though, against the natural tendency of a system for unification, for getting stuck in a status quo. This mechanism is analogous to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that without selection, a system will become more and more disordered. Without opposition, a system will impose itself and become rigid. But this doesn't mean that a complex or anti-authoritarian society is impossible. The idea is to create the environment that helps people to develop and enables them. But they are two different perspectives to do this (Busseniers, 2014): to start from yourself, constructing the world you would like to live in, or to start from the other, constructing a world where an assumed better behavior is more easily achieved. This last perspective is that of libertarian paternalism (Heylighen, 2009). These considerations are important to take into account when thinking about the global brain. Will the global brain be this integrating structure, a stable attractor state, impossible to resist since it is omnipotent and omnipresent (Heylighen, 2014)? Or will it be a constantly evolving structure that enables us to build the world we want? Will it alienate our decisions from our acts? People could get stuck in a virtual world where they can raise all kinds of opinions, but without these being connected to their acts and everyday lives. But the internet could also enable people to put their ideas into practice, by providing tools, resources and people. Consider for example the scientific process. Right now, a researcher develops a plan for an experiment, performs an experiment and writes down the results in an article, and only then his ideas are peer-reviewed. At that stage, they might find out that actually there are some problems with the experimental setup. A more continuous peer-review could be interesting, where every step gets peer-reviewed. The global brain could enable this. References
|
About This Conference
Conference Schedule
Travel & Registration Information
Please refer to the official ISIS Summit page for travel and accommodation information. Below is the list of available registration rates. Please use the registration form to register with the ISIS Summit Vienna 2015.
- Early Bird academics: 400.00 EUR
- Regular academics: 500.00 EUR
- Early Bird non-academics: 530.00 EUR
- Regular non-academics: 700.00 EUR
- Students: 120.00 EUR
- Retired persons: 120.00 EUR
- Unemployed: 120.00 EUR
- Persons with special needs: 120.00 EUR
- Citizens of BRICS, newly independent countries, developing countries: 120.00 EUR
- ISIS members (special offer): 120.00 EUR
- Early Bird ISIS member: 120.00 EUR
- Early Bird DTMD workshop participant with presentation: 120.00 EUR
- Early Bird FIS group mailing list member: 120.00 EUR
- Early Bird ICTs-and-Society Network member: 120.00 EUR
- Early Bird International Center for Philosophy of Information affiliate: 120.00 EUR
- Early Bird B.S.Lab affiliate: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird BCSSS member: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird Communications Engineering (University of Linz) co-worker: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird Department of Communication (University of Vienna) co-worker: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird Department of Systems Analysis (University of Economics Prague) co-worker: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird Global Brain Institute affiliate: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird IACAP member: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird IANES affiliate: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird ICIE member: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird Institut für Design Science München member: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird Institute for Sustainable Economic Development (BOKU) co-worker: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird ISA member: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird ISBS member: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird ITA (OAW) co-worker: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird ITHEA member: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird KHG member: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird Leibniz-Sozietät member: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird Media, Technology & Research Group affiliate: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird Moscow Conservatory affiliate: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird OCG member: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird SFU co-worker: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird Szeged Information History Workshop affiliate: 320.00 EUR
- Early Bird FIfF member: 320.00 EUR
- Invited speaker, chair, convenor, moderator, curator: 0.00 EUR
- Staff: 0.00 EUR
- Press: 0.00 EUR
- Sponsored: 0.00 EUR
- TU Wien course student: 0.00 EUR
- Accompanying participant: 200.00 EUR
- I intend to take part in the eve reception on 3 June 2015 in Vienna: 0.00 EUR
- I intend to take part in the social dinner at the floating Summit on 7 June 2015: 0.00 EUR
Call for Participation
I. Invited Speech
Session Chair
Dr. Wolfgang Hofkirchner
S1. Conference Stream DTMD 2015
Chair of the stream: David Chapman. Please see the Instructions for Authors for a template, instructions for preparation and information on the submission of extended abstracts.
Session Chair
Dr. David Chapman
Show all published submissions (8) Hide published submissions (8)
Submissions
List of Papers (8) Toggle list
S2. Conference Stream ICPI 2015
Chair of the stream: Joseph Brenner. Please see the Instructions for Authors for a template, instructions for preparation and information on the submission of extended abstracts.
Session Chair
Dr. Joseph Brenner, International Center for Transdisciplinary Research, Paris
S3. Conference Stream ICTS 2015
Chair of the stream: Christian Fuchs. Please see the Instructions for Authors for a template, instructions for preparation and information on the submission of extended abstracts.
Session Chair
Dr. Christian Fuchs
T1. Conference Track: (Big) history of information
Session Chair
Dr. László Z. Karvalics
T1.0.1. Conference Track: Andrew Feenberg's technical politics and ICTs
Session Chair
Professor Graeme Kirkpatrick
T1.1. Conference Track: As we may teach
Chair of the stream: Kristof Fenyvesi. Please see the Instructions for Authors for a template, instructions for preparation and information on the submission of extended abstracts.
Session Chair
Dr. Kristof Fenyvesi, University of Jyväskylä
T1.2. Conference Track: China and the global information society
Session Chair
Dr. Robert Bichler
T1.3. Conference Track: Communication, information and reporting
Session Chair
Dr. Gandolfo Dominici
T1.4. Conference Track: Cyberpeace
Session Chair
Dr. Kai Nothdurft
T2. Conference Track: Emancipation or disempowerment of man?
Session Chair
Dr. Tomáš Sigmund
T2.1. Conference Track: Emergence of and in (self-)organizing work systems
Session Chair
Dr. Christian Stary
T2.2. Conference Track: Emergent systems, information and society
Session Chair
Dr. Wolfgang Hofkirchner
T3. Conference Track: Empowering patients
Chair of the stream: Mary Jo Deering. Please see the Instructions for Authors for a template, instructions for preparation and information on the submission of extended abstracts.
Session Chair
Dr. Mary Jo Deering
T3.0. Conference Track: Homo informaticus
T3.1. Conference Track: Human resilience and human vulnerability
Session Chair
Dr. Brigitte Sindelar
Show all published submissions (1) Hide published submissions (1)
Submissions
List of Papers (1) Toggle list
T3.2. Conference Track: ICT and literature
Session Chair
Mr. Giovanna Di Rosario
Show all accepted abstracts (1) Hide accepted abstracts (1)
List of Accepted Abstracts (1) Toggle list
T3.3. Conference Track: ICTs and power relations
Session Chair
Mr. Stefan Strauß
T4. Conference Track: Information in the exact sciences and symmetry
Chair of the stream: Gyorgy Darvas. Please see the Instructions for Authors for a template, instructions for preparation and information on the submission of extended abstracts.
Session Chair
Dr. György Darvas, IRO Hungarian Academy of Sciences; and the Symmetrion
T5. Conference Track: Informational warfare
Chair of the stream: Mariarosaria Taddeo. Please see the Instructions for Authors for a template, instructions for preparation and information on the submission of extended abstracts.
Session Chair
Dr. Mariarosaria Taddeo
T6. Conference Track: Multi-level semiosis
Chair of the stream: Luis Emilio Bruni. Please see the Instructions for Authors for a template, instructions for preparation and information on the submission of extended abstracts.
Session Chair
Dr. Luis Emilio Bruni
T7. Conference Track: Music, information and symmetry
Session Chair
Dr. Konstantin Zenkin
T7.1. Conference Track: Natural disasters
Session Chair
Dr. Marianne Penker
T7.2. Conference Track: Progress in Information Studies in China
Session Chair
Professor Xue-Shan Yan, Peking University
T8. Conference Track: Searching to create a humanized civilization
Chair of the stream: Elohim Jimenez-Lopez. Please see the Instructions for Authors for a template, instructions for preparation and information on the submission of extended abstracts.
Session Chair
Dr. Elohim Jimenez Lopez
Show all accepted abstracts (1) Hide accepted abstracts (1)
List of Accepted Abstracts (1) Toggle list
T8.1. Conference Track: The ethics of foundations
Session Chair
Professor Rainer E. Zimmermann, Lehrgebiet Philosophie
T9. Conference Track: The Global Brain
Chair of the stream: David R. Weinbaum. Please see the Instructions for Authors for a template, instructions for preparation and information on the submission of extended abstracts.
Session Chair
Dr. David R. Weinbaum (Weaver)
T9.1. Conference Track: Transdisciplinary response and responsibility
Session Chair
Dr. Søren Brier
T9.2. Conference Track: Triangular relationship
Chair of the stream: Marcin J. Schröder. Please see the Instructions for Authors for a template, instructions for preparation and information on the submission of extended abstracts.
Session Chair
Dr. Marcin Jan Schroeder, Akita International University
T9.3. Conference Track: Weaving the understanding of information
Session Chair
Dr. José María Díaz Nafría