Advertisement

Agile ethics: an iterative and flexible approach to assessing ethical, legal and social issues in the agile development of crisis management information systems

  • Inga Kroener
  • David Barnard-Wills
  • Julia MuraszkiewiczEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper reassess the evaluation of ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI) in relation to the agile development of information systems in the domain of crisis management. The authors analyse the differing assessment needs of a move from a traditional approach to the development of information systems to an agile approach, which offers flexibility, adaptability and responds to the needs of users as the system develops. In turn, the authors argue that this development requires greater flexibility and an iterative approach to assessing ELSI. The authors provide an example from the Horizon 2020 EU-funded project iTRACK (Integrated system for real-time TRACKing and collective intelligence in civilian humanitarian missions) to exemplify this move to an iterative approach in practice, drawing on the process of undertaking an ethical and privacy impact assessment for the purpose of this project.

Keywords

Agile Crisis management Information systems Ethical and privacy impact assessment 

Notes

Funding

Funding was provided by Horizon 2020 (Grant No. 700510).

References

  1. Andrejevic, M., & Gates, K. (2014). Big data surveillance. Surveillance and Society, 12(2), 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnard-Wills, D. (2012). Surveillance and identity: Discourse, subjectivity and the state, ashgate. Farnham: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Boersma, K., & Fonio, C. (Eds.) (2017). Big data, surveillance and crisis management. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  4. Burns, R. (2014). Moments of closure in the knowledge politics of digital humanitarianism. Geoforum, 53, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Busher, M., Bylund, M., Sanches, P., Ramirez, L., & Wood, L. (2013). A New Manhatten Project? Interoperability and Ethics in Emergency Response systems of systems. Proceedings of the 10th International ISCRAM conference, Baden-Baden, Germany, May 2013.Google Scholar
  6. Cao, L., Mohan, K., Peng, X., & Ramesh, B. (2009). A framework for adapting agile development methodologies. European Journal of Information Systems, 18(4), 332–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cavoukian, A. (date unknown). ‘Privacy by design. The 7th Foundational Principles.’ [Online] https://www.ipc.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/Resources/7foundationalprinciples.pdf.
  8. Cavoukian, A. (2012). Operationalizing privacy by design: A guide to implementing strong privacy practices. Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ontario, Canada, December 2012.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, R. (2009). Privacy impact assessment: Its origin and development. Computer Law and Security Review, 25(2), 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cockburn, A., Highsmith, J. (2001). Agile software development: The people factor. Computer, 34(11), 131–133.  https://doi.org/10.1109/2.963450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conboy, K. (2009). Agility from first principles: Reconstructing the concept of agility. Information Systems Development. Information Systems Research, 20(3), 329–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crang, M., & Graham, S. (2009). Sentient cities: Ambient intelligence and the politics of urban space. Information, Communication and Society, 10(6), 789–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Hert, P., Kloza, D., Wright, D., Wadhwa, K., Hosein, G., & Davies, S. (2012). Recommendations for a privacy impact assessment framework for the European Union. Deliverable for the PIAF Project [Online] http://www.piafproject.eu/ref/PIAF_D3_final.pdf.
  14. DeLaet, D. (2006). The global struggle for human rights: Universal principles in world politics. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Co Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Dette, R. (2016). Do no digital harm: Mitigating technology risks in Humanitarian contexts. Global Public Policy Institute [Online] https://cooperation.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/cooperation/files/Tech4Dev%202016/1282-Dette-SE01-HUM_FullPaper.pdf.
  16. Donnelly, J. (2007). The relative universality of human rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 29(2), 281–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Finn, R., Friedewald, M., Gellert, R., Gutwirth, R., Hüsing, B., Kukk, P., Mordini, E., Schûtz, P., Venier, S., & Wright, D. (2011). Privacy, data protection and ethical issues in new and emerging technologies: Five case studies. Deliverable for the Prescient Project [Online] https://www.prescient-project.eu/prescient/inhalte/documents/deliverables.php.
  18. Greer, D., & Hamon, Y. (2011). Agile software development. Software—Practice and Experience, 41(9), 943–944.  https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harrald, J. R. (2006). Agility and discipline: Critical success factors for disaster response. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 604(1), 256–272.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716205285404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoelscher, K., et al. (2015). Understanding attacks on humanitarian aid workers. Conflict Trends, vol. 6, PRIO: Oslo.Google Scholar
  21. Hostettler, S., Besson, N.S., Bolay, J-C. (2018). Technologies for development from innovation to social impact. Cham: SpringerOpen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Humanitarian Outcomes (2015). Aid worker security report: Figures at a glance—2016. [Online] https://aidworkersecurity.org/sites/default/files/HO_AidWorkerSecPreview_1015_G.PDF_.pdf.
  23. Iannelli, O. (2018). D3.2Socio-cultural considerations for future development. Deliverable for the iTRACK project [Online] https://www.itrack-project.eu/.
  24. ICO. (2014). Conducting privacy impact assessments code of practice. [Online] https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1595/pia-code-of-practice.pdf.
  25. International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners (2009). International Standards on the Protection of Personal Data and Privacy: The Madrid Resolution. Madrid. [Online] https://icdppc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/The-Madrid-Resolution.pdf.
  26. Kerasidou, X., Petersen, K., & Büscher, M. (2017). Intersecting ingelligence. In K. Boersma & C. Fonio (Eds.), Big data, surveillance and crisis management. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Kroener, I., & Wright, D. (2015). Privacy impact assessment policy issues. In A. R. Lombarte, R. G. Mahamut (Eds.) Hacia Un Nuevo Derecho Europeo De Protección De Datos. Valencia: Towards A New European Data Protection Regime, Tirant lo Blanch.Google Scholar
  28. Kroener, I., & Wright, D. (2014). A strategy for operationalising privacy by design. The Information Society, 30(5), 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Langheinrich, M. (2001). Privacy-by-Design: Principles of Privacy-Aware ubiquitous computing. In: Umbicomp 2001: International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 273–291).Google Scholar
  30. Lyon, D. (2007). Surveillance studies: An overview. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  31. Meier, P. (2015). Digital humanitarians: How BIG DATA is changing the face of humanitarian response. London: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mendonça, D., Jefferson, T., & Harrald, J. R. (2007). Collaborative adhocracies and mix-and-match technologies in emergency management. Communications of the ACM, 50(3), 45–49.  https://doi.org/10.1145/1226736.1226764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Monahan, T. (2010). Surveillance in the time of insecurity. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: Technology, solutionism and the urge to fix problems that don’t exist. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  35. Oliver, I. (2014). Privacy Engineering. CreateSpace, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Petersen, K. (2015). ELSI guidelines for collaborative design and database of representative emergence and disaster events in Europe. Deliverable 2.2, SecInCoRe project. [Online] http://www.secincore.eu/.
  37. Sandvik, K., & Raymond, N. A. (2017) Beyond the protective effect: Towards a theory of harm for information communication technologies in mass atrocity response. Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, 11(1), 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sandvik, K. B., Jumbert, M. J., Karlsrud, J., & Kaufmann, M. (2014). Humanitarian technology: a critical research agenda. International Review of the Red Cross, 96(893), 219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Soanes, C. (2002). Paperback oxford english dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Vinck, P. (2013). Humanitarian technology. World disasters report 2013, international federation of red cross and red crescent societies, [Online] http://www.ifrc.org/PageFiles/134658/WDR%202013%20complete.pdf.
  41. Wadhwa, K., & Wright, D. (2014). Following best practices in privacy impact assessments. Privacy Laws and Business, January.Google Scholar
  42. Wright, D. (2012). The state of the art in privacy impact assessment. Computer Law and Security Review, 28, 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Trilateral Research Ltd.LondonUK

Personalised recommendations