Advertisement

Safety and Security in the Digital Age. Trust, Algorithms, Standards, and Risks

  • Massimo DuranteEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Philosophical Studies Series book series (PSSP, volume 134)

Abstract

Security is a crucial issue of our society, which is accordingly defined as a risk society. However, in a complex risk society, citizens cannot tackle and manage the issue of risk by themselves. The risk is therefore more and more delegated to processes and mechanisms that take care of risk management. Today, the risk against which society claims to be immunized-increasingly mediated by technologies and less and less politically legitimized-reemerges with new forms of fiduciary management, raising the possibility of weakening rights and diluting political responsibility.

Keywords

Trust Security Artificial agents Delegated authority Risk-management Fiduciary relationships Information 

References

  1. Barocas, S., S. Hood and M. Ziewitz. 2013, March 29. Governing algorithms: A provocation piece. Available at:  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2245322
  2. Bauman, Z., and D. Lyon. 2012. Liquid surveillance: A conversation. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, U. 1992. Risk society. Towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Benkler, Y. 2006. The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brey, P. 2010. Values in technology and disclosive computer ethics. In Information and computer ethics, ed. L. Floridi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Busch, L. 2011. Standards. Recipes for reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castells, M. 2009. Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Durante, M. 2007. Il futuro del web. Etica, diritto, decentramento. Dalla sussidiarietà digitale all’economia dell’informazione in rete. Torino: Giappichelli Editore.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2010. What is the model of trust for multi-agent systems? Whether or not E-trust applies to autonomous agents. Knowledge, Technology, and Policy 23: 347–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. ———. 2012. E-democracy as the frame of networked public discourse. Information, consensus and complexity. In Legitimacy 2.0. E-democracy and public opinion in the digital age, paper series – 25th IVR World Congress: Law, science and technology, ed. P. Mindus, A. Greppi, and M. Cuono, 1–28. Frankfurt am Main: Goethe University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Floridi, L. 2010. Information. A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ———. 2013. The Ethics of Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2014. The fourth revolution. How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. ———., ed. 2015. The onlife manifesto. Being human in a hyperconnected era. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Giddens, A. 1990. The consequences of modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hobbes, T. 1991. Leviathan [1651]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kallinikos, J. 2006. The consequences of information. Institutional implications of technological change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2011. Governing through technology. information artefacts and social practice. Houndmills Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lessig, L. 1999. Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 2006. Code: Version 2.0. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  21. Locke, J. 1998. Two treatises of government [1690]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Luhmann, N. 1979. Trust: A mechanism for the reduction of social complexity. In Trust and power: two works, ed. N. Luhmann, 1–103. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Lyon, D. 2009. Identifying citizens: ID cards as surveillance. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  24. Moor, J. 1985. What is computer ethics? Metaphilosophy 16 (4): 266–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nissenbaum, H. 2004. Will security enhance trust online, or supplant it? In Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches, ed. R.M. Kramer and K.S. Cook, 155–188. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Pagallo, U. 2013. The laws of robots: Crimes, contracts, and torts. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. ———. 2014. Il diritto nell’età dell’informazione. Il riposizionamento tecnologico degli ordinamenti giuridici tra complessità sociale, lotta per il potere e tutela dei diritti. Giappichelli Editore, Torino.Google Scholar
  28. Pagallo, U., and M. Durante. 2016. The pros and cons of legal automation and its governance. European Journal of Risk Regulation 7 (2): 323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zittrain, J. 2010. Perfect enforcement on tomorrow’s Internet. In Regulating technologies: Legal futures, regulatory frames and technological fixes, ed. R. Bronsword and K. Yeung, 125–156. London: Hart Publisher.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di GiurisprudenzUniveristà di TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations