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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
“And since in the infosphere we, as users, are increasingly invited, if not forced, to rely on indicators rather than actual references–we cannot try all the restaurants in town, the references, so we trust online recommendations, the indicators of quality–we share and promote a culture of proxies. LinkedIn profiles stand for individuals, the number of linked pages stand for relevance and importance, ‘likes’ are a proxy for pleasant, TripAdvisor becomes a guide to leisure”.
- 2.
“The law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which, if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defense, and the right of war, at liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable”.
- 3.
“All disembedding mechanisms, both symbolic tokens and expert systems, depend upon trust. Trust is therefore involved in a fundamental way with the institutions of modernity”.
- 4.
“The public mind – that is, the set of values and interpretative frames that have large exposure in society - is ultimately what influences collective behaviour”.
- 5.
“Information, knowledge, and culture are central to human freedom and human development. How they are produced and exchanged in our society critically affects the way we see the state of the world as it is and might be; who decides these questions; and how we, as societies and polities, come to understand what can and ought to be done. For more than 150 years, modern complex democracies have depended in large measure on an industrial information economy for these basic functions”.
- 6.
“Standards are means by which we construct realities. They are means of partially ordering people and things so as to produce outcomes desired by someone. As such, they are part of the technical, political, social, economic, and ethical infrastructure that constitutes human society”.
- 7.
“In numerous surveillance situations, bodies are reduced to data, perhaps most obviously through the use of biometrics at borders. Yet in this paradigmatic case, the end in view is to verify the identity of the body, indeed, of the person, to permit them to cross the border (or not). One cannot but conclude that information about that body it is treated as if it were conclusive in determining the identity of the person. […] In condensed form, this is the story of how disembodied information ends up critically affecting the life chances of flesh-and-blood migrants, asylum seekers and the like”.
References
Barocas, S., S. Hood and M. Ziewitz. 2013, March 29. Governing algorithms: A provocation piece. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2245322
Bauman, Z., and D. Lyon. 2012. Liquid surveillance: A conversation. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U. 1992. Risk society. Towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications.
Benkler, Y. 2006. The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Brey, P. 2010. Values in technology and disclosive computer ethics. In Information and computer ethics, ed. L. Floridi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Busch, L. 2011. Standards. Recipes for reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Castells, M. 2009. Communication power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Durante, M. 2007. Il futuro del web. Etica, diritto, decentramento. Dalla sussidiarietà digitale all’economia dell’informazione in rete. Torino: Giappichelli Editore.
———. 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.
———. 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.
Floridi, L. 2010. Information. A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2013. The Ethics of Information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. 2014. The fourth revolution. How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———., ed. 2015. The onlife manifesto. Being human in a hyperconnected era. Dordrecht: Springer.
Giddens, A. 1990. The consequences of modernity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hobbes, T. 1991. Leviathan [1651]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kallinikos, J. 2006. The consequences of information. Institutional implications of technological change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
———. 2011. Governing through technology. information artefacts and social practice. Houndmills Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lessig, L. 1999. Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.
———. 2006. Code: Version 2.0. New York: Basic Books.
Locke, J. 1998. Two treatises of government [1690]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Lyon, D. 2009. Identifying citizens: ID cards as surveillance. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Moor, J. 1985. What is computer ethics? Metaphilosophy 16 (4): 266–275.
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.
Pagallo, U. 2013. The laws of robots: Crimes, contracts, and torts. Dordrecht: Springer.
———. 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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Durante, M. (2019). Safety and Security in the Digital Age. Trust, Algorithms, Standards, and Risks. In: Berkich, D., d'Alfonso, M. (eds) On the Cognitive, Ethical, and Scientific Dimensions of Artificial Intelligence. Philosophical Studies Series, vol 134. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01800-9_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01800-9_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01799-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01800-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)