building values into the design of pervasive mobile...

of 14

Building Values into the Design of Pervasive Mobile Technologies

Katie Shilton

Dissertation Proposal Doctor of Philosophy in Information Studies University of California, Los Angeles, 2011

Professor Christine L. Borgman, Chair

For consideration for the Thomson Reuters Doctoral Dissertation Proposal Scholarship July 1, 2010

Table of Contents

Research Description ....................................................................................................................... 1 Mobile sensing and surveillance ................................................................................................. 2 Significance ................................................................................................................................... 4

Methods............................................................................................................................................. 4 Research questions....................................................................................................................... 5 Research design ............................................................................................................................ 6 Data analysis ................................................................................................................................. 9

Expected Findings .......................................................................................................................... 10 Schedule of Completion ................................................................................................................ 11 Budget and Justification ................................................................................................................. 11 Other Support................................................................................................................................. 11 Dissertation Adviser....................................................................................................................... 11 References ....................................................................................................................................... 12

of 14

Research Description Pervasive mobile technologies such as mobile phones are always-on, always-present devices

carried by billions. Coordinating such ubiquitous devices could yield an unprecedented platform for

gathering data about people, including location, images, motion, and user input. Current computer

science and engineering research could enable individuals to use their phones to collect and respond

to personal data about their habits, routines, and environment. Networks of phones could become

technological platforms for advocacy, helping a community make a case through documentation of a

problem or need. New forms of expression may emerge as telecommunications and internet social

networking interweave with these sensing capabilities. Or these devices could enable the largest

surveillance system on the planet. A host of factors could tip the delicate balance between advocacy

and expression or repression and control, including power structures of adoption and use, national

and international policy and regulation, and technical affordances embedded during system design.

My thesis explores the benefits and threats of mobile sensing by probing this last factor:

design processes and decisions that embed values into an emerging technology. A primary goal of

my project is to explore new values concerns engendered by mobile sensing systems. In addition, I

probe design processes and design setting structures for possibilities to foreground a specific set of

ethics – privacy and anti-surveillance values – into design. Participating in and observing the design

of software and architecture to coordinate pervasive sensing systems will enable me to discover

design processes that foreground or encourage values debates. Discovering design process

influences on values will contribute to a broader understanding the threats and possibilities of

mobile sensing. It will also suggest design practices and interventions to shape socially desirable

technologies.

of 14

Mobile sensing and surveillance

Academic and industry researchers are currently coordinating mobile phone networks for

purposes ranging from entertainment to improving public health (Eisenman et al., 2007, 2006; Burke

et al., 2006; Khan & Markopoulos, 2009; Miluzzo, Lane, Eisenman, & Campbell, 2007).

Technologists and engineers involved in research trajectories labeled mobile sensing, urban or

participatory sensing endeavor to make these everyday devices a platform for coordinated

investigation of the environment and human activity. Mobile sensing harnesses the power of an

existing technology—a distributed, numerous, and ubiquitous network of mobile phones—for social

projects and goods. Users might benefit from phone location awareness to understand their

exposure to air pollution as they move through a city. Communities could band together to

undertake research projects using tools they already own. Teams might use their phones to snap, tag

and upload photos of community events, perform volunteer assessments of the pedestrian or bike

friendliness of neighborhoods, or improve the ease of reporting environmental threats. Mobile

sensing developers draw scenarios from community organizing and environmental justice, and

imagine these tools deployed in public interest initiatives. Such powerful, familiar, and plentiful

sensors could enable interest groups to make their case through distributed documentation of

problems, needs, or community assets.

For example, Your Flowing Data (http://your.flowingdata.com/) is a project that asks users

to send short SMS or Twitter messages recording data points (e.g. weight, exercise accomplished,

mood, or food eaten) throughout the day. The project then provides users with visualizations to

explore patterns among data points and learn from their data. A different implementation is the

Personal Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) http://peir.cens.ucla.edu/, a participatory sensing

application that uses participants’ mobile phones to record their location every thirty seconds. PEIR

http://your.flowingdata.com/�

http://peir.cens.ucla.edu/�

of 14

takes this time-location series and infers how much a participant drives each day, and whether she

spends time near polluted highways. PEIR uses this information to give participants a daily profile

of their carbon footprint and exposure to air pollutants.

To accomplish these analytic goals, systems such as Your Flowing Data and PEIR gather,

store and process large amounts of personal information, creating massive databases of individuals’

locations, movements, images, sound clips, text annotations, and even health data. Sharing such data

with application providers may be necessary to analyze results from granular observations. But

applications built in a design culture that encourages maximum data collection and retention,

without consideration for targeting, focus or deletion, risks creating databases ripe for “function

creep”: using amassed personal data for secondary, unforeseen purposes to which data subjects have

not consented (Curry, Phillips, & Regan, 2004). In addition, designers trained in software cultures

where openness is a virtue (Kelty, 2008), or institutions that emphasize data sharing to aid scientific

and engineering innovation (Borgman, 2007), may find these values in conflict with users who wish

to share personal data very selectively. Providing best-practice security to protect this data from theft

or hacking is also difficult in small design laboratories or for projects hosted by individuals.

Developers of such technologies may also have financial motives to mine personal data, producing

targeted advertising, selling valuable behavioral data to third parties, or using location to hone price

or product discrimination (Curry et al., 2004). Finally, with no specific legal protections for

participatory sensing data, comprehensive databases documenting individuals’ movements are prime

targets for subpoena or government surveillance (Phillips, 2003).

Beyond design, adoption and use could also alter optimistic visions of mobile sensing. A

public armed with diverse, powerful sensors could create a future of social exploration and

cooperative data analysis. Or the same tools could encourage vigilantism and a tattletale public.

of 14

Without privacy and anti-surveillance safeguards in design and regulation, mobile sensing may join

the ranks of existing peer-to-peer surveillance systems such as sex offender databases and online

background checks, which encourage users to observe and report on each other (Andrejevic, 2007).

Significance

A multi-year study into a lab at the forefront of mobile sensing development will illustrate

the processes, supporting structures and competing tensions during technology design that facilitate

or frustrate discussion of, and action on, moral values. Further, through changes in system design

and laboratory processes, my project explicitly asks system designers to consider and respond to

privacy and anti-surveillance ethics during the process of innovation and development. My research

asks not only what values mobile sensing designers espouse, but how interventions—by outside

social scientists, mentors and colleagues, clients and research subjects, and institutional authorities—

might increase designers’ ability to consider, foreground and react to privacy and anti-surveillance

ethics within the constraints of design.

We already live among pervasive surveillance systems. As Lyon says, “Information societies

are surveillance societies” (2001, p. 10). The question remains whether we can divert, subvert, or

more equitably disperse some of that information power. Understanding when and how ubiquitous

sensing engineers weigh social values to make design decisions, and the technological features that

result, can reveal the possibilities that mobile sensing holds for avoiding surveillance and providing

secure and equitable use, meaningful community participation, and empowerment.

Methods

My thesis will consider empirical data from several years spent as a participant observer in a

laboratory at the forefront of the design of mobile sensing technologies

(http://urban.cens.ucla.edu/). Participating in the mobile sensing design lab at the Center for

http://urban.cens.ucla.edu/�

of 14

Embedded Networked Sensing (CENS) provides a unique opportunity to study the ways in which

designers embed values in software, architecture and practices associated with that technology.

Using interviews, document analysis, and participant observation, I will investigate processes that

enable or impede ethical decision-making within the mobile sensing design setting. I will also use

data from focus groups with system users to contrast understandings of ethics in the lab with

concerns expressed by participants in mobile sensing. Finally, my project asks how ethicists and

social scientists concerned with the development of this technology can be influential within the

design process. I investigate five design processes—the presence of an ethics advocate, faculty

mentoring and modeling, engineers as system users, user-designer feedback loops, and interaction

with institutional ethical mandates such as IRBs—to evaluate which processes might successfully

foreground ethical problems and solutions during the design of pervasive mobile technologies.

Research questions

Through interviews and observation of CENS mobile sensing stakeholders, I will explore

the ways in which processes within design encourage discovery, discussion, and incorporation of

anti-surveillance values like privacy, consent, equity, limited data retention and data minimization

(Marx, 1998). My project will address the following research questions:

1. What values are of primary concern to CENS urban sensing designers, and how do they contrast with values of primary concern to system users?

2. How do system designs materialize or obscure ethics of privacy, consent, equity, and forgetting?

3. What CENS design practices and structures foster values of privacy, consent, equity, limited data retention, and data minimization in CENS participatory sensing projects?

4. What intervention techniques encourage values of privacy, consent, equity, limited data retention, and data minimization as primary design criteria?

of 14

Research design

I propose a participant observer approach (Spradley, 1980) to studying the design laboratory

for discussion and embedding of values in design of mobile sensing technologies. As a member of

the CENS mobile sensing research team, I have excellent access to the design setting, and can

participate and systematically analyze all phases of design.

I will investigate these research questions using participant-observation in the CENS mobile

sensing laboratory, interviews with laboratory members, and analysis of presentations, papers, and

technologies produced by the design team. Observation and interviews can reveal how designers

recognize and discuss ethical problems in mobile sensing, what sorts of moral agency engineers

recognize (e.g. designer agency, user agency, system agency) or confuse, what ethical issues designers

are aware of or discovering, and how designers address these issues through design. It can also

reveal how laboratory processes and structures can affect ethical perceptions and decisions.

I will also conduct interviews and focus groups with mobile sensing users and clients.

Interviewing users and clients after they have participated in a CENS mobile sensing campaign can

allow me to uncover ethical concerns not discussed in the design space. This interaction with users

will allow me to contrast user perceptions of ethical challenges against designer perceptions.

Because of my closeness to my ethnographic setting and subjects, my work will follow the

tradition of “collaborative ethnography” influenced by critical and feminist approaches to

anthropological fieldwork (Lassiter, 2005). Collaborative ethnography, writes Lassiter, is:

…an approach to ethnography that deliberately and explicitly emphasizes collaboration at every point in the ethnographic process, without veiling it—from project conceptualization, to fieldwork, and, especially, through the writing process (2005, p. 16).

of 14

Two influential members of my research population sit on my dissertation committee, have played a

pivotal role in the conceptualization of this research, and will regularly review my progress and

writing. I will also share segments of my questions and findings with CENS lab members as they are

willing and interested. Their opinions, feedback and input, whether offered during interviews, over

dinner, or through formal critique of my writing, will be an important part of this research.

I have spent a year in the research setting at the date that my proposal was written, and over

the course of my dissertation project, plan to spend an additional year and a half. I will actively

record field notes in meetings for at least one full year during my stay. This research timeline fits the

academic cycle at CENS. Students arrive in September and work on discrete projects through the

following August. Sensing campaigns are not strictly tied to the academic schedule, but the academic

year certainly affects the pacing and life of the lab.

I will begin with a semi-structured interview with each consenting member of the CENS

mobile sensing team. I estimate that I will interview approximately 20-30 undergraduates, graduate

students, full-time staff, and faculty. I will therefore take into account time already spent in the lab

(measured in number of school years) and amount of participation (in testing, lab meetings, etc)

when analyzing the data from these interviews. Because “ethical issues” may seem like a daunting

subject for designers focused on their own projects and concerns, all interviews will start by asking

the informant to describe the projects in which they are involved. Talking about projects will ground

our discussion, engage the informant, and present openings to talk about ethical decisions they have

faced or made within their work (Fisher, 2007).

Over the year following initial interviews, I will participate, observe and take field notes

during both full group and small group design meetings (approximately two meetings per week). I

may also take photographs of design meetings when visual aids might capture diagrams, inscriptions,

of 14

or group interactions. I will analyze presentations and papers produced by the design team for

attention to ethical issues and rationalization of design decision that affect privacy, consent, equity,

limited data retention, or data minimization.

In addition to interviews, observations, and analysis of papers and presentations produced

by lab members within the project timeline, I will undertake an analysis of the ethical consequences

of systems produced during the course of the year. I will examine how the technologies produced by

the design team grapple with or ignore ethical problems, and analyze what solutions lab members

have employed for problems such as privacy, consent, equity, limited data retention, and data

minimization. Comparing designers’ statements in interviews and meetings with the products of

their design work will allow for analysis of the ways both professed and silent values materialize in

technology.

To evaluate what laboratory processes successfully foreground ethical questions, I will

perform an evaluation-oriented analysis of my interview data, observation field notes, and lab

presentations, publications and technologies. Focusing the coding and analysis of this body of data

on instances of, and motivations behind, ethical learning will allow me to compare the effectiveness

of concrete lab practices on values in design. How do lab members respond to the ethics advocate?

What do they indicate they have learned from their mentors? What did they learn from testing

systems on themselves? How did they react to feedback from clients and users? And how did they

react to institutional ethical mandates handed down by the IRB? Which of these processes (if any)

do they credit with new respect for ethical problems? Which of these processes (if any) encouraged

them to make design changes?

I will also observe the everyday work of design to supplement my interview data. My

observation of design meetings and workshops will focus on ethical debates and decision-making

of 14

during the design process. Coding field notes to foreground conflicts over ethical questions and the

reasoning behind design decisions can help me better understand the intersection of ethics and

design. What ethical issues arise for designers, and how do they address those issues through design?

What issues do they avoid, dismiss, or reframe? What are their stated justifications for the decisions

they make? How do they weigh ethical design against other interests, such as completing a project

quickly, elegantly, or efficiently? How do they articulate different kinds of data, and different ethical

requirements that may result?

Though my initial data gathering and analysis will focus on the issues I have outlined above,

an important goal of this work is to open up new questions that I have not discovered or addressed

in this proposal. Ethnography, write Franklin and Roberts (2006):

…relies on the assumption that we may not know what the important questions are, or why, or how to ask them. Good ethnographic investigation thus often produces its most valuable findings as questions rather than answers (Franklin & Roberts, 2006, p. 82).

New questions about the ethics of mobile sensing will be a final product of this dissertation

research.

Data analysis

At the end of each interview or day of observation, I will transcribe field notes and memos.

Longer interviews will be professionally transcribed. I will organize my transcripts and code them

using the Atlas.TI software package. Coding interview data and ethnographic field notes will create a

typology of design processes that enable or impede ethical decision-making in the design setting.

Though codes will initially reflect my variables of interest, I will also allow codes to emerge as I see

new themes materialize in my observations and interviews. Axial coding will enable description and

of 14

discovery beyond what I have envisioned in my existing theoretical structure, allowing new theory to

emerge from the evidence (J. Lofland, Snow, Anderson, & L. H. Lofland, 2006).

Because I am the sole researcher on this project, I must be careful to avoid coding bias. I will

solicit graduate student colleagues to review my coding schema alongside samples of the content I

have coded. I will ask them to discuss any discrepancies or differences of opinion in coding to

highlight any bias my coding might have produced, and refine my coding schema according to their

suggestions.

Application and refinement of the coding schema will be a tool for pattern discovery in both

the observation and interview data. I will analyze the coded field notes for qualitative evidence of

relationships between particular design processes and changes in thinking about the ethical issues in

mobile sensing. In addition, the coded interview data should allow for deeper, ideographic

understanding through case-oriented analysis. Each interview will serve as a case, where a complex

matrix of personal factors, intervention exposure and reactions, and design experience affect a

subject’s reaction to ethical problems in design. Cases can be compared against each other to look

for overlap or deviation among variables that seem important in ethical decision-making.

Expected Findings

My dissertation will yield at least three types of findings. The first set of findings will be

theoretical understandings of what empowering mobile sensing that avoids surveillance might entail,

and the conditions under which such a vision can thrive. The second set of findings will be design

recommendations to enable an empowering vision of mobile sensing. The third set of findings will

be policy recommendations to encourage technological innovation which emphasizes privacy and

anti-surveillance values. Together, the findings of this dissertation will enable advances in ubiquitous

computing while protecting democratic, anti-authoritarian social values.

of 14

Schedule of Completion

2009 2010 2111 Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring Proposal Presentation Participation, observation of meetings Interviews w/ lab members Interviews w/ clients & users

Analysis of interview data, observation data, publications Drafting of final thesis Defense of thesis Finalize thesis, author papers

Budget and Justification

Because my field site is in the city where I live, costs are fortunately few. The largest cost is interview

transcription, which is a time-consuming and expensive process. Estimated costs are:

Interview transcription: 30 hours @ $150/hour = $4500

Transcription facilitates data coding and the ability to draw conclusions from free-text data.

Conference travel: Airfare and lodging for 2 conferences = $1800

Conference travel will allow me to compare work with, and learn from, other researchers working in

values in design, ethics in engineering, and information privacy.

Other Support

This work is supported under National Science Foundation grant number 0832873. The grant pays

my wage as a graduate student researcher at 50% time through spring of 2011. It also contributes

some funds towards transcription and conference travel.

Dissertation Adviser

Dr. Christine Borgman, Department of Information Studies, University of California Los Angeles.

(Her letter of reference is included in the supplemental materials).

of 14

References

Andrejevic, M. (2007). iSpy: surveillance and power in the interactive era. Lawrence, KS: University Press of

Kansas.

Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age: information, infrastructure, and the internet. Cambridge,

MA and London: The MIT Press.

Burke, J., Estrin, D., Hansen, M., Parker, A., Ramanathan, N., Reddy, S., & Srivastava, M. B. (2006).

Participatory sensing. In World Sensor Web Workshop, ACM Sensys 2006. Presented at the

World Sensor Web Workshop, ACM Sensys 2006, Boulder, CO: ACM.

Curry, M. R., Phillips, D. J., & Regan, P. M. (2004). Emergency response systems and the creeping

legibility of people and places. The Information Society, 20, 357-369.

Eisenman, S. B., Lane, N. D., Miluzzo, E., Peterson, R. A., Ahn, G. S., & Campbell, A. T. (2006).

MetroSense Project: People-Centric Sensing at Scale. In Proceedings of the ACM Sensys World

Sensor Web Workshop. Presented at the ACM Sensys World Sensor Web Workshop, Boulder,

CO: ACM.

Eisenman, S. B., Miluzzo, E., Lane, N. D., Peterson, R. A., Ahn, G. S., & Campbell, A. T. (2007).

The BikeNet mobile sensing system for cyclist experience mapping. In Proceedings of the 5th

international conference on Embedded networked sensor systems (pp. 87-101). Presented at the 5th

international conference on Embedded networked sensor systems, ACM.

Fisher, E. (2007). Ethnographic Invention: Probing the Capacity of Laboratory Decisions.

NanoEthics, 1(2), 155-165.

Franklin, S., & Roberts, C. (2006). Born and Made: An Ethnography of Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis.

Princeton, N.J. and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Kelty, C. M. (2008). Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software. Durham, NC: Duke University

of 14

Press.

Khan, V., & Markopoulos, P. (2009). Busy families' awareness needs. International Journal of Human-

Computer Studies, 67(2), 139-153.

Lassiter, L. E. (2005). The Chicago Guide to Collaborative Ethnography. Chicago & London: The

University of Chicago Press.

Lofland, J., Snow, D., Anderson, L., & Lofland, L. H. (2006). Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to

Qualitative Observation and Analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Lyon, D. (2001). Surveillance Society (1st ed.). Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Marx, G. T. (1998). Ethics for the new surveillance. The Information Society, 14, 171-185.

Miluzzo, E., Lane, N. D., Eisenman, S. B., & Campbell, A. T. (2007). CenceMe - Injecting Sensing

Presence into Social Networking Applications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 4793, 1-28.

Phillips, D. J. (2003). Beyond privacy: Confronting locational surveillance in wireless

communication. Communication Law and Policy, 8(1), 1-23.

Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

KATIE SHILTON 3633 Jasmine Ave #9, Los Angeles, CA 90034

617-899-5262, [email protected]

1

EDUCATION University of California Los Angeles

MLIS 2007 Specialization in Archival Studies PhD expected 2011 Specialization in Information Policy Oberlin College B.A. 2003 Majors in History and German Studies

FUNDING, AWARDS & HONORS Funding NSF Award IIS-0832873: “Ethics Education for Participatory Urban Sensing” September 2008 – August 2011, $300,000 Awards Information Studies Dissertation Proposal Award, 2009 Best paper, 4th International Symposium on Location and Context Awareness UCLA Collegium of University Teaching Fellows fellow, 2009-2010 Finalist, CNI’s Paul Evan Peters Fellowship, 2008 Recipient of GSE&IS Faculty Fellowship, 2007 Recipient of UCLA’s Andrew Horn Award, 2007 Recipient of UCLA’s Andrew Horn Award, 2006 Recipient of California Special Library Association’s Sternheim Award, 2006 1st Runner-Up, LACASIS McKinley Student Scholarship Competition, 2006 Recipient of UCLA’s Mardellis Fellowship, 2005 Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society Member National Merit Scholar

PUBLICATIONS Refereed Journal Articles Shilton, Katie and Srinivasan, R., “Participatory Appraisal and Arrangement for Multicultural Archival Collections,” Archivaria 63 (2007): 87-101. Magazine Articles Shilton, Katie. “Four Billion Little Brothers? Privacy, mobile phones, and ubiquitous data collection,” Communications of the ACM (2009). Shilton, Katie. “Four Billion Little Brothers? Privacy, mobile phones, and ubiquitous data collection,” ACM Queue (2009). Conference Proceedings Reddy, Sasank, Shilton, K., Denisov, G., Cenizal, C., Estrin, D., and Srivastava, M. Biketastic: Sensing and Mapping for Better Biking. Proceedings of the 28th ACM Conference on Human Factors in Comp;uting Systems (CHI 2010). (Atlanta, Georgia, 10-15 April 2010). Shilton, Katie, Burke, J., Estrin, D., Govindan, R., and Kang, J. Designing the Personal Data Stream: Enabling Participatory Privacy in Mobile Personal Sensing. Proceedings of the 37th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy (TPRC). (Arlington, VA, 25-27 September 2009). Mun, Min, Reddy, S., Shilton, K., Yau, N., Boda, P., Burke, J., Estrin, D., Hansen, M., Howard, E., West, R . PEIR, the Personal Environmental Impact Report, as a Platform for Participatory Sensing Systems Research. Proceedings of the International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services 2009. (Krakow, Poland, 22-25 June 2009). Shilton, Katie, Ramanathan, N., Reddy, S., Samanta, V., Burke, J., Estrin, D.,

mailto:[email protected]�



2

Hansen, M. and Srivastava, M. “Participatory Design of Sensing Networks: Strengths and Challenges.” Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference 2008 (Bloomington, IN, 2008). ACM Press. Srinivasan, Ramesh and Shilton, K. "The South Asian Web: An Emerging Community Information System in the South Asian Diaspora." Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Participatory Design: Expanding Boundaries in Design - Volume 1 (Trento, Italy, August 01 - 05, 2006). ACM Press, New York, NY, 125-133. Workshop Papers Estrin, D., Burke, J., Hansen, M., Shilton, K., & Mun, M. Mobile Personal Sensing: A new driver for high performance transaction systems? 13th International Workshop on High Performance Transaction Systems (HPTS) (Pacific Grove, CA, October 25-28, 2009). Reddy, S., Shilton, K. Estrin, J., Burke, J., Hansen, M., & Srivastava, M. Using Context Annotated Mobility Profiles to Recruit Data Collectors in Participatory Sensing. 4th International Symposium on Location and Context Awareness (Tokyo, May 7-8, 2009). Reddy, S., Shilton, K., Burke, J., Estrin, D., Hansen, M., & Srivastava, M. B. Evaluating Participation and Performance in Participatory Sensing. UrbanSense Workshop, Sensys 2008 (Raleigh, NC, November 5, 2008). Shilton, Katie, Burke, J., Estrin, D., Hansen, M., and Srivastava, M. “Participatory Privacy in Urban Sensing.” MODUS 2008 (St. Louis, MO, April 21, 2008). Technical Reports Goldman, Jeffrey, Shilton, K. et al. “Participatory Sensing: A citizen-powered approach to illuminating the patterns that shape our world.” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, D.C. 2009. http://wilsoncenter.org/topics/docs/participatory_sensing.pdf Nguyen, Lilly and Shilton, K. “Tools for Digital Humanists.” Appendix in A Survey of Digital Humanities Centers in the United States, by Diane Sorich. Council on Library and Information Resources, Washington, D.C., 2008. Shilton, Katie, Burke, J., Estrin, D., Hansen, M., and Srivastava, M. “Achieving Participatory Privacy Regulation: Guidelines for CENS Urban Sensing" (June 25, 2008). Center for Embedded Network Sensing. Technical Reports. Paper 62. http://repositories.cdlib.org/cens/techrep/62 Book Reviews Shilton, Katie, Review: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management edited by David J. Pauleen. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education & Information Studies 4, no. 1 (2008). Theses Shilton, Katie, “Who, What, When, Where and Why: Shifting Preservation Warrants in Archival Appraisal.” Master’s Thesis, Department of Information Studies, UCLA. May 2007.

RESEARCH EXPERIENCE Research Assistant, “Privacy and Participation in Urban Sensing” Center for Embedded Networked Sensing, October 2007 - Present Leading research, policy development, and system design to incorporate privacy and encourage participatory design of ubiquitous sensing technologies.




3

Research Assistant, “Tools for Humanists” Council on Library and Information Resources, Nov. 2007- March 2009 Created an evaluation strategy for digital humanities resources and co-authored two white papers on digital humanities tools as a piece of U.S. cyberinfrastructure. Research Assistant, “Ecologies of Attention and Forgetting” UCLA Department of Information Studies, 2006-2007 Information seeking, research, grant writing, and event management relating to surveillance, technological capture, and the social benefits of forgetting. Research Assistant, “Nonprofit Information Specialists Study” The Annenberg Foundation, Los Angeles, CA: 2007 Coordination of a project exploring possibilities for a service to meet information needs of the California nonprofit sector. Conducted literature reviews, coordinated a team of nonprofit information experts, and suggested, modeled, and evaluated potential information services. Research Assistant, “The South Asian Net” UCLA Department of Information Studies, Fall 2005 – Spring 2006 Assisted in the conceptualization of a digital repository for narratives of the South Asian diaspora in Los Angeles.

INVITED PRESENTATIONS & WORKSHOPS

Facilitator, “Mobile Phones: Resisting Surveillance,” Computers, Freedom & Privacy 2010, San Jose, CA. June 2010. Invited Participant, Privacy Law Scholars Conference, George Washington University. June 2010 Invited participant, Values in Design Workshop 2010, New York University. May 2010. “Personalized Discovery or iSurveillance? Ethics and Innovation in Mobile Sensing.” Paper given at the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) annual meeting. Washington, D.C., October 2009. Invited participant, Workshop on Ethics in Science and Engineering: Redefining Tools and Resources, University of Massachusetts Amherst. October 2009. “Participating in Privacy: Designing the Personal Data Vault.” Presentation for the UCLA CENS Seminar Series. Los Angeles, CA, July 24, 2009. “Privacy and Other Challenges: Disclosure, Discretion and Mobile Sensing.” Presentation for the CENS/Google Workshop for Teachers. Los Angeles, CA, July 23, 2009. “Participating in Privacy: Enabling Disclosure and Discretion in Mobile Sensing.” Seminar talk given at Harvard University’s Center for Research on Computation and Society. Cambridge, MA, April 2009. Invited Participant, Workshop on Surveillance and Empowerment, Vanderbilt University. Nashville, TN, March 2009. Invited Participant, Workshop on Integrating Microethics and Macroethics in Graduate Science and Engineering Education, Arizona State University. Mesa, AZ, February 2009. “Context Awareness and Privacy in Urban Sensing.” Talk given at the CENS




4

Annual Research Review, Los Angeles, CA, October 22, 2008. “Ethics in the Digital Archive: Balancing Privacy, Participation, and Representation.” Paper given at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archivists. San Francisco, CA, August 30, 2008. “Privacy and Participation in Ubiquitous Information Systems: Information Ethics When Mobile Phones are Sensors.” Paper given at the Third Annual iConference: iFutures: Systems, Selves, Society. Los Angeles, California, February 29, 2008. “Privacy in Ubiquitous Computing.” Presentation given for the UCLA Informatics Journal Discussion Group. Los Angeles, CA, February 2008. “Because the Stakes are Higher: Ethics in Participatory Urban Sensing.” Presentation given for the UCLA CENS Seminar Series. Los Angeles, CA, January 11, 2008. Featured speaker, UCLA GSE&IS Dean’s Scholars Dinner, 2007. Los Angeles, CA “Forgetting and the Browser: Technologies of Attention and Forgetting in Public Reading Rooms.” Paper given at the Society for Social Studies of Science Annual Meeting. Montreal, Canada, October 2007. “Exploring Privacy and Participation in Digital Archives.” Presentation given for the UCLA Department of Information Studies Round Table for the Open World Program. Los Angeles, CA, September 2007. “Authoring the Archive.” Paper given at the Society of California Archivists Annual Meeting. Long Beach, CA, May 2007. “Exploring Systems That Forget.” Presentation given for the UCLA Informatics Journal Discussion Group. May 2007. Invited Participant, Workshop on Designing for Forgetting and Exclusion. University of California, Los Angeles, April 2007. “‘This Scholarly but Colored Alumna’: Anna Julia Cooper’s Troubled Relationship with Oberlin College.” Paper given at the Great Lakes College Association Black Studies Conference, Oberlin, OH, 2003.

ACADEMIC SERVICE Book Review Editor, Interactions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, Fall 2009 – present Member, UCLA Advisory Board on Privacy and Data Protection. Winter 2008 – Winter 2009. Planning committee member, “Ethical Guidance for Research and Application of Pervasive and Autonomous Information Technology (PAIT).” Workshop organized by Indiana University, Spring 2010. Editorial Board Member, Information Assurance and Security Ethics in Complex Systems: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. IGI Press, In Press. Reviewer for the 2009 iConference: iSociety: Research, Education, Engagement Reviewer for the 2008 Participatory Design Conference




5

Reviewer for the 2008 iConference: iFutures: Systems, Selves, Society Chair, “Participation and Privacy Reading Group.” Center for Embedded Networked Sensing, October – December 2007. Co-chair, “Technologies of Forgetting and Exclusion” panel. Society for Social Studies of Science Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada, October 2007. Student representative to the GSE&IS faculty search committee, Fall 2006 Member of the Student Advisory Board, InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education & Information Studies, 2006 – ongoing Reviewer for InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education & Information Studies, 2006-ongoing

TEACHING EXPERIENCE Instructor, IS 98T: Mobile Technologies: Participation and Surveillance UCLA Department of Information Studies, Spring 2010 Selected for a competitive UCLA-wide program to organize and teach a course on the social impact of pervasive mobile technologies. Guest Instructor, IS 200: Information in Society UCLA Department of Information Studies, Fall 2009 Lead a discussion on privacy, surveillance and information policy for library science and information professionals. Guest Instructor, IST 618: Survey of Telecommunications and Information Policy Syracuse University School of Information, Fall 2009 Lead a lecture and discussion on participatory approaches to privacy management. Guest Instructor, FILM TV 298A: Engaged Media Production UCLA Department of Film & Television, Spring 2009 Lead a class on the ethical concerns raised by mobile and participatory media. Guest Instructor, CS199r: Privacy and Technology Harvard University, Spring 2009 Lead a class session on what it means to foster participation in technical systems, especially in respect to privacy decision-making. Guest Instructor, LIBR 561: Information Policy University of British Columbia School of Library, Archival & Information Studies, Fall 2008 Lead a class session on new ethical issues raised by digital archives and digital capture technologies. Guest Instructor, IS 438A: Archival Appraisal UCLA Department of Information Studies, Spring 2008 Lead week on alternate frameworks for appraisal, including participatory models, and models challenged by ethics of privacy. Guest Instructor, CS 219: Special Topics in Computer Science UCLA Department of Computer Science, Spring 2008 Introduced the class to ethical topics, including problems of privacy and participation, in embedded networked sensing.




6

Reader, IS 270: Introduction to Information Technology UCLA Department of Information Studies, Winter 2008 Held office hours, assisted students to understand course material and shape course assignments, and graded coursework for this core course for the Master’s of Library and Information Studies degree. Instructor, Building Skills for Community Archives Southern California Library for Social Studies and Research, March 2008 Designed and lead a workshop on basic skills for participatory processing of community archives. Instructor, Intensive Technology Workshop UCLA Department of Information Studies, Summer 2006 and 2007 Designed and taught a workshop on the bibliographic software utility Refworks; taught workshops on network architecture and imaging software. Instructor, RefWorks Workshop UCLA Department of Information Studies, Fall 2006 Continued instruction in RefWorks bibliographic software to interested students, faculty and staff in the Information Studies program.

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT Instructor, IS 98T: Mobile Technologies: Participation and Surveillance UCLA Department of Information Studies, Spring 2010 Developed an undergraduate seminar curriculum focused on the social impact of pervasive mobile technologies. Curriculum Intern, Preservation Management Workshop Cornell University Libraries, Summer 2006 Authored a 1-hour and 3-hour continuing education curriculum on preserving electronic institutional records aimed at librarians, archivists, and museum professionals. Curriculum Developer, IS 289: Digital Preservation Course UCLA Department of Information Studies, Summer 2006 Assisted Dr. Jean-François Blanchette in the design of topics, readings, lectures, and an evaluation mechanism for a new course offering in digital preservation.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Archivist Intern The Wende Museum, Culver City, CA, 2006 Processed archival documents and museum artifacts dating from Cold War-era East Germany. Multimedia & Information Technology Assistant UCLA Multimedia & Information Technology Lab, 2005 – 2007 Assisted students and faculty in use of networked information resources, print materials, and multimedia resources. Participated in the development and implementation of instructional components to support the MLIS curricula. Information Systems Consultant Center for Women and Enterprise, Boston, MA, Ongoing Ongoing database management work. Organized a management system for shared electronic documents. Created a manual and a staff training presentation to aid in the system’s use. Wrote a grant that secured over $300,000 in federal and state government grants for small business development in Massachusetts. Information Systems Consultant Dr. Sidney Brown, Forensic Psychologist, Los Angeles, CA, 2005 – 2006




7

Populated and taught use of a searchable Endnote database of psychology journal articles for forensic research. Legislative Liaison and Executive Assistant Center for Women & Enterprise, Boston, MA, 2003 –2005 Secured two $250,000 state earmarks and over $300,000 in federal and local government grant funding. Responsible for tracking relevant legislative issues and funding sources, as well as using stakeholder and client base to influence government support. Responsible for extensive database work, web and e-newsletter publishing, communication with stakeholders and Board of Directors, event planning, and managing the executive office. Associate Archivist Oberlin College Archives, Oberlin, OH, 2003 Arranged and described the papers of Congressman Donald Pease. Assisted in the editing of the published finding guide. Associate Archivist Circle Pines Center Cooperative Delton, MI, 2001 Created an archival repository for a 60-year-old cooperative enterprise. Appraised existing files, and arranged, described, and preserved thousands of organizational and personal records.

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Vice President of the UCLA Student Chapter of the Society of American Archivists, 2005 – 2006 Vice President of the UCLA Student Chapter of the Special Libraries Association, 2006 – 2007

OTHER SKILLS Trained and experienced in ethnographic data collection and analysis. Skilled in MS Office Suite; Endnote and RefWorks bibliographic software; Macromedia Dreamweaver web publishing software; MapInfo GIS software; databases including Access, ACT and Raiser’s Edge. Proficiency in both written and spoken German. UCLA “Protecting Human Research Subjects” Certification

REFERENCES Dr. Christine Borgman Professor Department of Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles 216 GSE&IS Building, Box 951520 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1520 Phone: +1 310 267 5137 Fax: +1 310 206 4460 Email: [email protected] Dr. Deborah Estrin Professor Department of Computer Science, University of California, Los Angeles 3531H Boelter Hall, Box 951596 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1596 Phone: +1 310 206 3923 Fax: +1 310 206 3053 Email: [email protected]






8

Dr. Jeff Burke Executive Director UCLA Center for Research in Engineering, Media and Performance 102 East Melnitz Hall Los Angeles, CA 90095-1622 Phone: +1 310 794 5358 Fax: +1 310 825 3383 [email protected] Dr. Roland Baumann Archivist Emeritus of Oberlin College 420 Mudd Center Oberlin, OH 44074 Phone: +1 440 775 8014 E-mail: [email protected]




building values into the design of pervasive mobile...

Documents