A hippocratic Oath for Techies & Policymakers

Acknowledegements & Context

When Rick Whitt and I were working on a paper on a framework for internet policy that brings together complexity theory, endogenous economics and common pool resource governance, I pondered once again about a proposal to write and promote a hippocratic oath for internet techies and policy makers in order to have them (including me) pledge to “do no harm” to this potent but also fragile ecosystem.

Below you find a code of conduct which I feel I can subscribe. However it is not and will never be final. Rather I plan to develop, add and sharpen the code further. Please send comments and suggestions as to what should be included and or put differently i.e. more precise.

Preamble

I recognize technology as a product of human effort, a product serving no other purpose than to benefit man in general, not merely some men; man in the totality of his humanity, encompassing all his manifold interests and needs, not merely some one particular concem of his. Humanistically viewed, technology is not an end in itself but a means to an end, the end being determined by man. I hence promote a humanistic conception of technology in which the desire to obtain maximum benefits is subordinated to the obligation not to injure human beings or society at large.

Therefore the following principles shall marshal my mindset, decision making and practices:

Code of Conduct

1) Do no harm:

• I hold a humanistic conception of the internet and therefore will not simply compare costs and benefits of any particular code or practice, but follow a rights based approach as formulated in the 10 Internet Rights & Principles.
• When assessing code, practices and policy proposals I will seek to understand the technological, economic, socio-cultural and ethical dimensions and interdependencies of the online ecosystem, always aiming not to hamper user-centered development and innovation but to further creative destruction and open competition.

2) Participate in deliberation:

• Acknowledging that the internet governance must be an open multi-stakeholder process, I will participate in both internal organisational discourse as well as in public deliberation with the aim to collaboratively generate knowledge and to contribute to sound decision making.
• I will take critics seriously. Governance is about constructive dialogue rather than representation.

3) Act responsibly  

• I will contribute to the internet governance discourse to the best of my knowledge. Should an obligation to an institution contradict my perspective I shall refrain from disagreeing publicly but will take the responsibility to argue my case internally.
• Should I witness any error or misdeed (i.e. human rights violation) I shall first address and remedy it with the responsible individual or within the responsible organisation. However should it prove impossible to resolve a serious matter directly, I shall bring the case to prosecution.

4) Promote openness & contribute to the commons

• Whenever possible I will contribute to the commons and the public domain. Subsequently I will always practice a strong bias towards open innovation and open standards.
• I will always acknowledge from whom or what text I have learned about a certain idea or concept and if appropriate include direct links (or other relevant bibliographic references) 
• I will be transparent about my social networks and motivation to choose collaboration partners. 

5) Respect privacy and confidentiality

• I will honor the contextual agreement regarding the use and sharing of information and data that I have access to. This means that I will use and discuss information only within a given institution (confidential) or between certain individuals (private). In order to do so I shall always strive to understand the contextual agreement and make it explicit when in doubt.
• Given the strong socio-political and economic benefits of information and data that is in the commons (or public domain), I will strive to make transparent and public as many of the endeavors and practices I am involved in as possible.    

Acknowledegements
I had been inspired to work on such a code of conduct some years back when I read the excellent article “A Humanistic Technology” (1965) Hyman Rickover. (The Preamble is a mashup from his text.) In the article he proposes that given the power technocrats and engineers have over mankind they should swear an hippocratic oath which binds them to an ethical code which is placed above the interests of their employer or their self-interest.    

Back then I chaired the Internet Rights and Principles coalition and the discussions about how to transpose human rights to the net and what technical principles should be upheld was also aimed at the goal to find an agreement on which to root internet governance (policies) and hence practices. The group has since produced an excellent document “10 Internet Rights and Principles” which I naturally use as fundament of this code of conduct.

During the development of these guiding principles I also consulted several related texts such as ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct and The Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics from the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) website.

And of course I also happily followed Jeff Jarvis’ proposal to President Sarkozy (and all policy makers) to swear an hippocratic oath for the internet back at the eG8 Summit in 2011. In fact it was when I listened to his pretty good audio book “Public Parts” that I decided to take a shot at a prototype for such an oath as feels right to me as professional policy entrepreneur.

„Dienste der Zukunft für die Gesellschaft von heute. Wie Vertrauen schaffen?“ (Mein Paneldiskussionsbeitrag beim Jahreskongress GeoBusiness & D21 im BMWi)

Letzten Mittwoch am 3. November 2011 war ich im Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie zusammen mit Thilo Weichert (Datenschutzbeauftragter Schleswig-Holsteins) und Olaf Keitzel (CSC) auf einem Panel um zum Thema "Dienste der Zukunft für die Gesellschaft von heute. Wie Vertrauen schaffen?" zu diskutieren. Hier einige Argumente, die ich für die Diskussion vorbereitet hatte:

Kernfrage beim Thema Einführung innovativer Dienste ist das Spannungsfeld zwischen “Innovation without permission” und Schutz der User vor böswilligen Übergriffen.

Konstruktive Kritik aus Deutschlang ist wertvoll und “Privacy made in Germany” könnte sich als ein entscheidender Marktvorteil entwickeln. Allerdings hat man manchmal den Eindruck, dass es eher dystopische Verschwörungstheorien, vielleicht auch ein übertriebenes Geltungsbewußtsein und machmal auch strategische Polemik und Spiel mit den Ängsten von Wählern sind, die den Diskurs beeinflussen.   

Wir brauchen mehr angewandte transdisziplinäre Forschung, um die emergenten Phänomene, die durch Internetdienste und -Nutzung entstehen, besser zu verstehen und unser individuelles sowie das Handeln unserer gesellschaftlichen Institutionen darauf einzustellen. Z.B. das acatech Projekt “Eine Kultur der Privatsphäre und des Vertrauens im Internet”, das vom BMWF gefördert wird und Experten von IBM, der Deutschen Post und Google mit Wissenschaftlern aus den verschiedensten Fachrichtungen zusammenbringt, birgt das potential nicht nur zu verstehen, was Unsicherheit hervorruft, sondern auch welche Funktionen und Erklärungen Vertrauen schaffen.

Das sozio-technische online Ökosystem kann als Komplex Adaptives System verstanden werden. Diesem Ansatz folgend, sollten Politik, Judikative und Exekutive in Kooperation mit den Betreibern und den Nutzern daran arbeiten, ein “dynamische Gleichgewicht” zwischen Vertrauen und Kontrolle zu gestalten. Dabei sind die traditionellen relativ starren Regelungen (Gesetze und Regulierung) ein recht unpassendes Mittel. Besser geeignet scheinen sog. Multistakeholder Governance Ansätze, bei denen alle Akteure einen kontinuierlichen Steuerungsprozess verantwortlich begleiten. 

Erlaubt mir in diesem Kontext auf ein sehr gehaltvolles Paper meines Kollegen Rick Whitt hinzuweisen. Er analysiert und konstruiert Ansätze und Rahmenbedingungen für die Gestaltung von vernünftigen Internet Policies auf Basis einer komplexitätswissenschaftlichen Weltanschauung. Jedem, der ernsthaft an netzpolitischen Fragen interessiert ist, sei diese 108 Seiten starke Arbeit "Adaptive Policymaking: Evolving and Applying Emergent Solutions for U.S. Communications Policy" ans Herz gelegt.     

Organisationen wie z.B. die Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle Multimedia-Diensteanbieter e.V. (FSM) oder auf internationalem Level die Global Network Initiative - in der sich Microsoft, Yahoo, Google zusammen mit NGOs wie Human Rights Watch und wissenschaftlichen Institutionen wie Harvard’s Berkman Center gemeinsam für die Einhaltung von Datenschutz und Meinungsfreiheitsrechten im Internet einsetzen - haben die besten Chancen, die Praktiken vernünftig zu überprüfen und ein gemeinsames Vorgehen der Akteure abzustimmen. Es wäre zu wünschen, dass die Politik häufiger auf solche Lösungen setzt.

Ein Denkanstoß, der in unserer letzten Co:Lab Initiative entwickelt wurde finde ich in diesem Kontext auch spannend: Die “Beta-Phase” bei Diensteinführungen sollte standardisiert und offiziell anerkannt werden. Traditionell werden Internetdienste zunächst als “Beta” - als Testversion - gestartet. Diese Herangehensweise scheint sehr geeignet, um einerseits neophilen Nutzern Innovationen früh anzubieten und sie mit Hilfe der User zu verbessern und reif für den "Massenmarkt" zu machen. Andererseits signalisiert das Beta eher konservativen Nutzern, dass der betreffende Dienst nicht final ausgereift ist und ggf. noch technische und usability Mängel (z.B. bei der Datenverarbeitung) hat.

#NewLife in Berlin working in Google’s Policy Team

About two weeks ago I started my new job and I thought it would be good to share my first impressions, my vision and motivation.

To start with the basics, I now work in Google’s policy team in Berlin, which is basically my manager Annette and myself (plus Ines in Hamburg).

My scope of work is to promote and co-create reasonable policies in Google products, as well as to work in multi-stakeholder groups to deliberate and help develop sound new media policies for Germany, Switzerland and Austria. Thereby my special focus is to liaison and collaborate with colleagues from academics and civil society. In that regard I am really happy that I can build on and extend my engagement for a humanistic conception of the Internet, advocate for Rights and Principles based internet governance regimes, which enable us to enjoy our Human Rights on the internet.

More concretely I am looking forward to (a) work with all stakeholders on internet and society related questions here in Berlin, (b) contribute to the deliberations about and development of policies that are user-centered, maximize individual freedom and balance the sometimes paradoxical overlaps between fundamental rights e.g. freedom of expression and privacy, or access to knowledge and intellectual property, (c) promote transparency and access to information about public institutions (but also of Google as an organization of public interest)

Oh and my managers endorsed that I continue my work with the multi-stakeholder coalition on Internet Rights and Principles as my 20% project! I am really excited about our current endeavors to draft (in collaboration with APC) a Charter of Human Rights and Principles on the Internet (based on APC’s Internet Rights Charter).
However I want to use this opportunity to state that I believe it is time for the IRP coalition to elect a new chair during this years IGF (as stated in our charter). I will be happy to actively participate and continue in the steering committee (if I will be elected).

But back to my new job at Google. In my view Google has brought us some really remarkable services that have not only shaped the way we use the internet, but how we live and work. I have joined them, because I think it is one of the most interesting workplaces, with a true 21st century organizational culture and colleagues who share my passion for the internet. In my experience Googlers have a genuine interest in working with all interested stakeholders to deliberate and collaboratively find ways to (legally and socially) frame the use of its disruptive innovations, which necessitate innovative policies.