Mariachiara Tallacchini

In ubiquitous surveillance societies, individuals are subjected to observation and control by authorities, institutions, and corporations. Sometimes, citizens contribute their own knowledge and other resources to their own surveillance. In addition, some of “the watched” observe “the watchers” “through” sous‐veillant activities, and various forms of self-surveillance for different purposes. However, information and communication technologies are also increasingly used for social initiatives with a bottom up structure where citizens themselves define the goals, shape the outcomes and profit from the benefits of watching activities. This model, which we define as citizens’ veillance and explore in this special issue, may present opportunities for individuals and collectives to be more prepared to meet the challenges they face in various domains including environment, health, planning and emergency response.

The institutionalization of ethics and the direct influence of politics on how ethics bodies frame their opinions have been widely recognized and explored in the last few years. Less attention has been paid to what kind of normative instrument ethics as an institutional phenomenon has become in the State under the rule of law, and which institutional powers it has depended on. This paper analyzes the rise of ethics in the European Union context, where ethics, constructed as an isolated set of values, has been exploited for its symbolic capacity to evoke citizenship, has become quite formalized as to certain features, and has acquired the potential to redefine the traditional divisions of powers in the State under the rule of law

Even though public awareness about privacy risks in the Internet is increasing, in the evolution of the Internet to the Internet of Things these risks are likely to become more relevant due to the large amount of data collected and processed by the “Things”. The business drivers for exploring ways to monetize such data are one of the challenges identified in this paper for the protection of Privacy in the IoT. Beyond the protection of privacy, this paper highlights the need for new approaches, which grant a more active role to the users of the IoT and which address other potential issues such as the Digital Divide or safety risks. A key facet in ethical design is the transparency of the technology and services in how that technology handles data, as well as providing choice for the user. This paper presents a new approach for users’ interaction with the IoT, which is based on the concept of Ethical Design implemented through a policy-based framework. In the proposed framework, users are provided with wider controls over personal data or the IoT services by selecting specific sets of policies, which can be tailored according to users’ capabilities and to the contexts where they operate. The potential deployment of the framework in a typical IoT context is described with the identification of the main stakeholders and the processes that should be put in place.

The legal view of science has changed throughtime, moving from a positivist and noncriticalposition of law towards science to a criticalview of science – providing the potential formore objective knowledge, but value-laden aswell – and of the role of society. This paperexplores some judicial cases that illustratethese attitudes, suggesting that reference toscience (particularly to EBM) can be rigorouslyand equitably made when it serves the cause oftransparency and democratisation both inscience and in law.

The different and seemingly unrelated practices of Information and Communication Technologies used to collect and share personal and scientific data within networked communities, and the organized storage of human genetic samples and information—namely biobanking—have merged with another recent epistemic and social phenomenon, namely scientists and citizens collaborating as “peers” in creating knowledge. These different dimensions can be found in joint initiatives where scientists-and-citizens use genetic information and ICT as powerful ways to gain more control over their health and the environment. While this kind of initiative usually takes place only after rights have been infringed —as the two cases presented in the paper show—collaborative scientists-and-citizens’ knowledge should be institutionally allowed to complement and corroborate official knowledge-supporting policies.