Paper short abstract:

Criminal justice systems around the world are struggling to keep pace with new forms of sexual violence enabled by the internet and mobile digital devices. Image-based sexual abuse, like "revenge pornography”, has proven to be particularly challenging. Where and how might feminists intervene?

Paper long abstract:

Criminal justice systems around the world are struggling to keep pace with new forms of sexual violence enabled by the internet and mobile digital devices. Image-based sexual abuse, commonly called “revenge pornography” (because perpetrators are often jilted ex-lovers), has proven to be one of the most challenging. This paper will scrutinize trials from Canada to compare three different forms of legal recourse for victims: 1) “Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act”, which criminalized the non-consensual distribution of intimate images 2) Provincial torts that permit victims to sue perpetrators 3) Copyright Acts, which offer legal grounds to issue take-down notices to website hosts. While victims are threatened, harassed, and stalked online and off and experience high rates of agoraphobia, anxiety, and depression, none of these legal strategies frame “revenge pornography” as sexual violence. Instead, victims, most of whom are women, are required to stage the evidence of their case as a violation of personal privacy or as prohibited use of copyrighted property. Another problem is that the technological networks through which such crimes operate are supranational, exceeding the juridical reach of police and criminal justice systems. Social media and pornography websites are able to evade liability for third person content, yet these companies have the power to act as de facto arbiters of justice through terms of service, community guidelines, and algorithms. This paper addresses how these issues pose challenges and opportunities for feminist theory and practice. Where and how might feminists intervene in diffuse assemblages of humans, technologies, and jurisprudence?

Paper short abstract:

This contribution examines the role that power plays in framing priorities in governance, ethics and regulation of Artificial Intelligence (AI). In particular, it explores, firstly, the distribution of power in setting priorities in AI policy and secondly, its influence on the priorities chosen.

Paper long abstract:

This contribution examines the role that power plays in framing priorities in governance, ethics and regulation of Artificial Intelligence (AI). In particular, it explores, firstly, the distribution of power in setting priorities in AI policy and secondly, its influence on the priorities chosen. First, who has the power to define the priorities for AI governance, ethics and regulation? One of major concerns in the public discussions about AI has been the high concentration of power in a small number of big tech companies. To counter-balance this concentration of power, suggestions has been made that the state plays a number of important roles in governing technologies including active involvement of diverse stakeholders in defining priorities: experts, researchers, civil society especially marginalized and disadvantaged groups (Ulnicane et al 2021). Second, involvement of diverse stakeholders matters for the type of priorities chosen and implemented as diverse stakeholders can change the balance of power when deciding on some of the key priorities for AI, such as – should AI be developed un used primarily to ensure economic benefits or to address societal challenges as well? Should governance focus on voluntary ethics guidelines or binding regulation? Should international competition or rather cooperation prevail? This contribution draws on analysis of AI policy documents launched by national governments, international organizations, think tanks and consultancies.

Ulnicane, I., W. Knight, T. Leach, B. C. Stahl and W.-G. Wanjiku (2021) Framing governance for a contested emerging technology: insights from AI policy, Policy and Society 40(2): 158-177 https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2020.1855800

Paper short abstract:

As the use of sensor technologies and data collection become an increasing part of the urban realm —through their presence in public spaces, their uses in city operations and business practices, and their outcomes for local communities—it’s increasingly important for city custodians like local governments to develop methods to ensure their design, testing, installation, use and maintenance are transparent, safe and effective for the people who live in and use cities.

Paper long abstract:

However, a lot of city custodians’ current technological and policy functions are 'black boxed' which obscures the inner workings of how, why and for whom decisions about the use of technology and collection of data are made.

Rather than earn trust and establish transparency, these ‘black boxed’ interactions actively obscure the purpose and use that are meant to make the city smarter and, most importantly, are meant to serve the needs of all.

To counter this there is an increasing need for city custodians to make their use of tech and collection of data transparent, accountable and create genuine opportunities for all citizens to engage with this work.

City of Melbourne has been working on this for the last 3 years with some global experts from universities, design research firms and technology companies.

Join this discussion to hear how the principles from these different disciplines are coming together to implement built forms, in person experiences and digital environments to draw attention to sensing, create opportunities for conversation and facilitate new relationships with community so that they can genuinely partner in the city’s future use of technology and collection of data.

In the session you’ll hear more about the key learnings of this process with a discussion focused on the opportunities for global application.