Search Mailing List Archives
[liberationtech] A Hippocratic Oath for Techies & Policymakers
maxsenges at gmail.com
Tue Jul 10 14:14:05 PDT 2012
+ Howard Rheingold (who actually had the very same comment on the preamble)
+ Internet Rights and Principles list - where the discussion, peer-review &
collabowriting of the oath lives
Thanks Terry & Larry,
the gendered problematic slipped my attention as non-native-speaker. I have
uploaded a new version, which has an updated
which takes some wording from Terry and some from Marianne Franklin, who
also commented on the gender bias.
The gDoc can be commented publicly, which should allow for more detailed
refinement. The IRP coalition has offered to publish it on their website
after collaborative editing, so people can actually take the oath.
@Terry: Regarding your second point: "The other concern is the line "I
shall refrain from disagreeing publicly". I agree with the sense that
direct conversation with the relevant party should be tried first, but
there are cases (e.g., whistleblowing) where public disagreement is the
only route to change."
I am not sure this line needs editing. My thinking was that your point of
whistleblowing (in sever cases) is addressed in the next line: 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.
What do you think?
the *fox,* Lars von Trier's *Antichrist*
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 9:05 PM, Larry Diamond <ldiamond at stanford.edu> wrote:
> I agree with both of Terry's comments. Otherwise, well done.
> *From: *"Terry Winograd" <winograd at cs.stanford.edu>
> *To: *"Rebecca MacKinnon" <rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"liberationtech" <liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu>,
> maxsenges at gmail.com
> *Sent: *Saturday, July 7, 2012 12:00:59 PM
> *Subject: *Re: [liberationtech] A Hippocratic Oath for Techies &
> Max, thank you for doing this, and I'm pleased to see that material from
> CPSR is still relevant and valuable to your thinking.
> I like the basic thrust and had a couple of comments. The first is that
> although the preamble may have gone without objection for Rickover in 1965,
> you will avoid a lot of distraction if you reword it in accord with the
> emerging sensibilities of the last half-century. We could have a scholarly
> debate about the history of gendered language, but I don't think that's
> what you are trying to provoke. How about:
> I recognize technology as a product of human effort, a product serving no
> other purpose than to benefit people in general, not merely some people;
> humans in the totality of their humanity, encompassing all their manifold
> interests and needs, not merely some one particular concern. Humanistically
> viewed, technology is not an end in itself but a means to an end, the end
> being determined by people. I hence promote a humanistic conception of
> technology in which the desire to obtain maximum benefits for those
> creating it is subordinated to the obligation not to injure human beings or
> society at large.
> The other concern is the line "I shall refrain from disagreeing
> publicly". I agree with the sense that direct conversation with the
> relevant party should be tried first, but there are cases (e.g.,
> whistleblowing) where public disagreement is the only route to change.
> Thanks again for doing this and best wishes.
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Rebecca MacKinnon <
> rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com> wrote:
>> By Max Senges who works for Google in Berlin, with a background in
>> academia and civil society.
>> A hippocratic Oath for Techies & Policymakers
>> Posted on 2012/07/03 <http://maxsenges.com/?p=402> by maxsenges<http://maxsenges.com/?author=3>
>> *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 the potent
>> but also fragile internet ecosystem.
>> Below you find a code of conduct to 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 where it should be more precise.
>> 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 <http://irpcharter.org/campaign/>.
>> - 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 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
>> - 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 from 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
>> - 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.
>> 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 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._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 (IRP) 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 <http://irpcharter.org/campaign/>” 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<http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics>andThe Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics<http://cpsr.org/issues/ethics/cei/>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<http://buzzmachine.com/publicparts/>”
>> that I decided to take a shot at a prototype for such an oath as feels
>> right to me as professional policy entrepreneur.
>> Rebecca MacKinnon
>> Author, Consent of the Networked <http://consentofthenetworked.com/>
>> Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation<http://newamerica.net/user/303>
>> Co-founder, Global Voices <http://globalvoicesonline.org/>
>> Twitter: @rmack <http://twitter.com/rmack>
>> Office: +1-202-596-3343
>> liberationtech mailing list
>> liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu
>> Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to:
>> If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click
>> above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily
>> You will need the user name and password you receive from the list
>> moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here:
>> Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator.
>> Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
> liberationtech mailing list
> liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu
> Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to:
> If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click
> above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily
> You will need the user name and password you receive from the list
> moderator in monthly reminders. You may ask for a reminder here:
> Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator.
> Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the liberationtech