BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Grails iCalendar plugin//NONSGML Grails iCalendar plugin//EN
VERSION:2.0
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTAMP:20260610T193001Z
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20130501T100000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20130501T100000
SUMMARY:Moving towards Ubiquitous Surveillance?
UID:20260614T192101Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-bd7db559-gt5qm
TZID:Europe/London
LOCATION:Leeds\, United Kingdom
DESCRIPTION:<p>This is an international and interdisciplinary conference coordinated by the&nbsp\;University of Leeds' Leeds Humanities Research Institute\, the Institute of&nbsp\;Communications Studies and the Centre for Interdisciplinary Applied Ethics.&nbsp\;<br><br>The conference follows on from last year's highly successful 1st Ethics of&nbsp\;Surveillance Conference with the question "Moving towards Ubiquitous&nbsp\;Surveillance".<br><br>We pleased to be able to confirm as keynote speakers:<br><br>Prof. Christian Fuchs<br>Professor of Social Media at the University of Westminster's Communication&nbsp\;and Media Research Institute and the Centre for Social Media Research<br><br>Dr. Kirstie Ball<br>Reader in Surveillance and Organisation at the Open University Business&nbsp\;School\, Milton Keynes<br><br>Dr. Mark Andrejevic<br>Deputy Director of the Centre for Critical and Cultural Studies at the&nbsp\;University of Queensland\, Australia<br><br>Prof. Charles Raab (provisional confirmation)<br>Professor of Government at the University of Edinburgh School of Social and&nbsp\;Political Science<br><br>Contact:&nbsp\;icicts@gmail.com.<br><br>Conference coordinators<br>Founders of the research group IC ICTs: Research Group on ICTs\, Surveillance&nbsp\;&amp\; Society<br>http://icicts.wordpress.com/<br><br>The Leeds Humanities Research Institute (LHRI)<br>The Institute of Communications Studies (ICS)<br>The Centre for Interdisciplinary Applied Ethics IDEA CETL</p>\n<p>Call for Papers<br><br>Papers are invited for the 2nd conference on the Ethics of Surveillance to&nbsp\;be held at the University of Leeds from 24th-25th June 2013\, beginning with&nbsp\;a lunch on Monday and ending after lunch on Tuesday.<br><br>Recent years have seen rapid technological advances in the field of&nbsp\;information and communication technologies (ICTs)\, with increasingly&nbsp\;powerful computers moving into devices so small they are becoming invisible.&nbsp\;The accelerating digitization of surveillance means surveillance&nbsp\;technologies have been developing along a parallel trajectory. Ubiquitous&nbsp\;computing is becoming increasingly synonymous with invisible surveillance\,&nbsp\;raising a number of ethical questions which the 2nd Ethics of Surveillance&nbsp\;Conference aims to shed light on.<br><br>This conference will bring leading scholars from the fields of Surveillance&nbsp\;Studies and Critical Theories of ICTs together to discuss the current state&nbsp\;of the art in state and corporate surveillance and debate the questions&nbsp\;driving their current research.<br><br>Possible lines of inquiry include\, but are not limited to:<br><br>Theorizing surveillance:<br>In current scholarship on surveillance the concept of &ldquo\;monitoring&rdquo\; is used&nbsp\;with increasing frequency to make allowance for the surveillance of non-human entities (machines\, animals)\, but also to preclude what some argue to&nbsp\;be the inherently negative meaning of surveillance. &nbsp\;What conceptual work&nbsp\;needs to be done to arrive at an adequate theorization of surveillance&nbsp\;activity? What is the place of normative questions in this debate?</p>\n<ul>\n<li>Is surveillance intrinsically bad or can surveillance be a positive&nbsp\;activity?</li>\n<li>David Lyon has argued (following on from Oscar Gandy&rsquo\;s idea of panoptic&nbsp\;sorting) for an understanding of surveillance as social sorting. Does&nbsp\;surveillance constitute a harm in itself or does it merely facilitate harm?</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Post-panopticon?</p>\n<p>The emergence of a series of post-panoptic metaphors show a strong desire to&nbsp\;escape the gravity of the panopticon model and networked technologies such&nbsp\;as the internet are invoked to challenge the mono-centricity and the mono-directionality of the power relationship characterizing Bentham&rsquo\;s prison&nbsp\;design. To what extent is this justified?</p>\n<ul>\n<li>To what extent do the most recent developments in surveillance&nbsp\;technologies and what has been described as the &ldquo\;surveillant assemblage&rdquo\;&nbsp\;(Haggerty &amp\; Ericson 2000) really challenge this model?</li>\n<li>New surveillance technologies\, it is argued\, yield new modes of&nbsp\;resistance. It is in this context that sousveillance and hacking are seen as&nbsp\;rendering rendered the panoptic metaphor obsolete. To what extent do these&nbsp\;new forms of resistance really challenge the asymmetry of the panopticon?</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Towards invisible surveillance:</p>\n<p>The rise of ubiquitous computing means surveillance is moving beyond the&nbsp\;visible into barely perceptible devices (e.g. surveillant landscapes\, smart&nbsp\;dust). This means that even where there is a reasonable expectation NOT to&nbsp\;be under surveillance\, new surveillance technologies make it possible to&nbsp\;place someone under surveillance without their consent or even their&nbsp\;knowledge.</p>\n<ul>\n<li>What are the ethical and legal issues arising from these new covert forms&nbsp\;of surveillance?</li>\n<li>From a technology perspective\, what does ubiquity but invisibility of&nbsp\;surveillance technologies afford and to whom?</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Beyond individual privacy</p>\n<p>Ethical reviews of surveillance technologies have to date focused largely on&nbsp\;privacy and data protection issues. Privacy however in itself remains an&nbsp\;underdefined term\, often conflated with data protection and philosophical&nbsp\;appraisals oscillate between substantive and contextual approaches. What is&nbsp\;more\, privacy has to date focused largely on the level of individual<br>subjective experience. However\, profiling practices both for national&nbsp\;security and corporate purposes are largely interested in gathering data&nbsp\;concerning larger groups such as ethnic minorities\, members of political&nbsp\;groupings etc.</p>\n<ul>\n<li>How can we move beyond privacy in debates about surveillance and human&nbsp\;rights?</li>\n<li>Is there a right to privacy that goes beyond the right of the individual&nbsp\;to a right for group privacy?</li>\n<li>How can we theorize the subjective experience of individual surveillance&nbsp\;but also the subjective experience of group surveillance?</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The surveillance relationship &ndash\; from human to non-human watchers:&nbsp\;As the increasing use of the term &ldquo\;monitoring&rdquo\; in surveillance contexts&nbsp\;shows\, there is a need to theorize the technology-driven changes in the&nbsp\;surveillance relationship between the watcher and the watched: where&nbsp\;surveillance originated as a human/human interaction\, advances in computing<br>technology are increasingly replacing the human with a non-human entity and&nbsp\;it is estimated that approximately 95% of data gathered is never seen by a&nbsp\;human eye.<br><br></p>\n<ul>\n<li>Do these changes in the surveillance relationship merit a switch from&nbsp\;surveillance to monitoring and what are the risks associated with this re-conceptualization?</li>\n</ul>\n<p>The surveillant assemblage and towards a more holistic surveillance studies:&nbsp\;The move towards what Haggerty and Ericson have called the &ldquo\;surveillant&nbsp\;assemblage&rdquo\;(2000) is almost complete as the boundaries between formerly&nbsp\;discreet surveillance contexts - consumer surveillance\, national security&nbsp\;surveillance and workplace surveillance &ndash\; are becoming increasingly fluid.&nbsp\;Individuals traverse these social settings on a daily basis\, hence a&nbsp\;&ldquo\;holistic&rdquo\; approach to the study of surveillance is becoming increasingly&nbsp\;urgent.</p>\n<ul>\n<li>What are suitable research methods that grasp this holistic surveillance?</li>\n<li>To what extent are there still different registers of subjective&nbsp\;experience in these merging surveillance contexts?</li>\n</ul>\n<p>We invite papers that approach the above and related issues from multiple&nbsp\;disciplinary perspectives. Deadline for submission of a 200 word abstract is&nbsp\;the 1st of May 2013\, speakers will be informed by 15th May. Please submit&nbsp\;abstracts and related queries to&nbsp\;icicts@gmail.com</a>.<br><br>The closing event on day 1 of the conference will be a panel discussion&nbsp\;amongst our keynote speakers on &ldquo\;The Place of Normative Critique in&nbsp\;Surveillance Studies&rdquo\;.</p>
ORGANIZER:
METHOD:PUBLISH
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR
