Minimizing technology risks with PIAs, precaution, and participation

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 47-54

  Wright, David ^a   Gellert, Raphael ^b   Gutwirth, Serge ^b   Friedewald, Michael ^c  

^a Trilateral Research and Consulting   (United Kingdom)

^b VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL   (Belgium)

^c FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE FOR SYSTEMS AND INNOVATION RESEARCH ISI   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

IMPACT ASSESSMENTS; INNOVATION PROCESS; INTERACTIVE PROCESS; TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES; TECHNOLOGY RISKS;

ENGINEERING; SOCIAL SCIENCES;

INNOVATION;

EID: 84555202631     PISSN: 02780097     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1109/MTS.2011.943460     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. D . K. R. Robinson, "Co-evolutionary scenarios: An application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology," in Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 76, pp. 1222-1239, 2009.
2. L . M. Hilty, S. Behrendt, M. Binswanger et al., The Precautionary Principle in the Information Society: Effects of Pervasive Computing on Health and Environment, TA 46e/2005, TA-Swiss, Centre for Technology Assessment, Berne, 2005.
3. U . Beck, Risk society-towards a new modernity, London: Sage, 1992.
4. O . Godard, "Le principe de précaution, une nouvelle logique de l'action entre science et démocratie," in Philosophie Politique, no. 11, pp. 17-56, May, 2000.
5. N. de Sadeleer, Les principes du pollueurpayeur, de prévention et de précaution. Essai sur la genèse et la portée de quelques principes du droit de l'environnement, Brussels: Bruylant, 1999.
6. R. von Schomberg, "The Precautionary Principle and its normative challenges," in Implementing the Precautionary Principle: Perspectives and Prospects, E. Fisher, J. S. Jones and R. von Schomberg, Eds., Cheltenham, U.K. and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2006, pp. 19-41.
7. P. Kour ilsky, Du bon usage du principe de précaution, Paris: Odile Jacob, 2002.
8. M. Callo n, P. Lascoumes, and Y. Barthe, Agir dans un monde incertain: essai sur la démocratie technique, Paris: Seuil, 2001.
9. H. Jonas, Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation [1979], Frankfurt am Main, 1984.
10. ISO 22307 , Financial services-Privacy impact assessment, International Standardisation Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
11. European Commission, A comprehensive approach on personal data protection in the European Union, COM(2010) 609 final, Brussels, 2010.
12. B. Stewart, Privacy Impact Assessment Handbook, Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Wellington and Auckland, 2007.
13. ICO, Priv acy impact assessment handbook. Version 2.0, U.K. Information Commissioner's Office, London, 2009.
14. Departmen t of Homeland Security, Privacy Impact Assessments: The Privacy Office Official Guidance, Washington, DC, 2010.
15. T. J. Kar ol, A Guide To Cross-Border Privacy Impact Assessments, Deloitte & Touche, Washington, D.C., 2001.
16. A. Warren , R. Bayley, C. Bennett et al., "Privacy Impact Assessments: International experience as a basis for U.K. Guidance," in Computer Law and Security Report, vol. 24, pp. 233-242, 2008. (Pubitemid 351698024)
17. "Directiv e 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data on the free movement of such data," in Official Journal of the European Communities, vol. L 281, no. 23 November 1995, pp. 31-50, 1995.
18. C. Bennet t, R. Bayley, R. Clarke et al., Privacy Impact Assessments: International Study of their Application and Effects Report for the Information Commissioner's Office, United Kingdom, Linden Consulting, Inc., 2007.
19. European Commission, Communication on the Precautionary Principle, COM(2000) 1, Brussels, 2000.
20. P. De Her t, and S. Gutwirth, "Data Protection in the Case Law of Strasbourg and Luxembourg: Constitutionalism in Action," in Reinventing Data Protection?, S. Gutwirth, Y. Poullet, P. De Hert et al., Eds., Dordrecht: Springer, 2009, pp. 3-44.
21. P. De Her t, "Balancing security and liberty within the European human rights framework. A critical reading of the Court's case law in the light of surveillance and criminal law enforcement strategies after 9/11," in Utrecht Law Review, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 68-96, 2005.
22. W. Van Ge rven, "Principe de proportionnalité, abus de droit et droits fondamentaux," in Journal des Tribunaux, pp. 305-309, 1992.
23. W. J. Ganshof Van Der Meersch, "Propos sur le texte de la loi et les principes généraux du droit," in Journal des Tribunaux, pp. 557-574, 581-596, 1970.
24. M.-A. Eissen , "The Principle of Proportionality in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights," in The European System for the Protection of Human Rights, R. S. J. Macdonald, F. Matscher and H. Petzold, Eds., Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993, pp. 125-137.
25. K. d. Vries, R. Bellanova, P. De Hert et al., "The German Constitutional Court Judgement on data retention: proportionality overrides unlimited surveillance (doesn't it ?)," in Privacy and data protection: An element of choice, S. Gutwirth, Y. Poullet, P. D. Hert et al., Eds., Berlin: Springer, 2011, pp. 3-23.
26. P. C. Stern, and H. V. Fineberg eds., "Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society," Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996.
27. N. Oudshoorn , and T. Pinch eds., "How Users Matter: The Co-Construction of Users and Technology," Cambridge, Mass. and London: MIT Press, 2003.
28. P. Sollie, " Ethics, technology development and uncertainty: an outline for any future ethics of technology," in Journal of Information, Communication & Ethics in Society, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 293-306, 2007.
29. J. H. Moor, "Why we need better ethics for emerging technologies," in Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 111-119 September, 2005. (Pubitemid 43792825)
30. E. Palm, and S. O. Hansson, "The Case for Ethical Technology Assessment (eTA)," in Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 543-558, 2006.
31. National Res earch Council, Committee on Risk Perception and Communication, Improving Risk Communication, Washington: National Academies Press, 1989.
32. P.-P. Verbee k, "The moral relevance of technological artefacts," in Evaluating new technologies: methodological problems for the ethical assessment of technology developments, P. Sollie and M. Düwell, Eds., Dordrecht: Springer, 2009, pp. 63-79.
33. OPCC, Assessi ng the Privacy Impacts of Programs, Plans, and Policies, Audit Report of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Ottawa, 2007.
34. M. Friedewald , D. Wright, S. Gutwirth et al., "Privacy, Data Protection and Emerging Sciences and Technologies: Towards a common Framework," in Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 63-69, March, 2010.