2023
Kamphorst, Bart A.; Henschke, Adam
Public health measures and the rise of incidental surveillance: Considerations about private informational power and accountability Journal Article
In: Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 25, iss. 4, 2023.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Accountability, Justification, Pandamic response, Public health, Surveillance
@article{nokey,
title = {Public health measures and the rise of incidental surveillance: Considerations about private informational power and accountability },
author = {Bart A. Kamphorst and Adam Henschke},
doi = {10.1007/s10676-023-09732-8},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-11-16},
urldate = {2023-11-16},
journal = {Ethics and Information Technology},
volume = {25},
issue = {4},
abstract = {The public health measures implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in a substantially increased shared reliance on private infrastructure and digital services in areas such as healthcare, education, retail, and the workplace. This development has (i) granted a number of private actors significant (informational) power, and (ii) given rise to a range of digital surveillance practices incidental to the pandemic itself. In this paper, we reflect on these secondary consequences of the pandemic and observe that, even though collateral data disclosure and additional activity monitoring appears to have been generally socially accepted as inevitable consequences of the pandemic, part and parcel of a larger conglomeration of emergency compromises, these increased surveillance practices were not directly justified by appeals to solidarity and public health in the same way that the instigating public health measures were. Based on this observation, and given the increased reliance on private actors for maintaining the digital space, we argue that governments have a duty to (i) seek and ensure that there are justifications for collateral data disclosure and activity monitoring by private actors in the context of (future) public health emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic, and (ii) regulate and provide accountability mechanisms for and oversight over these private surveillance practices on par with governmental essential services that engage in surveillance activities.},
keywords = {Accountability, Justification, Pandamic response, Public health, Surveillance},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The public health measures implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in a substantially increased shared reliance on private infrastructure and digital services in areas such as healthcare, education, retail, and the workplace. This development has (i) granted a number of private actors significant (informational) power, and (ii) given rise to a range of digital surveillance practices incidental to the pandemic itself. In this paper, we reflect on these secondary consequences of the pandemic and observe that, even though collateral data disclosure and additional activity monitoring appears to have been generally socially accepted as inevitable consequences of the pandemic, part and parcel of a larger conglomeration of emergency compromises, these increased surveillance practices were not directly justified by appeals to solidarity and public health in the same way that the instigating public health measures were. Based on this observation, and given the increased reliance on private actors for maintaining the digital space, we argue that governments have a duty to (i) seek and ensure that there are justifications for collateral data disclosure and activity monitoring by private actors in the context of (future) public health emergencies like the COVID-19 pandemic, and (ii) regulate and provide accountability mechanisms for and oversight over these private surveillance practices on par with governmental essential services that engage in surveillance activities.
Bombaerts, Gunter; Spahn, Andreas; Laes, Erik
Structuring values and normative frameworks using Schwartz's value theory to map the three tenets of energy justice Journal Article
In: Energy Research & Social Science, vol. 104, 2023.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Energy justice, Justification, Normative framework, Shalom Schwartz, Three-tenets framework, Value structure
@article{nokey,
title = {Structuring values and normative frameworks using Schwartz's value theory to map the three tenets of energy justice},
author = {Gunter Bombaerts and Andreas Spahn and Erik Laes },
url = {https://www.esdit.nl/structuring-values-and-normative-framworks-using-schwartz-vaule-theory/},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103244},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-08-10},
urldate = {2023-08-10},
journal = {Energy Research & Social Science},
volume = {104},
abstract = {Recent energy justice studies have explicitly introduced different normative frameworks. However, an elaboration of how these newly introduced normative frameworks relate to each other is missing in the energy justice literature. This could lead to false expectations that a specific normative framework could solve the normative challenges of energy justice. We indicate that normative frameworks embrace specific values and priority rules, but still lack an attempt to map out a general overall value structure of human and societal values in general. We introduce Shalom Schwartz's core value theory to propose a structure that allows us to map key values and their relation to energy justice. We illustrate that the three-tenets framework as such lacks normative guidance and show how Schwartz theory can be used to scaffold the three-tenets framework in dealing with underlying value disputes. The study concludes that Schwartz's theory proves useful in addressing the lack of a normative framework structure. The study indicates the individual approach as a key limitation and proposes further analyses towards a more collective approach.},
keywords = {Energy justice, Justification, Normative framework, Shalom Schwartz, Three-tenets framework, Value structure},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
Recent energy justice studies have explicitly introduced different normative frameworks. However, an elaboration of how these newly introduced normative frameworks relate to each other is missing in the energy justice literature. This could lead to false expectations that a specific normative framework could solve the normative challenges of energy justice. We indicate that normative frameworks embrace specific values and priority rules, but still lack an attempt to map out a general overall value structure of human and societal values in general. We introduce Shalom Schwartz's core value theory to propose a structure that allows us to map key values and their relation to energy justice. We illustrate that the three-tenets framework as such lacks normative guidance and show how Schwartz theory can be used to scaffold the three-tenets framework in dealing with underlying value disputes. The study concludes that Schwartz's theory proves useful in addressing the lack of a normative framework structure. The study indicates the individual approach as a key limitation and proposes further analyses towards a more collective approach.
Laes, Erik; Bombaerts, Gunter; Spahn, Andreas
Towards a Pragmatic and Pluralist Framework for Energy Justice Journal Article
In: Philosophy & Technology, vol. 36, no. 53, 2023.
Abstract | Links | BibTeX | Tags: Boltanski and Thévenot, Energy justice, Justification, Orders of worth, Three tenets
@article{nokey,
title = {Towards a Pragmatic and Pluralist Framework for Energy Justice},
author = {Erik Laes and Gunter Bombaerts and Andreas Spahn },
url = {https://www.esdit.nl/towards-a-pragmatic-and-pluralist-framework-for-energy-justice/},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-023-00654-3},
year = {2023},
date = {2023-07-31},
urldate = {2023-07-31},
journal = {Philosophy & Technology},
volume = {36},
number = {53},
abstract = {The three-tenet model, which focuses on ‘distributional justice’, ‘procedural justice’, and ‘justice as recognition’, has emerged as the most influential framework in the field of energy justice. Based on critical reviews of the three-tenet model, we identify three challenges that the model currently still faces: (i) a normative challenge on the grounding of the three-tenet model in philosophical theories; (ii) an ‘elite’ challenge on the justification of the use of power in energy-related decision; and (iii) a practical challenge on the application of the three tenets in situations of conflicting justice demands. In this article, we provide the basic contours of a three-step pluralist and pragmatic dialogue model for questions of energy justice that addresses the three challenges, based on the ‘commonwealth model’ of Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot. The model proposes to create moral legitimacy in the face of plural demands for energy justice by engaging actors in an inclusive dialogue based on an explicit recognition of Boltanski and Thévenot’s commonwealth model. We thereby make three contributions to the existing literature on energy justice. First, the commonwealth model’s rootedness in normative political theory provides a stronger philosophical underpinning than was available up till now in the literature (challenge 1). Second, it allows one to go beyond the (almost exclusive) focus on injustices perpetrated on disempowered or marginalised groups, to include questions on the justified exercise of power (challenge 2). Third, the commonwealth model shows us practical ways out of situations where conflicting demands for justice are being made (challenge 3).},
keywords = {Boltanski and Thévenot, Energy justice, Justification, Orders of worth, Three tenets},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {article}
}
The three-tenet model, which focuses on ‘distributional justice’, ‘procedural justice’, and ‘justice as recognition’, has emerged as the most influential framework in the field of energy justice. Based on critical reviews of the three-tenet model, we identify three challenges that the model currently still faces: (i) a normative challenge on the grounding of the three-tenet model in philosophical theories; (ii) an ‘elite’ challenge on the justification of the use of power in energy-related decision; and (iii) a practical challenge on the application of the three tenets in situations of conflicting justice demands. In this article, we provide the basic contours of a three-step pluralist and pragmatic dialogue model for questions of energy justice that addresses the three challenges, based on the ‘commonwealth model’ of Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot. The model proposes to create moral legitimacy in the face of plural demands for energy justice by engaging actors in an inclusive dialogue based on an explicit recognition of Boltanski and Thévenot’s commonwealth model. We thereby make three contributions to the existing literature on energy justice. First, the commonwealth model’s rootedness in normative political theory provides a stronger philosophical underpinning than was available up till now in the literature (challenge 1). Second, it allows one to go beyond the (almost exclusive) focus on injustices perpetrated on disempowered or marginalised groups, to include questions on the justified exercise of power (challenge 2). Third, the commonwealth model shows us practical ways out of situations where conflicting demands for justice are being made (challenge 3).