1st Call for papers: ACM Web Science Conference (WebSci14), June 23-26, 2014

1st CALL FOR PAPERS

ACM Web Science Conference (WebSci14)

June 23-26, 2014

Bloomington, Indiana, USA

websci14.org * @WebSciConf * #WebSci14

Deadline for papers: Feb. 23rd 2014

Web Science is the emergent science of the people, organizations, applications, and of policies that shape and are shaped by the Web, the largest informational artifact constructed by humans in history. Web Science embraces the study of the Web as a vast universal information network of people and communities. As such, Web Science includes the study of social networks whose work, expression, and play take place on the Web. The social sciences and computational sciences meet in Web Science and complement one another: Studying human behavior and social interaction contributes to our understanding of the Web, while Web data is transforming how social science is conducted. The Web presents us with a great opportunity as well as an obligation: If we are to ensure the Web benefits humanity we must do our best to understand it.

Call for Papers

The Web Science conference is inherently interdisciplinary, as it attempts to integrate computer and information sciences, communication, linguistics, sociology, psychology, economics, law, political science, philosophy, digital humanities, and other disciplines in pursuit of an understanding of the Web. This conference is unique in the manner in which it brings these disciplines together in creative and critical dialogue, and we invite papers from all the above disciplines, and in particular those that cross traditional disciplinary boundaries.

Following the success of WebSci09 in Athens, WebSci10 in Raleigh, WebSci11 in Koblenz, WebSci 12 in Evanston, and WebSci13 in Paris, for the 2014 conference we are seeking papers and posters that describe original research, analysis, and practice in the field of Web Science, as well as work that discusses novel and thought-provoking ideas and works-in-progress.

Possible topics for submissions include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Analysis of human behavior using social media, mobile devices, and online communities
• Methodological challenges of analyzing Web-based large-scale social interaction
• Data-mining and network analysis of the Web and human communities on the Web
• Detailed studies of micro-level processes and interactions on the Web
• Collective intelligence, collaborative production, and social computing
• Theories and methods for computational social science on the Web
• Studies of public health and health-related behavior on the Web
• The architecture and philosophy of the Web
• The intersection of design and human interaction on the Web
• Economics and social innovation on the Web
• Governance, democracy, intellectual property, and the commons
• Personal data, trust, and privacy
• Web and social media research ethics
• Studies of Linked Data, the Cloud, and digital eco-systems
• Big data and the study of the Web
• Web access, literacy, and development
• Knowledge, education, and scholarship on and through the Web
• People-driven Web technologies, including crowd-sourcing, open data, and new interfaces
• Digital humanities
• Arts & culture on the Web or engaging audiences using Web resources
• Web archiving techniques and scholarly uses of Web archives
• New research questions and thought-provoking ideas

Submission

Web Science is necessarily a very selective single track conference with a rigorous review process. To accommodate the distinct traditions of its many disciplines, we provide three different submission formats: full papers, short papers, and posters. For all types of submissions, inclusion in the ACM DL proceedings will be by default, but not mandatory (opt-out via EasyChair). All accepted research papers (full and short papers) will be presented during the single-track conference. All accepted posters will be given a spot in the single-track lightning talk session, and room to present their papers during a dedicated poster session.

Full research papers (5 to 10 pages, ACM double column, 20 mins presentation including Q&A)

Full research papers should present new results and original work that has not been previously published. Research papers should present substantial theoretical, empirical, methodological, or policy-oriented contributions to research and/or practice.

Short research papers (up to 5 pages, ACM double column, 15 mins presentation including Q&A)

Short research papers should present new results and original work that has not been previously published. Research papers can present preliminary theoretical, empirical, methodological, or policy-oriented contributions to research and/or practice.

Full and short paper submissions should be formatted according to the official ACM SIG proceedings template (WebSci archive format at http://www.acm.org/sigs/publications/proceedings-templates).

Posters (up to 6 pages, ACM abstract template, lightning talk + poster presentation)

Extended abstracts for posters, which should be in English, can be up to 6 pages, and should be formatted according to the official ACM SIG abstract template (extended abstract format at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/pl130rtd134fxu6/hiyzXgWwTs).

Other creative submission formats (flexible formats)

Other types of creative submissions are also encouraged, and the exact format and style of presentation are open. Examples might include artistic performances or installations, interactive exhibits, demonstrations, or other creative formats. For these submissions, the proposers should make clear both what they propose to do, and any special requirements they would need to successfully do it (in terms of space, time, technology, etc.)

Instructions for all types of submissions will be posted on the WebSci14 conference website soon.

Review

The Web Science program committee consists of a program committeethat covers all relevant areas of Web Science. Each submission will be refereed by three PC members and one short meta review written by a Co-PC chair,to cover both the research background of each submission as well as the necessary interdisciplinary aspects.

(Optional) Archival Proceedings in the ACM Digital Library

All accepted papers and posters will by default appear in the Web Science 2014 Conference Proceedings and can also be made available through the ACM Digital Library, in the same length and format of the submission unless indicated otherwise (those wishing not to be indexed and archived can opt out of the proceedings).

Deadlines (tentative)
Full & Short Papers:

• 23 February 2014: Submissions of full and short papers
• 13 April 2014: Notification of acceptance for papers
• 11 May 2014: Camera-ready version of papers and posters due

Late Breaking Posters:

• 23 March 2014: Submissions of posters
• 13 April 2014: Notification of acceptance for posters
• 11 May 2014: Camera-ready version of posters due 

Authors take note: The official publication date is the date the proceedings are made available in the ACM Digital Library. This date may be up to two weeks prior to the first day of the conference. The official publication date affects the deadline for any patent filings related to published work. (If proceedings are published in the ACM Digital Library after the conference is over, the official publication date is the first day of the conference.)
Call for Workshops

TBA - more information will be made available on the conference website soon

Conference calendar and rough program

• 23 June 2014: workshops, opening reception and keynote
• 24 June 2014: keynote(s), technical program, poster reception
• 25 June 2014: keynote(s), technical program, social event
• 26 June 2014: keynote, technical program, closing 

General chairs

• Fil Menczer, Indiana University
• Jim Hendler, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
• Bill Dutton, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford

Program chairs

• Markus Strohmaier, University of Koblenz and GESIS (Computing)
• Ciro Cattuto, ISI Foundation (Physics)
• Eric T. Meyer, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford     (Social Sciences)

PC: TBA

"Researchers split over NSA hacking"

Here's the comment I posted to this news piece: 

In 1982, I graduated with a B.S. in mathematics. I was young and ignorant and naive, and the only math jobs I knew of were either college teaching or in the military-industrial complex. I didn't think I was good enough in math to go to graduate school and I didn't want to contribute to the war in Viet Nam, so I took another route.

I later came to believe that we should not vilify people who work in industries that we deplore. If liberal academics (like me) condemn others like us except that they might apply for a job that happens to have military connections, only the very boldest will apply and the majority of applicants might well be militaristic jingoist fundamentalists intent on ushering in the apocalypse. (I came of age during the nuclear freeze movement and Secretary of Interior James Watt.)

My characterization of "them" is intentionally exaggerated, but I hope you get the point: If people who share my values are shut out from certain areas of study, only people who don't share my values will have a voice. This is unacceptable in a democracy.

My Q: Can working for spies temper their tendency toward abuse? - "Researchers split over NSA hacking" | @NatureNews http://t.co/TY5RNFiWS4
— Kenneth D. Pimple (@Ethical_PICT) October 8, 2013

"A Cheap Spying Tool With a High Creepy Factor"

CreepyDOL and the war on security researchers - "A Cheap Spying Tool With a High Creepy Factor" http://t.co/YrPZdsd92b
— Kenneth D. Pimple (@Ethical_PICT) August 3, 2013

Could it be coming to a location (uncomfortably) near you?

"Privacy in the digital age"

"The proposed European Data Protection Regulation will rightly preserve people’s privacy — but, without exceptions for scientific research, it could hinder or prevent medical discoveries."

Everyone wants dispensation from protecting privacy, including scientists - "Privacy in the digital age" | Nature s.shr.lc/107Yz3T
— Kenneth D. Pimple (@Ethical_PICT) May 17, 2013

Call for Abstracts: Governance of Emerging Technologies

Call for Abstracts

Governance of Emerging Technologies: Law, Policy and Ethics

May 20-21, 2013

Chandler, Arizona

The Center for Law, Science & Innovation at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University has issued a call for abstracts for proposed presentations at its upcoming First Annual Conference on Emerging Technologies: Law, Policy and Ethics.  Eleven other organizations from across the nation with an interest in emerging technologies are co-sponsoring this path-breaking event.

The national conference is slated for May 20-21 at the scenic Sheraton Wild Horse Pass Resort & Spa in Chandler, Ariz., just south of downtown Phoenix. Abstracts are due March 1, and should be submitted at law.asu.edu/emergingtechnologies. Successful applicants will be notified by March 22.

The conference will consist of plenary and session presentations and discussions on regulatory, governance, legal, policy, social and ethical aspects of emerging technologies, including, but not limited to, nanotechnology, synthetic biology, biotechnology, genomics, personalized medicine, stem cell and regenerative medicine, human enhancement technologies, telecommunications, information technologies, surveillance technologies, geoengineering, neuroscience and robotics.

Keynote speakers include George M. Church, Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and Director of PersonalGenomes.org, George Poste, Co-director and Chief Scientist, Complex Adaptive Systems Network, Regents' Professor and Del E. Webb Chair in Health Innovation, ASU, and Andrew D. Maynard, NSF International Chair of Environmental Health Sciences, and Director, University of Michigan Risk Science Center.

There is much to be learned and shared from and across the governance experience and proposals for these various emerging technologies, said Gary Marchant, Faculty Director of the Center for Law, Science & Innovation.

"What's clear is that for every single technology – from nanotechnology and neuroscience to robotics and surveillance technologies – the way we regulate them and their risks is not working," Marchant said. "Traditional forms of regulation fail because they lag so far behind the science. These technologies are going forward at an unprecedented pace, and they cut across many different industries and sectors. And the set of governance issues they raise are of unprecedented diversity and importance."

An example is autonomous weapons systems, which are capable of accomplishing military and other missions with little or no human intervention. "We are on the verge of having the technological capability to enable robots to make decisions about killing people, but we don't yet have in place any principles or methods for governing this capability," Marchant said. "We need to look at both the substance – what is the ethical thing to do? – and the process – how do we make these decisions in society? We will be exploring these issues at our conference."

The conference will bring together government regulators, technology innovators, scientists and engineers, scholars from law, public policy, philosophy and ethics, policymakers, non-governmental organizations, students and journalists.

Participants will have a unique opportunity to explore the challenges that cut across many fields, the convergence of emerging technologies, and the societal impact of a bewildering array of transformative tools and techniques, said Wendell Wallach, of the Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics at Yale University, a co-sponsor of the conference.

"We have entered a critical juncture," Wallach said. "There are still opportunities to provide direction as to which technological possibilities should be embraced and those potential harms that must be addressed. But some of the opportunities to effectively monitor, manage and modulate the emerging technologies will disappear relatively soon."

Multidisciplinary discourse, creative thinking and innovative approaches are fundamental to striking an appropriate balance between the risks and rewards, said Diana Bowman, Assistant Professor, University of Michigan Risk Science Center and the Department of Health Management and Policy. The Risk Science Center also is sponsoring the conference.

"Autonomous vehicles – drone warfare – sophisticated materials for tissue engineering – what once belonged only in the pages of science fiction is very much science fact today," Bowman said. "And with the promise of new, emerging and disruptive technologies on the horizon, our capacity to grapple with the legal, policy and societal issues posed by the promised applications shall be challenged."

Additional sponsors of the conference are the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at ASU; the Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics at ASU; The Hastings Center; Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies; Initiative on Governance of Emerging Technological Systems, University of Minnesota; Ethics & Emerging Sciences Group, California Polytechnic State University; Neuroethics Studies Program, Center for Clinical Bioethics, Georgetown University Medical Center; The Science & Technology Innovation Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; and Center for Earth Systems Engineering and Management, Ira A. Fulton Schools of Engineering at ASU.  For additional sponsorship opportunities, email gary.marchant@asu.edu. For more information about the conference and to register, visit law.asu.edu/emergingtechnologies.

About the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law

Arizona State University's Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law is one of the leading public law schools in the country. Currently ranked No. 26 nationally by U.S. News & World Report, and No. 8 among all public law schools, the College has moved up further and faster in national rankings than nearly any other law school. The College is the preeminent law school in metropolitan Phoenix, the nation's sixth-largest city. In addition to its renowned faculty, the College is home to several leading centers and programs recognized for excellence, including the Center for Law, Science & Innovation, the Center for Law and Global Affairs and the Indian Legal Program. Its students choose and benefit from numerous opportunities for experiential and practical-skills training as well as an array of theoretical courses. With a writing program that is ranked No. 8 nationally by U.S. News, a wide range of clinical opportunities, a breadth of externship offerings, and a pro bono program that annually contributes more than 100,000 hours of legal and law-related services to the community, the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law is pursuing a path of boundless impact, excellence, engagement and opportunity. For more information, visit law.asu.edu. 

"Imagining Tomorrow's Computers Today"

ScienceNOW's Jop de Vrieze has published an interesting interview (July 15, 2012) with Brian David Johnson, "principal engineer and futurist" at Intel, the world's largest chip manufacturer, about how people will interact with computers in the near future. Not surprisingly, the interview is upbeat, with a focus on how Intel can anticipate what people will want from more-advanced computers. Here's the passage I find most suggestive about ethical issues.

Q: You study the interaction between humans and computers. What do you foresee to the next ten, fifteen years?

B.D.J: Looking at the past, technology has been about command and control. In the future it will be about relationships. Our technologies will get to know us and we'll become more tightly connected. That has an impact on what we do productivity-wise, but even more it connects us to the things and people we love. Siri, the personal assistant built into your iPhone, is an early example of that. You literally talk with your phone and it can talk back to you. 

Q: In what way does the development of chips play a role in this?

B.D.J: As we move closer to 2020, the size of computational chips is becoming so small that it is approaching zero. This means we could literally turn anything into a computer. Your tea glass, the table, you name it. There is a switch coming, where we do not have to ask: “Can we turn that into a computer,” but we know we can and we wonder: Is there a use to do it? That is what we have the social scientists for. We do not study markets, we study people.

"In the future [technology] will be about relationships." The computers in our every possession, including tables, beds, and clothing, will be an extension of ourselves and will know us well. As will anyone who has access to the personal, "private" data stored and transmitted by our computerized objects.

Intel doesn't study markets; it studies people and their interactions with computers. Is Intel interested at all in the interactions of people, corporations, and governments, with other people's computers?

Ken Pimple, PAIT Project Director

Katina Michael on microchips in humans

In this 15-minute video, Associate Professor Katina Michael of the University of Wollongong (Australia) gives a quick overview of the history of computing, from ENIAC to implantable microchips, then presents three scenarios of likely (or at least possible) uses of microchips in humans.

I very rarely watch anything on YouTube that's over 2-3 minutes. This one is well worth the time. It's informative, gripping, and eye-opening.

Ken Pimple, PAIT Project Director

"What Fueled Twitter’s Success?"

How did Twitter become so popular? The simple answer is that nothing succeeds like success - the same reason we still have the QWERTY keyboard.

A more sophisticated answer can be found in this article by Paul Hyman (ACM News, January 12, 2012), which is a report on a technical article (Modeling the adoption of innovations in the presence of geographic and media influences by Jameson L. Toole, Meeyoung Cha, and Marta C. González), but from me you're going to get a very minimal, two-part explanation.

1. Lots of people who lived near each other adopted Twitter early on. The service became available in late March of 2006, and by early August of 2009 "nearly 3.5 million people signed up for Twitter, mainly in cities with high concentrations of young, tech-savvy early adopters like San Francisco and Boston."
2. Celebrity praise of Twitter - Ashton Kutcher and Oprah Winfrey are mentioned - also boosted the number of users dramatically.

Together, these two forces pushed Twitter users to "a tipping point of 13.5% of the population." And the rest is history.

So if you want your product to "go viral," release it first in locations with lots of likely early adopters and induce celebrities to plug it. It would probably help to use Twitter or Facebook.

Ken Pimple, PAIT Project Director

"New emotion detector can see when we're lying"

BBC News reports that a research team from universities in England and Wales has developed a new computerized camera system that "successfully discriminates between truth and lies in about two-thirds of cases" when tested with volunteers (reported by Hamish Pritchard, September 13, 2011). The team spokesman, Hassan Ugail of Bradford University, is quoted as speculating that "In a real, high-stress situation, we might get an even higher success rate," even up to 90%, which is reportedly "similar to the performance of the polygraph."

The beauty of such a system for detecting terrorists at airports is obvious - just scan everyone and double-check anyone who seems to be lying. Employers will also be excited at the prospect of using it in job interviews. Private investigators will invest in a portable unit that they can hide in a potted plant at a restaurant where a woman can ask her husband, point blank, whether he's fooling around. The applications are endless. 

The mischief that such a device could create is nearly endless. The last I heard, the polygraph was widely considered ineffective and of dubious worth in criminal cases. I am also given to believe that polygraphs and fingerprints have never been adequately tested for reliability, so if this system is given more rigorous screening, it might prove to be better than I expect it will be. No matter how (in)accurate it turns out to be, people tend to be so credulous about lie-detecting machines that it will probably be taken as infallible.

The kicker comes in the last paragraph: Like the polygraph, the new system detects "emotions, such as distress, fear or distrust, and not the act of lying itself. Fear can sometimes be the fear of not being believed rather than the fear of being caught." Or the fear of flying, or being water boarded.

Thanks to Colin Allen for drawing my attention to this.

Ken Pimple, PAIT Project Director

Mind-controlled robots, the Supreme Court on GPS, Wii without a wand, and computers that write

A small avalanche of PAIT-related articles buried me this weekend; let me see whether I can dig my way out.

• Disabled Patients Mind-Meld With Robots by Sara Reardon (ScienceNOW, September 6, 2011) - Using Skype and wearing "a cap of tiny electroencephalogram (EEG) electrodes," two people "whose lower bodies were paralyzed and who had been bed bound for 6 or 7 years" controlled the movements of a modified commercial robot - Robotino -100 kilometers away. They used only their brain waves - no moving eyes, no twitching fingers. The paralyzed subjects had been trained for 1 hour a week for 6 weeks. The system had been tested earlier with non-paralyzed people, and the paralyzed subjects "performed just as well as the healthy subjects." Think of what this would mean to paralyzed people and their friends and families - it would be a miracle.
  
  My enthusiasm is, of course, always tempered by caution. The Hollywood version would have someone hack the system and take control of the robot to frame a paralyzed person for murder. My real concern, though, is accessibility. There's no mention in the article how much this rig would cost, and the manufacturer of Robotino, Festo Didactic, lists all of the prices associated with Robotino as "on request." I fear this is an instance of "if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it."


• Court Case Asks if ‘Big Brother’ Is Spelled GPS by Adam Liptak (New York Times, September 10, 2011) - At least three federal judges have compared the use of global positioning system (GPS) devices by police to George Orwell's novel, 1984. In November, the Supreme Count "will address a question that has divided the lower courts: Do the police need a warrant to attach a GPS device to a suspect’s car and track its movements for weeks at a time?"
  
  The answer seems obvious to me (hint: it begins with a "y"), but with the current court I'm not making any bets.


• Remote Control, With a Wave of a Hand by Anne Eisenberg (New York Times, September 10, 2011) - "Scientists at Microsoft Research and the University of Washington have come up with a new system that uses the human body as an antenna. The technology could one day be used to turn on lights, buy a ticket at a train station kiosk, or interact with a world of other computer applications. And no elaborate instruments would be required." No need for a Wii wand or the Kinect's cameras that track motion.
  
  Nothing is said about whether this technology could be used to identify and track specific individuals (is your repertoire of everyday gestures as distinctive as your face or fingerprints?).


• In Case You Wondered, a Real Human Wrote This Column, allegedly by Steve Lohr (New York Times, September 10, 2011) - I had heard some time ago about the effort to make computers write newspaper-style sports articles based solely on the statistics of the game. That such writing would soon be indistinguishable from prose written by a human sports writer I did not doubt. The time seems to be near.
  
  Somehow I can't get excited by this one.

Ken Pimple, PAIT Project Director

Skintight monitoring

A research article in the August 12, 2011 issue of Science, "Epidermal Electronics," describes a bandage-like "electronic skin" (as it's called in a commentary, "An Electronic Second Skin," in the same issue). According to the abstract of the research article, the material can incorporate "electrophysiological, temperature, and strain sensors, as well as transistors, light-emitting diodes, photodetectors, radio frequency inductors, capacitors, oscillators, and rectifying diodes."

The potential uses in medical applications alone are impressive. Zhenqiang Ma, author of the commentary, describes one current technology that this material may replace one day: "a patient who may have heart disease is usually required to wear a bulky monitor for a prolonged period (typically a month) in order to capture the abnormal yet rare cardiac events." Skintight monitors would eliminate the bulk and weight and have other benefits.

In addition to "physiological status monitoring," the authors of the research article say that the material could be used for "wound measurement/treatment, biological/chemical sensing, human-machine interfaces, covert communications, and others."

Naturally it's the last two examples that catch my attention. Human-machine interfaces? A cool and no doubt really useful application, but vaguely scary, too. And of course covert communications always seem nefarious.

Ken Pimple, PAIT Project Director

"How to Train Your Robot (to Lie)"

In an earlier entry I expressed my discontent with our current terminology about robots - specifically, that we use the word "robot" to cover too many distinct types of artifacts. This article from ScienceNow illustrates another problem with how we talk about robots, somewhat reminiscent of Jaron Lanier's concerns over The First Church of Robotics.

The claim in the article's title is that a robot has been taught how to lie, but it has only learned how to lay a false trail. This can be seen as deception, or misdirection, or perhaps even camouflage - all of which can be seen in non-human animals and even plants - but hardly lying. No doubt the work represents a breakthrough, but is the hyped-up language necessary or productive? Am I the only one who thinks longingly of the days when science news was a bit more sober and restrained?

Ken Pimple, PAIT Project Director

Ethics and Assistive Technology Survey

Researchers at the University of British Columbia recently posted a survey on Ethics and Assistive Technology Survey. The group's early survey on robot ethics appears still to be open.

From their Web site: "The purpose of the surveys is to facilitate well-informed discussion and explore attitudes about complex issues related to ethics (including animal welfare) and scientific and technological developments."

Thanks to Colin Allen (a member of the PAIT Planning Committee) for bringing these surveys to my attention.

Ken Pimple, PAIT Project Director