The Moral-IT Deck: a tool for ethics by design

References

• ACM. 2018. “ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.” https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics.
   Google Scholar
• Akrich, M. 1992. “The De-scription of Technological Objects.” In Shaping Technology / Building Society, edited by W. E. Bijker, and J. Law, 205–224. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Altice, N. 2016. The Playing Card Platform in Analog Game Studies: Volume 1 2016 http://analoggamestudies.org/2014/11/the-playing-card-platform/.
   Google Scholar
• Astrachan, O. “Bubble Sort: An Archaeological Algorithmic Analysis.” Accessed June 2020. https://users.cs.duke.edu/~ola/bubble/bubble.html.
   Google Scholar
• Barnard Wills, D. 2012. Privacy Game, VOME at http://vome.org.uk/2012/05/03/privacy-game-now-available-todownload-under-a-creative-commons-license/.
   Google Scholar
• BCS The Chartered Institute for IT. 2020. “Code of Conduct for BCS Members.” https://www.bcs.org/media/2211/bcs-code-of-conduct.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Belman, J., et al. 2011. “Grow A Game: A Tool for Values Conscious Design and Analysis of Digital Games.” DIGRA ‘11. Think Design Play at http://www.tiltfactor.org/wp-content/uploads2/Digra2011-GrowAGameTool-BelmanNissenbaumFlanaganDiamond.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Belmont Report. 1979. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural Research (1979) “The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research.” https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html.
   Google Scholar
• Borning, A., and M. Muller. 2012. “Next Steps for Value Sensitive Design.” Proceedings SIGCHI Conference Human Factors in Computer Systems (CHI’12), 1125–1134. New York, NY: ACM Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt, E., and J. Messeter. 2004. “Facilitating Collaboration Through Design Games.” In Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Participatory Design: Artful Integration: Interweaving Media, Materials and Practices – Volume 1 (PDC 04), 121–131. doi:10.1145/1011870.1011885.
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
   Google Scholar
• Brey, P. 2000. “Disclosive Computer Ethics; The Exposure and Evaluation of Embedded Normativity in Computer Technology.” ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society 30 (4): 10–16.
   Google Scholar
• Brey, P. 2012. “Anticipatory Ethics for Emerging Technologies.” Nanoethics 6: 1–13. https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/4321-brey-panticipatory-ethics-for-emerging.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brey, P. 2017. “Ethics of Emerging Technologies.” In Methods for the Ethics of Technology, edited by S. O. Hansson. Rowman and Littlefield International. https://ethicsandtechnology.eu/wp-content/uploads/downloadable-content/Brey-2017-Ethics-Emerging-Tech.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Brey, P., et al. 2020. An Ethical Framework for the Development and Use of AI and Robotics Technologies. SIENNA Deliverable 4.7.
   Google Scholar
• Burget, M., E. Bardone, and M. Pedaste, eds. 2017. “Definitions and Conceptual Dimensions of Responsible Research and Innovation: A Literature Review.” Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (1): 1–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carneiro, G., G. Barros, and C. Z. Costa. 2012. I0 Cards: A Tool to Support the Design of Interactive Artefacts. DRS 2012 Bangkok.
   Google Scholar
• Casais, M., R. Mugge, and P. Desmet. 2016. “Using Symbolic Meaning as a Means to Design for Happiness: The Development of a Card Set for Designers.” DRS 2016 Brighton.
   Google Scholar
• Darzentas, D., R. Velt, R. Wetzel, P. J. Craigon, H. G. Wagner, L. D. Urquhart, and S. Benford. 2019. “Card Mapper: Enabling Data-Driven Reflections on Ideation Cards.” ACM SIGCHI. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3290605.3300801.
   Google Scholar
• Deng, Y., A. Antle, and C. Neustaedter. 2014. “Tango Cards: A Card-based Design Tool for Informing the Design of Tangible Learning Games.” In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ‘14), 695–704. doi:10.1145/2598510.2598601.
   Google Scholar
• Denning, T., B. Friedman, and T. Kono. 2013. The Security Cards: A Security Threat Brainstorming Toolkit at http://securitycards.cs.washington.edu/assets/security-cards-informationsheet.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Denning, T., A. Lerner, A. Shostack, and T. Kono. 2013. “Control Alt Hack: The Design and Evaluation of a Card Game for Computer Security Awareness and Education.” In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSAC conference on Computer & communications security (CCS '13), 915–928. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Dignum, V., et al. 2018. “Ethics by Design: Necessity or Curse?” In Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES '18), 60–66. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, L., D. McAuley, and L. Diver. 2016. “From Privacy Impact Assessment to Social Impact Assessment.” 2016 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW), San Jose, CA, 2016, 53–57.
   Google Scholar
• Eno, B., and P. Schmidt. 1975. Oblique Strategies. http://stoney.sb.org/eno/oblique.html.
   Google Scholar
• EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council). n.d. “Framework For Responsible Innovation.” Accessed June 2020. https://www.epsrc.ac.uk/index.cfm/research/framework/.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2017. The Precautionary Principle: Decision Making Under Uncertainty. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/precautionary_principle_decision_making_under_uncertainty_FB18_en.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• European Data Protection Board. 2019. “Guidelines 4/2019 on Article 25 Data Protection by Design and Default.” https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/edpb/files/consultation/edpb_guidelines_201904_dataprotection_by_design_and_by_default.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Fedosov, A., M. Kitazaki, W. Odom, and M. Langheinrich. 2019. “Sharing Economy Cards.” ACM SIGCHI ‘19. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3290605.3300375.
   Google Scholar
• Felt, U., M. Fochler, and L. Sigl. 2018. “IMAGINE RRI. A Card-Based Method for Reflecting on Responsibility in Life Science Research.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 5 (2): 201–224. doi:10.1080/23299460.2018.1457402.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felt, U., S. Schumann, C. G. Schwarz, and M. Strassnig. 2014. “Technology of Imagination: a Card-Based Public Engagement Method for Debating Emerging Technologies.” Qualitative Research 14 (2): 233–251. doi:10.1177/1468794112468468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field, J., and A. Nagy. 2019. Principled Artificial Intelligence: Mapping Consensus in Ethics and Rights Based approaches to Principles for AI. https://cyber.harvard.edu/publication/2020/principled-ai.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, E., J. Jones, and R. Schomberg. 2006. Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, E., R. L. Mahajan, and C. Mitcham. 2006. “Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance from Within.” Bulletin of Science Technology and Society 26 (6): 485–496.
   Google Scholar
• Flanagan, M., D. Howe, and H. Nissenbaum. 2008. “Embodying Values in Technology: Theory and Practice.” In Information Technology and Moral Philosophy, edited by J. Van Den Hoven, and J. Weckert, 322–353. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Forsberg, E. M. 2007. “Pluralism, the Ethical Matrix and Coming to Conclusions.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20: 455–468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, B., and D. Hendry. 2012. “The Envisioning Cards: A Toolkit for Catalyzing Humanistic and Technical Imaginations.” In ACM CHI ‘12, 1145–1149. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2207676.2208562.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, B., P. Kahn, and A. Borning. 2008. “Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems.” In The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics, edited by K. Himma, and H. Tavani, 69–101. New York: Wiley and Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Glasson, J., R. Therivel, and A. Chedwick. 2013. An Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment. Oxford: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Golembewski, M., and M. Selby. 2010. “Ideation Decks: A Card Based Design Ideation Tool.” In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '10), 89–92. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Gotterbarn, D. 1991. “Computer Ethics: Responsibility Regained.” National Forum: The Phi Beta Kappa Journal 71: 26–31.
   Google Scholar
• Grimpe, B., M. Hartswood, and M. Jirotka. 2014. “Towards a Closer Dialogue Between Policy and Practice: Responsible Design in HCI.” In Proceedings of CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems, (CHI ‘14.). New York, NY: ACM Press.
   Google Scholar
• Groves, C. 2017. “Review of RRI Tools Project, Http://www.rri-Tools.eu.” Journal of Responsible Innovation 4 (3): 371–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornecker, E. 2010. “Creative Idea Exploration Within the Structure of a Guiding Framework: The Card Brainstorming Game.” In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ‘10), 101–108. doi:10.1145/1709886.1709905.
   Google Scholar
• IDEO. 2003. “Method Cards.” https://www.ideo.com/post/method-cards.
   Google Scholar
• IEEE. 2018. “IEEE Launches Ethics Certification Program for Autonomous and Intelligent Systems.” https://standards.ieee.org/news/2018/ieee-launches-ecpais.html.
   Google Scholar
• IEEE Ethics in Action. n.d. “IEEE Ethics in Action.” Accessed June 2020. https://ethicsinaction.ieee.org/.
   Google Scholar
• IEEE Code of Ethics. n.d. “7.8 IEEE Code of Ethics.” Accessed June 2020. https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html.
   Google Scholar
• Ikonen, V., et al. 2015. “Human-driven Design of Micro- and Nanotechnology Based Future Sensor Systems.” Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 13 (2): 110–129.
   Google Scholar
• Innovate UK. 2016. “Horizon Sustainable Economy Cards.” Accessed June 2020. https://www.slideshare.net/WebadminTSB/innovate-uk-horizons-sustainable-economy-framework.
   Google Scholar
• Kitzinger, J. 1994. “The Methodology of Focus Groups: The Importance of Interaction Between Research Participants.” Sociology of Health and Illness 16 (1): 103–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Know Cards. (2016). “Know Cards.” Accessed June 2020. https://know-cards.myshopify.com/.
   Google Scholar
• Lane, G., A. Angus, and A. Murdoch. 2018. “UnBias Fairness Toolkit.” https://unbias.wp.horizon.ac.uk/fairness-toolkit/https://zenodo.org/badge/DOI/10.5281/zenodo.2667808.svg.
   Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 1992. “Where are the Missing Masses? – The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artefacts.” In Shaping Technology / Building Society, edited by W. E. Bijker, and J. Law, 205–224. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lazar, J., J. Abascal, J. Davis, V. Evers, J. Gulliksen, J. Jorge, T. McEwan, et al. 2012. “HCI Public Policy Activities in 2012: A 10 Country Discussion.” Interactions May/June, 78–81.
   Google Scholar
• Le Dantec, C., E. Poole, and S. Wyche. 2009. “Values as Lived Experience: Evolving Value Sensitive Design in Support of Value Discovery.” In Proceedings SIGCHI Conference Human Factors in Computer Systems (CHI’09), 1141–1150. New York, NY: ACM Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lucero, A., and J. Arrasvuori. 2010. “PLEX Cards: A Source of Inspiration When Designing for Playfulness.” In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Fun and Games (Fun and Games '10), 28–37. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Luger, E., L. Urquhart, T. Rodden, and M. Golembewski. 2015. “Playing the Legal Card: Using Ideation Cards to Raise Data Protection Issues Within the Design Process.” In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 457–466. New York, NY: ACM Press.
   Google Scholar
• McStay, A., and P. Pavliscak. 2019. “Ethical Guidelines for Emotional AI.” https://drive.google.com/file/d/1frAGcvCY_v25V8ylqgPF2brTK9UVj_5Z/view.
   Google Scholar
• Mepham, B., M. Kaiser, E. Thorstensen, S. Tomkins, and K. Millar. 2006. Ethical Matrix Manual. The Hague: LEI.
   Google Scholar
• Millar, J. 2008. “Blind Visionaries: A Case for Broadening Engineers’ Ethical Duties.” IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society, ISTAS 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Millar, J. 2014. “Technology as Moral Proxy: Autonomy and Paternalism by Design.” 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Ethics in Science, Technology and Engineering, Chicago, IL, 2014, 1–7. doi:10.1109/ETHICS.2014.6893388.
   Google Scholar
• Moor, J. 1985. “What is Computer Ethics: A Proposed Definition.” Metaphilosophy 16 (4): 266–275.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morrison-Saunders, A., A. Bond, J. Pope, and F. Retief. 2015. “Demonstrating the Benefits of Impact Assessment for Proponents.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 33 (2): 108–115. doi:10.1080/14615517.2014.981049.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muller, M. J. 2001. “Layered Participatory Analysis: New Developments in the CARD Technique.” In CHI 2001 – Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 90–97. doi:10.1145/365024.365054.
   Google Scholar
• Neilsen, J. 1995. Usability Testing for 1995 Sun Microsystems Website https://www.nngroup.com/articles/usability-testing-1995-sun-microsystems-website/.
   Google Scholar
• Nissenbaum, H. 2001. “How Computer Systems Embody Values.” Computer March, 118–120.
   Google Scholar
• Norval, C., et al. 2019. “Data Protection and Tech Startups: The Need for Attention, Support, and Scrutiny.” Working Paper on SSRN https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3398204.
   Google Scholar
• ODI (Open Data Institute). 2019. “The Data Ethics Canvas.” https://theodi.org/article/data-ethics-canvas/.
   Google Scholar
• Papert, S. 1980. Mindstorms – Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic Books Inc. Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Play Decide. 2018. “Play Decide.” Accessed June 2020. https://playdecide.eu/.
   Google Scholar
• Radanliev, P., D. De Roure, R. Nicolescu, M. Huth, R. M. Montalvo, S. Cannady, and P. Burnap. 2018. “ Future Developments in Cyber Risk Assessment for the Internet of Things.” Computers in Industry 102: 14–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reijers, W., D. Wright, P. Brey, K. Weber, R. Rodrigues, D. O’Sullivan, and B. Gordijn. 2018. “Methods for Practising Ethics in Research and Innovation: A Literature Review, Critical Analysis and Recommendations.” Science and Engineering Ethics 24: 1437–1481. doi:10.1007/s11948-017-9961-8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rip, A., and H. Te Kulve. 2008. “Constructive Technology Assessment and the Socio Technical Scenarios.” In Presenting Futures Fisher, Selin. Wetmore Dorecht Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Roy, R., and J. P. Warren. 2019. “Card-based Design Tools: A Review and Analysis of 155 Card Decks for Designers and Designing.” Design Studies, 125–154. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0142694X19300171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Royal Academy of Engineering n.d. “Engineering Ethics.” Accessed June 2020. https://www.raeng.org.uk/policy/supporting-the-profession/engineering-ethics-and-philosophy/ethics.
   Google Scholar
• RRI Tools. n.d. “RRI Tools.” Accessed June 2020. https://www.rri-tools.eu/about-rri#.
   Google Scholar
• SATORI. 2017. “Outline of An Ethics Assessment Framework.” Accessed June 2020. https://satoriproject.eu/media/D4.1_Proposal_Ethics_Assessment_Framework.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Sengers, P., D. Boehner, and J. Kaye. 2005. “Reflective Design.” In Proceedings of 4th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing, 49–58. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Sharp, H., Y. Rogers, and J. Preece. 2019. Interaction Design. 5th ed. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Shneiderman, B. 1990. “Human Values and the Future of Technology: A Declaration of Empowerment.” In Proceedings of the Conference on Computers and the Quality of Life (CQL '90), 1–6. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• SILK (Social Innovation Lab Kent). 2017. “Method Deck.” Accessed June 2020. https://socialinnovation.typepad.com/silk/silk-method-deck.html.
   Google Scholar
• Spiekermann, S. 2012. “The RFID Privacy Impact Assessment: Developed by Industry, Agreed by Regulators.” In Privacy Impact Assessment, edited by D. Wright, and P. de Hert, Springer Law, Governance and Technology Series, 323–346. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Stahl, B. 2011. “IT for a Better Future: How to Integrate Ethics, Politics and Innovation.” Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 9 (3): 140–156.
   Google Scholar
• Stilgoe, J., R. Owen, and P. Macnaghten. 2013. “Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation.” Research Policy 42 (9): 1568–1580.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutton, B. 2011. “Playful Cards, Serious Talk: A Qualitative Research Technique to Elicit Women’s Embodied Experiences.” Qualitative Research 11 (2): 177–196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tudor, L. G., M. J. Muller, T. Dayton, and R. W. Root. 1993. “A Participatory Design Technique for High-Level Task Analysis, Critique, and Redesign: The CARD Method.” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 37 (4): 295–299. doi:10.1177/154193129303700409.
   Google Scholar
• UN (United Nations). 1992. “Principle 15 – Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.” https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• UN Office of the High Commissioner. 2018. Guiding Principles for human rights impact assessments for economic reform policies https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Development/IEDebt/Pages/DebtAndimpactassessments.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Urquhart, L. 2016. “Towards User Centric Regulation: Navigating the Interface Between HCI and IT Law.” PhD thesis, University of Nottingham.
   Google Scholar
• Urquhart, L. 2020. “White Noise from the White Goods? Privacy by Design for Ambient Domestic Computing.” In Future Law, edited by L. Edwards, B. Schafer, and E. Harbinja, 41–78. Edinburgh: EUP.
   Google Scholar
• Van Den Hoven, J., G. Lokhorst, and I. Van der Poel. 2012. “Engineering and the Problem of Moral Overload.” Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (1): 143–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verbeek, P. 2005. What Things Do. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.
   Google Scholar
• Verbeek, P. 2006. “Materialising Morality: Designing Ethics and Technological Mediation.” Science, Technology and Human Values 31: 361–380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verharen, C., and J. Tharakan. 2010. “Barefoot Ethics: Social Justice Through an Appropriate Technology Checklist.” In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Appropriate Technology, edited by V. Dzikzeniyo et al., 36–42. http://www.appropriatetech.net/files/4thICAT_part2_Proceedings.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• VIRT.EU. 2020. “Building our Ethical Stack: Public ‘Beta’ Launch.” https://www.virteuproject.eu/servicepackage/story/ethicalstackbetalaunch/.
   Google Scholar
• Volkman, R. 2018. Being a Good Computer Professional: The Advantages of Virtue Ethics in Computing. http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p223541/pdf/ch074.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Von Schomberg, R. 2013. “A Vision of Responsible Innovation.” In Responsible Innovation, edited by R. Owen, M. Heintz, and J. Bessant, 51–75. London: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Wallace, J., J. McCarthy, P. Wright, and P. Oliver. 2013. “Making Design Probes Work.” In Chi 13: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 3441–3450. doi:10.1145/2470654.2466473.
   Google Scholar
• Wetzel, R. 2014. “Introducing Pattern Cards for Mixed Reality Game Design, Third Workshop on Design Patterns in Games.” Foundations in digital games Conference 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Winner, L. 1978. Autonomous Technology. Technics Out of Control as a Theme in Political Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. p. 323.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, D. 2011. “Should Privacy Impact Assessments be Mandatory?” Communications of the ACM 54 (8), 121–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, D., and P. de Hert. 2012. Privacy Impact Assessment, Springer Law, Governance and Technology Series.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, D., M. Friedewald, and R. Gellert. 2015. “Developing and Testing a Surveillance Impact Assessment Methodology.” International Data Privacy Law 5 (1): 40–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwart, H., L. Landeweerd, and A. van Rooij. 2014. “Adapt or Perish? Assessing the Recent Shift in the European Research Funding Arena from ‘ELSA’ to ‘RRI’.” Life Sciences, Society and Policy 10 (11). doi:10.1186/s40504-014-0011-x.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar