Refine
Document type
- Conference Proceeding (8)
- Article (peer-reviewed) (2)
- Contribution to a Periodical (1)
- Report (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Has full text
- Yes (13) (remove)
Keywords
- Sustainability (4)
- Software engineering (3)
- Sustainable software (2)
- Data protection (1)
- Data sovereignty (1)
- Digitale Souveränität (1)
- Digitalization (1)
- Education (1)
- Framework (1)
- IoT Apps (1)
It is a fundamental right of every natural person to control which personal information is collected, stored and processed by whom, for what purposes and how long. In fact, many (cloud based) services can only be used if the user allows them broad data collection and analysis. Often, users can only decide to either give their data or not to participate in communities. The refusal to provide personal data results in significant drawbacks for social interaction. That is why we believe that there is a need for tools to control one's own data in an easy and effective way as protection against economic interest of global companies and their cloud computing systems (as data collector from apps, mobiles and services). Especially, as nowadays everybody is permanently online using different services and devices, users are often lacking the means to effectively control the access to their private data. Therefore, we present an approach to manage and distribute privacy settings: PRIVACY-AVARE is intended to enable users to centrally determine their data protection preferences and to apply them on different devices. Thus, users gain control over their data when using cloud based services. In this paper, we present the main idea of PRIVACY-AVARE.
In dem vorliegenden Beitrag wird der aktuelle Trend, Payas-you-live-Systeme (PAYL) in Verbindung mit Krankenversicherungen anzubieten, analysiert. PAYL-Systeme bedeutet konkret die kontinuierliche Erfassung von Gesundheitsdaten mithilfe technischer Geräte und Übermittlung dieser Daten an Versicherungen sowie die Auszahlung von Boni für erreichte Fitnessziele. Zunächst wird eine Definition von PAYL-Systemen dargelegt, dann werden die technischen Rahmenbedingungen erläutert, schließlich werden die Auswirkungen dieser soziotechnischen Systeme näher beleuchtet. Dies geschieht auf Grundlage unserer empirischen Untersuchung. Die drei identifizierten Hauptkonflikte betreffen die Genese von PAYL, seine Auswirkungen auf den Wert der Datensouveränität besonders für Versicherte und die Schwierigkeit, für den Anspruch auf Prävention und Kostenersparnis durch PAYL Evidenz zu erzeugen. Diese Konflikte werden diskutiert, um sowohl die direkten wie auch indirekten Auswirkungen der Digitalisierung und der Ökonomisierung des Sozialen durch PAYL zu beleuchten.
Context: The Software Engineering process can be seen as a socio-technical activity that involves fulfilling one's role as part of a team. Accordingly, software products and services are the result of a specific collaboration between employees (and other stakeholders). In recent years, sustainability, which Requirements Engineers often paraphrase as the ability of a system to endure, is becoming part of the process and thus the responsibility of Software Engineers (SE) as well. Objectives: This study shines the spotlight on the role of the SE: their self-attribution and their awareness for sustainability. We interviewed 13 SEs to figure out how they perceive their own role and to which extent they implement the topic of sustainability in their daily work. By visualizing these two sides, it is possible to debate changes and their possible paths to benefit the Software Engineering process including sustainability design. Results: A discrepancy between the current role and the ideal role of SEs becomes visible. It is characterized in particular by dwelling on their “classic” or time-honored tasks as an executive force, such as coding. At the same time, they point out the still missing necessity of an interdisciplinary, from communication coined working method. According to our interviewees SEs are inefficiently involved in the design process. They do not sufficiently assume their responsibility for the software and its sustainability impacts.
Nachhaltigkeit ist für die Gesellschaften unseres Planeten von grundlegender Bedeutung, ebenso wie Software Systeme immer mehr Teil der heutigen Gesellschaften werden. Daher gewinnt Nachhaltigkeit auch immer mehr an Relevanz im Software Engineering und es wurden erste Ansätze entwickelt, um Nachhaltigkeit bei dem Software System Design zu berücksichtigen. Dennoch bleibt es schwer die erst später eintreffenden Auswirkungen von Entscheidungen, die beim System Design getroffen werden, zu erkennen und zu bewerten. Um diese schwierige Aufgabe zu unterstützen, wird in der Keynote die Metapher „Sustainability Debt“ vorgestellt. Die Metapher hilft bei der Identifikation, Dokumentation und Kommunikation von Nachhaltigkeitsfragen im Software Engineering. Sie baut auf der bestehenden Metapher des „Technical Debt“ auf und erweitert diese um vier weitere Dimensionen der Nachhaltigkeit (individuell, sozial, ökologisch, ökonomisch). Neben der Bedeutung der Metapher Sustainability Debt und ihrer Verwendung im Software Engineering wird im Rahmen der Keynote auch darauf eingegangen wie im Software Engineering Entscheidungen getroffen werden. Da Entscheidungen im Rahmen des Sustainability Debts immer bedeuten einen Kompromiss zu schließen zwischen zeitnahen und entfernten Ergebnissen. Bei solchen intertemporalen Entscheidungen werden entfernte Ergebnisse oft als weniger bedeutsam bewertet als zeitnahe, was berücksichtigt werden muss, um eine entsprechende Entscheidungsunterstützung zur Verringerung des Sustainability Debts zu liefern.
Year after year, software engineers celebrate new achievements in the field of AI. At the same time, the question about the impacts of AI on society remains insufficiently answered in terms of a comprehensive technology assessment. This article aims to provide software practitioners with a theoretically grounded and practically tested approach that enables an initial understanding of the potential multidimensional impacts. Subsequently, the results form the basis for discussions on AI software requirements. The approach is based on the Sustainability Awareness Framework (SusAF) and Participatory Design. We conducted three workshops on different AI topics: 1. Autonomous Driving, 2. Music Composition, and 3. Memory Avatars. Based on the results of the workshops we conclude that a two-level approach should be adopted: First, a broad one that includes a diverse selection of stakeholders and overall impact analysis. Then, in a second step, specific approaches narrowing down the stakeholders and focusing on one or few impact areas.
Applications for the Internet of Things are becoming increasingly popular. Due to the large amount of available context data, such applications can be used effectively in many domains. By interlinking these data and analyzing them, it is possible to gather a lot of knowledge about a user. Therefore, these applications pose a threat to privacy. In this paper, we illustrate this threat by looking at a real-world application scenario. Current state of the art focuses on privacy mechanisms either for Smart Things or for big data processing systems. However, our studies show that for a comprehensive privacy protection a holistic view on these applications is required. Therefore, we describe how to combine two promising privacy approaches from both categories, namely AVARE and PATRON. Evaluation results confirm the thereby achieved synergy effects.
Software engineering, as a central practice of digitalization, needs to become accountable for sustainability. In light of the ecological crises and the tremendous impact of digital systems on reshaping economic and social arrangements - often with negative side-effects - we need a sustainability transformation of the digital transformation. However, this is a complex and long-term task. In this article we combine an analysis of accountability arrangements in software engineering and a model of sustainability transformations to trace how certain dynamics are starting to make software engineering accountable for sustainability in the technological, cultural, economic and governance domains. The article discusses existing approaches for sustainable software engineering and software engineering for sustainability, traces emerging discourses that connect digitalization and sustainability, highlights new digital business models that may support sustainability and shows governance efforts to highlight “green and digital” policy problems. Yet, we argue that these are so far niche dynamics and that a sustainability transformation requires a collective and long-lasting effort to engender systemic changes. The goal should be to create varied accountability arrangements for sustainability in software engineering which is embedded in complex ways in society and economy.