blank

New Paper: Researchers’ Perceptions of Research Automation

2025-02-09T00:00:00+10:00

The paper based on my research project at the CSIRO into how scientists perceive research automation has now been published (Douglas, 2025). I describe my analysis of a series of interviews with researchers working in a variety of fields (including conservation decision making, materials science, and synthetic biology) about how they see the increasing use of automation technology within their research.

I discuss how based on my analysis, researchers differ in how significant they believe explainability is for AI systems used in research. There is less apparent need for AI explainability if the automated system is following procedures defined by human researchers. However, explainability is important when the automated system (such as an AI model) is the subject of experimentation itself, such as where the model is simulating a system or process.

Report on Quantum Technology Use Cases

2024-12-10T19:58:00+10:00

We have now released the first output of the Quantum Readiness project. In (Baruwal Chhetri et al., 2024), we present the results of our literature survey on the potential use cases for quantum technologies that are described in government strategies, industry documents, market analyses, and academic publications.

I presented this report at i-SAIRAS (International Symposium on Artifical Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space) 2024, which was held in Brisbane on November 19-21.

New Paper on Ethical Risk for AI

2024-08-12T19:58:00+10:00

A new paper that builds on the insights we gained from my postdoctoral research on responsiblity and surgical robotics has been published. In (Douglas et al., 2025), my co-authors (Justine Lacey and David Howard) and I present an account of ethical risk for AI. It appears in the journal AI & Ethics and is open access.

I presented a earlier version of this paper at the 2023 Forum on Philosophy, Engineering and Technology held at TUDelft in the Netherlands in April 2023.

New Paper on Justice in Energy Transformations

2024-04-09T19:58:00+10:00

I’m a co-author with some of my CSIRO colleagues on energy justice. In “Just Trade-Offs in a Net-Zero Transition and Social Impact Assessment” (Malakar et al., 2024), we explain how Rawls’ theory of distributive justice may be used as part of a social impact assessment for introducing new energy technologies. It’s published in the journal Environmental Impact Assessment Review, and the paper is open access.

Cited in ‘The Conversation’ Article

2024-02-20T20:58:00+10:00

My paper on doxing (missing reference) is cited in Dr Hugh Breakey’s recent article in The Conversation: ‘Doxing or in the public interest? Free speech, “cancelling” and the ethics of the Jewish creatives’ WhatsApp group leak’.

Doxing as Audience Vigilantism against Hate Speech

2020-10-01T18:12:35+10:00

Doxing is the public release of personally identifiable information, and may be used as a tool for activism by removing the anonymity of individuals whose actions or stated beliefs harm others or undermine social cohesion. In this chapter I describe how doxing that deanomynises proponents of hate speech is a form of audience vigilantism. I argue that it is a defensible means of combating hate speech if it has the purpose of beginning a process of deradicalizing the identified individuals through reintegrative shaming. Such doxing must be motivated by a legitimate social need (in that they can be justified using premises and evidence acceptable to all in society), and must remain within socially tolerable bounds (in that it does not lead to physical harm, it is not indiscriminate, and is in response to injustices that are in principle recognisable to those who are not affected by it). I refer to several instances of doxing relating to proponents of hate speech to illustrate my argument and to demonstrate the importance of the legitimate social need and socially tolerable bounds criteria.

This chapter appears in the book Introducing Vigilant Audiences, edited by Daniel Trottier, Rashid Gabdulhakov, and Qian Huang, and published by Open Book Publishers in 2020. The Open Access PDF of the book is available from the publisher’s website: Introducing Vigilant Audiences - Open Book Publishers.

Cyberwar and Mediation Theory (with Nolen Gertz and Peter-Paul Verbeek)

2019-08-14T18:12:35+10:00

Cyberwar (military operations conducted via computer networks) is often downplayed compared to traditional military operations as they are largely invisible to outside observers, difficult to convincingly attribute to a particular source and rarely cause physical damage or obvious harm. We use mediation theory to argue that cyberwar operations cause harm by undermining trust in computerised devices and networks and by disrupting the transparency of our usage of information technology in our daily lives. Cyberwar operations militarise and weaponise the civilian space of the Internet by co-opting and targeting civilian infrastructure and property. These operations (and the possibility of such operations occurring) fundamentally change users’ Internet experience by fostering fear and paranoia about otherwise unnoticed and transparent aspects of their lives, similarly to how biological and chemical weapons create fear and paranoia about breathing, eating, and physical exposure to the world. We argue that the phenomenological aspects of cyberwar operations offer a compelling justification for prohibiting cyberwar in the same manner in which biological and chemical warfare are prohibited.

This paper was co-written with Nolen Gertz and Peter-Paul Verbeek. It was published in volume 2, issue 2 of the journal Delphi - Interdisciplinary Review of Emerging Technologies.

The SATORI Project

2018-05-07T18:12:35+10:00

SATORI (Stakeholders Acting Together On the ethical impact assessment of Research and Innovation) was a four-year EU project to develop a common European framework for the ethical assessment of research and innovation activity. I contributed to the project during my time with the University of Twente in 2015 and 2016.

Further details about the project and the guidelines it developed are available at the SATORI website.

The specific project reports that I contributed to and their authors/compilers are listed below in alphabetical order.

A Reasoned Proposal for Shared Approaches to Ethics Assessment in the European Context.

Compiled by Philip Jensen, Wessel Reijers, David Douglas, Faridun Sattarov, Agata Gurzawska, Alexandra Kapeller, Philip Brey (University of Twente); Rok Benčin (Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts); Zuzanna Warso (Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights); Robert Braun (Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna).

Ethics Assessment in Different Countries: China.

Written by Xin Ming, David Douglas, Agata Gurzawska, Philip Brey (University of Twente).

Ethics Assessment in Different Fields: Medical and Life Sciences.

Written by Karin van Leersum, David Douglas (University of Twente).

Ethical Assessment of Research and Innovation: A Comparative Analysis of Practices and Institutions in the EU and Selected Other Countries.

Compiled by Clare Shelley-Egan (Trilateral Research & Consulting); Philip Brey (University of Twente); Rowena Rodrigues (Trilateral Research & Consulting), David Douglas, Agata Gurzawska (University of Twente); Lise Bitsch (Danish Board of Technology Foundation); David Wright, Kush Wadhwa (Trilateral Research & Consulting).

Models for Ethics Assessment and Guidance in Higher Education.

Written by Philip Brey, David Douglas, Alexandra Kapeller (University of Twente); Rok Benčin (Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts); Daniela Ovadia (EUSJA); Doris Wolfslehner (ABC).

Outline of an Ethics Assessment Framework.

Compiled by Philip Jansen, Faridun Sattarov, David Douglas, Wessel Reijers, Agata Gurzawska, Alexandra Kapeller, Philip Brey (University of Twente); Ingrid Callies (UNESCO); Rok Benčin (Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts); Zuzanna Warso (Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights).

Principles and Approaches in Ethics Assessment: Ethics and Risk.

Written by Raija Koivisto (Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT)); David Douglas (University of Twente).

Roadmap towards Adoption of a Fully Developed Ethics Assessment Framework.

Written by Anna Leinonen, Raija Koivisto, Anu Tuominen (Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT)); David Douglas, Agata Gurzawska, Philip Jensen, Alexander Kapeller, Philip Brey (University of Twente).

Personal Information, Identification Information, and Identity Knowledge

2018-03-01T18:12:35+10:00

This commentary responds to the primary article by Aste Corbridge in the UniSA Student Law Review (2017/2018) entitled ‘Responding to Doxing in Australia: Towards a Right to Informational Self-Determination?’. It discusses the way that concepts of ‘personal information’ and ‘identification information’ from the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) correspond with the seven crucial types of identity knowledge identified by Gary T. Marx and argues that these statutory definitions should be expanded to offer better protection to victims of doxing in Australia.

This paper (Douglas, 2018) was published in the 2017/2018 edition of the UniSA Student Law Review.

Doxing: A Conceptual Analysis

2016-06-01T18:12:35+10:00

Doxing is the intentional public release onto the Internet of personal information about an individual by a third party, often with the intent to humiliate, threaten, intimidate, or punish the identified individual. In this paper I present a conceptual analysis of the practice of doxing and how it differs from other forms of privacy violation. I distinguish between three types of doxing: deanonymizing doxing, where personal information establishing the identity of a formerly anonymous individual is released; targeting doxing, that discloses personal information that reveals specific details of an individual’s circumstances that are usually private, obscure, or obfuscated; and delegitimizing doxing, which reveals intimate personal information that damages the credibility of that individual. I also describe how doxing differs from blackmail and defamation. I argue that doxing may be justified in cases where it reveals wrongdoing (such as deception), but only if the information released is necessary to reveal that such wrongdoing has occurred and if it is in the public interest to reveal such wrongdoing. Revealing additional information, such as that which allows an individual to be targeted for harassment and intimidation, is unjustified. I illustrate my discussion with the examples of the alleged identification of the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, by Newsweek magazine, the identification of the notorious Reddit user Violentacrez by the blog Gawker, and the harassment of game developer Zoe Quinn in the ‘GamerGate’ Internet campaign.

This paper was published as open access as (Douglas, 2016).