# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Multilingual interface of the UN Official Documents System

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is an end-user problem. If you have reached this site from a web link, - Through your internet options, adjust your privacy settings to allow cookies or - Check your security settings and make sure this site has not been blocked or - You are probably using a very slow link that may not work well with this application.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today, as we celebrate the 31st birthday of the web, we look back on all the incredible things it has enabled us to achieve. It has transformed how we communicate, collaborate and create.

We want the web to continue to change the world for the better - and to do so, it must be safe and empowering for everyone.

But with a growing crisis of online abuse and discrimination against women and girls - especially women of colour and those from LGBTQ+ and other marginalised communities - the web simply is not working for women and girls.

In his annual letter published on the web's birthday, its inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee warns that this crisis threatens global progress on gender equality.

Nearly two billion women across the globe can't access the web at all - depriving them of opportunities to learn, earn and have their voices heard. For those who can, the web just isn't safe enough.

Our new research, in partnership with the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, reveals that half of young women and girls in the global survey have experienced online abuse, including threatening messages, sexual harassment and the sharing of private photos and videos without permission. 87% of young women surveyed think the problem is getting worse.

Online abuse can take many forms and can include actions like bullying, stalking, sexual harassment, or the sharing of intimate images without permission. Among the young women we surveyed, sharing of private images and videos was the top concern, followed by sexual harassment. In both cases, young women were more concerned about these particular actions than young men.

No matter the form it takes, online abuse can have a devastating impact. We are seeing it force women - including journalists and politicians - out of jobs. It silences women and girls, depriving us all of their leadership and ideas. It damages relationships and causes tremendous distress.

In our research, over half of the young women surveyed who experienced online abuse say it has affected their emotional or physical wellbeing, or both. 28% said it affected their wellbeing, with a further 31% answering all of the above to options that included impacting confidence using the internet, feeling less able to achieve ambitions and affecting relationships.

2020 must be the year we tackle this widespread abuse and harassment.

As we look back on 31 years of the web, we also look back on the 25 years since 189 countries came together in Beijing to craft an ambitious global plan to empower women. And we look ahead to the ten years left until we hit the global deadline to achieve gender equality.

This year is poised to be a critical year for global action to tackle online gender inequality.

To seize this opportunity, the Web Foundation will today host the first in series of consultations that will bring together global tech companies and civil society organisations to develop bold new policy and product solutions to keep women safe online.

The consultations are inspired by the principle of "gender equality by design." In order for apps and other tech services to work for women, they must be informed by data about women and input from women of all backgrounds. Companies must understand - and design for - the diverse needs of their customers.

In his letter, Sir Tim calls on us all - men and women alike - to channel "an ambitious, collaborative spirit" to tackle the online crisis facing women and girls.

The web has the potential to be a tremendous force for equality and democracy. We can't let the crisis of online abuse and discrimination undermine this promise. It's up to all of us to make the web work for everyone.
For updates about our work, sign up to our newsletter and follow us on Twitter at @webfoundation. To receive a weekly news brief on the most important stories in tech, subscribe to The Web This Week.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The online crisis facing women and girls threatens global progress on gender equality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today, as we celebrate the 31st birthday of the web, we look back on all the incredible things it has enabled us to achieve. It has transformed how we communicate, collaborate and create.

# data[].attributes.headline
这是一场公共卫生噩梦，更不用说对社会结构

# data[].attributes.body
这是一场公共卫生噩梦，更不用说对社会结构的破坏：我们的人际关系。技术与许多负面的社会和心理趋势有关，包括孤独、孤立、抑郁、压力和焦虑
https://connect.comptia.org/blog/ethical-issues-in-technology
我们不断被实时事件和新闻所淹没。名人和政治人物可以在没有事实核查的情况下在社交媒体上传播观点，然后尽管其准确性或不准确性，但这些观点随后被汇总并进一步传播。信息不再经过我们以前用于出版报纸和书籍的繁重验证过程。
https://algorithmwatch.org/en/google-translate-gender-bias/
人工智能系统学会根据训练和编码数据做出决策，这些数据可能会受到人类偏见的影响，或者反映历史或社会的不平等，”福布斯称。领先的人工智能开发商谷歌甚至遇到过人工智能软件认为男性护士和女性历史学家不存在的问题。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
a white Google AI car parked against a backdrop of blue sky with white clouds

Brian Patrick Green is the director of Technology Ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. This article is an update of an earlier article [1]. Views are his own.
Artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies are rapidly transforming society and will continue to do so in the coming decades. This social transformation will have deep ethical impact, with these powerful new technologies both improving and disrupting human lives. AI, as the externalization of human intelligence, offers us in amplified form everything that humanity already is, both good and evil. Much is at stake. At this crossroads in history we should think very carefully about how to make this transition, or we risk empowering the grimmer side of our nature, rather than the brighter.
1. Technical Safety
Why is AI ethics becoming a problem now? Machine learning (ML) through neural networks is advancing rapidly for three reasons: 1) Huge increase in the size of data sets; 2) Huge increase in computing power; 3) Huge improvement in ML algorithms and more human talent to write them. All three of these trends are centralizing of power, and "With great power comes great responsibility" [2].

As an institution, the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics has been thinking deeply about the ethics of AI for several years. This article began as presentations delivered at academic conferences and has since expanded to an academic paper (links below) and most recently to a presentation of "Artificial Intelligence and Ethics: Sixteen Issues" I have given in the U.S. and internationally [3]. In that spirit, I offer this current list:

The first question for any technology is whether it works as intended. Will AI systems work as they are promised or will they fail? If and when they fail, what will be the results of those failures? And if we are dependent upon them, will we be able to survive without them?
2. Transparency and Privacy
For example, several people have died in a semi-autonomous car accident because vehicles encountered situations in which they failed to make safe decisions. While writing very detailed contracts that limit liability might legally reduce a manufacturer's responsibility, from a moral perspective, not only is responsibility still with the company, but the contract itself can be seen as an unethical scheme to avoid legitimate responsibility.

The question of technical safety and failure is separate from the question of how a properly-functioning technology might be used for good or for evil (questions 3 and 4, below). This question is merely one of function, yet it is the foundation upon which all the rest of the analysis must build.

Once we have determined that the technology functions adequately, can we actually understand how it works and properly gather data on its functioning? Ethical analysis always depends on getting the facts first-only then can evaluation begin.

It turns out that with some machine learning techniques such as deep learning in neural networks it can be difficult or impossible to really understand why the machine is making the choices that it makes. In other cases, it might be that the machine can explain something, but the explanation is too complex for humans to understand.
3. Beneficial Use & Capacity for Good
For example, in 2014 a computer proved a mathematical theorem, using a proof that was, at the time at least, longer than the entire Wikipedia encyclopedia [4]. Explanations of this sort might be true explanations, but humans will never know for sure.

As an additional point, in general, the more powerful someone or something is, the more transparent it ought to be, while the weaker someone is, the more right to privacy he or she should have. Therefore the idea that powerful AIs might be intrinsically opaque is disconcerting.

The main purpose of AI is, like every other technology, to help people lead longer, more flourishing, more fulfilling lives. This is good, and therefore insofar as AI helps people in these ways, we can be glad and appreciate the benefits it gives to us.
4. Malicious Use & Capacity for Evil
Additional intelligence will likely provide improvements in nearly every field of human endeavor, including, for example, archaeology, biomedical research, communication, data analytics, education, energy efficiency, environmental protection, farming, finance, legal services, medical diagnostics, resource management, space exploration, transportation, waste management, and so on.

As just one concrete example of a benefit from AI, some farm equipment now has computer systems capable of visually identifying weeds and spraying them with tiny targeted doses of herbicide. This not only protects the environment by reducing the use of chemicals on crops, but it also protects human health by reducing exposure to these chemicals.

A perfectly well functioning technology, such as a nuclear weapon, can, when put to its intended use, cause immense evil. Artificial intelligence, like human intelligence, will be used maliciously, there is no doubt.
5. Bias in Data, Training Sets, etc.
For example, AI-powered surveillance is already widespread, in both appropriate contexts (e.g., airport-security cameras), perhaps inappropriate ones (e.g., products with always-on microphones in our homes), and conclusively inappropriate ones (e.g., products which help authoritarian regimes identify and oppress their citizens). Other nefarious examples can include AI-assisted computer-hacking and lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS), a.k.a. "killer robots." Additional fears, of varying degrees of plausibility, include scenarios like those in the movies "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Wargames," and "Terminator."

While movies and weapons technologies might seem to be extreme examples of how AI might empower evil, we should remember that competition and war are always primary drivers of technological advance, and that militaries and corporations are working on these technologies right now. History also shows that great evils are not always completely intended (e.g., stumbling into World War I and various nuclear close-calls in the Cold War), and so having destructive power, even if not intending to use it, still risks catastrophe. Because of this, forbidding, banning, and relinquishing certain types of technology would be the most prudent solution.
6. Unemployment / Lack of Purpose & Meaning
One of the interesting things about neural networks, the current workhorses of artificial intelligence, is that they effectively merge a computer program with the data that is given to it. This has many benefits, but it also risks biasing the entire system in unexpected and potentially detrimental ways.

Already algorithmic bias has been discovered, for example, in areas ranging from criminal punishment to photograph captioning. These biases are more than just embarrassing to the corporations which produce these defective products; they have concrete negative and harmful effects on the people who are the victims of these biases, as well as reducing trust in corporations, government, and other institutions which might be using these biased products. Algorithmic bias is one of the major concerns in AI right now and will remain so in the future unless we endeavor to make our technological products better than we are. As one person said at the first meeting of the Partnership on AI, "We will reproduce all of our human faults in artificial form unless we strive right now to make sure that we don't" [5].
7. Growing Socio-Economic Inequality
Many people have already perceived that AI will be a threat to certain categories of jobs. Indeed, automation of industry has been a major contributing factor in job losses since the beginning of the industrial revolution. AI will simply extend this trend to more fields, including fields that have been traditionally thought of as being safer from automation, for example law, medicine, and education. It is not clear what new careers unemployed people ultimately will be able to transition into, although the more that labor has to do with caring for others, the more likely people will want to be dealing with other humans and not AIs.

Attached to the concern for employment is the concern for how humanity spends its time and what makes a life well-spent. What will millions of unemployed people do? What good purposes can they have? What can they contribute to the well-being of society? How will society prevent them from becoming disillusioned, bitter, and swept up in evil movements such as white supremacy and terrorism?
8. Environmental Effects
Related to the unemployment problem is the question of how people will survive if unemployment rises to very high levels. Where will they get money to maintain themselves and their families? While prices may decrease due to lowered cost of production, those who control AI will also likely rake in much of the money that would have otherwise gone into the wages of the now-unemployed, and therefore economic inequality will increase. This will also affect international economic disparity, and therefore is likely a major threat to less-developed nations.

Some have suggested a universal basic income (UBI) to address the problem, but this will require a major restructuring of national economies. Various other solutions to this problem may be possible, but they all involve potentially major changes to human society and government. Ultimately this is a political problem, not a technical one, so this solution, like those to many of the problems described here, needs to be addressed at the political level.

Machine learning models require enormous amounts of energy to train, so much energy that the costs can run into the tens of millions of dollars or more. Needless to say, if this energy is coming from fossil fuels, this is a large negative impact on climate change, not to mention being harmful at other points in the hydrocarbon supply chain.
9. Automating Ethics
Machine learning can also make electrical distribution and use much more efficient, as well as working on solving problems in biodiversity, environmental research, resource management, etc. AI is in some very basic ways a technology focused on efficiency, and energy efficiency is one way that its capabilities can be directed.

On balance, it looks like AI could be a net positive for the environment [6]-but only if it is actually directed towards that positive end, and not just towards consuming energy for other uses.

One strength of AI is that it can automate decision-making, thus lowering the burden on humans and speeding up - potentially greatly speeding up-some kinds of decision-making processes. However, this automation of decision making will presents huge problems for society, because if these automated decisions are good, society will benefit, but if they are bad, society will be harmed.
10. Moral Deskilling & Debility
As AI agents are given more powers to make decisions, they will need to have ethical standards of some sort encoded into them. There is simply no way around it: the ethical decision-making process might be as simple as following a program to fairly distribute a benefit, wherein the decision is made by humans and executed by algorithms, but it also might entail much more detailed ethical analysis, even if we humans would prefer that it did not-this is because Ai will operate so much faster than humans can, that under some circumstances humans will be left "out of the loop" of control due to human slowness. This already occurs with cyberattacks, and high-frequency trading (both of which are filled with ethical questions which are typically ignored) and it will only get worse as AI expands its role in society.

Since AI can be so powerful, the ethical standards we give to it had better be good.

If we turn over our decision-making capacities to machines, we will become less experienced at making decisions. For example, this is a well-known phenomenon among airline pilots: the autopilot can do everything about flying an airplane, from take-off to landing, but pilots intentionally choose to manually control the aircraft at crucial times (e.g., take-off and landing) in order to maintain their piloting skills.

Because one of the uses of AI will be to either assist or replace humans at making certain types of decisions (e.g. spelling, driving, stock-trading, etc.), we should be aware that humans may become worse at these skills. In its most extreme form, if AI starts to make ethical and political decisions for us, we will become worse at ethics and politics. We may reduce or stunt our moral development precisely at the time when our power has become greatest and our decisions the most important.
11. AI Consciousness, Personhood, and "Robot Rights"
This means that the study of ethics and ethics training are now more important than ever. We should determine ways in which AI can actually enhance our ethical learning and training. We should never allow ourselves to become deskilled and debilitated at ethics, or when our technology finally does present us with hard choices to make and problems we must solve-choices and problems that, perhaps, our ancestors would have been capable of solving-future humans might not be able to do it.

For more on deskilling, see this article [7] and Shannon Vallor's original article on the topic [8].

Some thinkers have wondered whether AIs might eventually become self-conscious, attain their own volition, or otherwise deserve recognition as persons like ourselves. Legally speaking, personhood has been given to corporations and (in other countries) rivers, so there is certainly no need for consciousness even before legal questions may arise.
12. AGI and Superintelligence
Morally speaking, we can anticipate that technologists will attempt to make the most human-like AIs and robots possible, and perhaps someday they will be such good imitations that we will wonder if they might be conscious and deserve rights-and we might not be able to determine this conclusively. If future humans do conclude AIs and robots might be worthy of moral status, then we ought to err on the side of caution and give it.

In the midst of this uncertainty about the status of our creations, what we will know is that we humans have moral characters and that, to follow an inexact quote of Aristotle, "we become what we repeatedly do" [9]. So we ought not to treat AIs and robots badly, or we might be habituating ourselves towards having flawed characters, regardless of the moral status of the artificial beings we are interacting with. In other words, no matter the status of AIs and robots, for the sake of our own moral characters we ought to treat them well, or at least not abuse them.

If or when AI reaches human levels of intelligence, doing everything that humans can do as well the average human can, then it will be an Artificial General Intelligence-an AGI-and it will be the only other such intelligence to exist on Earth at the human level.

If or when AGI exceeds human intelligence, it will become a superintelligence, an entity potentially vastly more clever and capable than we are: something humans have only ever related to in religions, myths, and stories.
13. Dependency on AI
Importantly here, AI technology is improving exceedingly fast. Global corporations and governments are in a race to claim the powers of AI as their own. Equally importantly, there is no reason why the improvement of AI would stop at AGI. AI is scalable and fast. Unlike a human brain, if we give AI more hardware it will do more and more, faster and faster.

The advent of AGI or superintelligence will mark the dethroning of humanity as the most intelligent thing on Earth. We have never faced (in the material world) anything smarter than us before. Every time Homo sapiens encountered other intelligent human species in the history of life on Earth, the other species either genetically merged with us (as Neanderthals did) or was driven extinct. As we encounter AGI and superintelligence, we ought to keep this in mind; though, because AI is a tool, there may be ways yet to maintain an ethical balance between human and machine.

Humans depend on technology. We always have, ever since we have been "human;" our technological dependency is almost what defines us as a species. What used to be just rocks, sticks, and fur clothes has now become much more complex and fragile, however. Losing electricity or cell connectivity can be a serious problem, psychologically or even medically (if there is an emergency). And there is no dependence like intelligence dependence.

Intelligence dependence is a form of dependence like that of a child to an adult. Much of the time, children rely on adults to think for them, and in our older years, as some people experience cognitive decline, the elderly rely on younger adults too. Now imagine that middle-aged adults who are looking after children and the elderly are themselves dependent upon AI to guide them. There would be no human "adults" left-only "AI adults." Humankind would have become a race of children to our AI caregivers.
14. AI-powered Addiction
This, of course, raises the question of what an infantilized human race would do if our AI parents ever malfunctioned. Without that AI, if dependent on it, we could become like lost children not knowing how to take care of ourselves or our technological society. This "lostness" already happens when smartphone navigation apps malfunction (or the battery just runs out), for example.

We are already well down the path to technological dependency. How can we prepare now so that we can avoid the dangers of specifically intelligence dependency on AI?

Smartphone app makers have turned addiction into a science, and AI-powered video games and apps can be addictive like drugs. AI can exploit numerous human desires and weaknesses including purpose-seeking, gambling, greed, libido, violence, and so on.
15. Isolation and Loneliness
Addiction not only manipulates and controls us; it also prevents us from doing other more important things-educational, economic, and social. It enslaves us and wastes our time when we could be doing something worthwhile. With AI constantly learning more about us and working harder to keep us clicking and scrolling, what hope is there for us to escape its clutches? Or, rather, the clutches of the app makers who create these AIs to trap us-because it is not the AIs that choose to treat people this way, it is other people.

When I talk about this topic with any group of students, I discover that all of them are "addicted" to one app or another. It may not be a clinical addiction, but that is the way that the students define it, and they know they are being exploited and harmed. This is something that app makers need to stop doing: AI should not be designed to intentionally exploit vulnerabilities in human psychology.

Society is in a crisis of loneliness. For example, recently a study found that "200,000 older people in the UK have not had a conversation with a friend or relative in more than a month" [10]. This is a sad state of affairs because loneliness can literally kill [11]. It is a public health nightmare, not to mention destructive of the very fabric of society: our human relationships. Technology has been implicated in so many negative social and psychological trends, including loneliness, isolation, depression, stress, and anxiety, that it is easy to forget that things could be different, and in fact were quite different only a few decades ago.

One might think that "social" media, smartphones, and AI could help, but in fact they are major causes of loneliness since people are facing screens instead of each other. What does help are strong in-person relationships, precisely the relationships that are being pushed out by addictive (often AI-powered) technology.
16. Effects on the Human Spirit
Loneliness can be helped by dropping devices and building quality in-person relationships. In other words: caring.

This may not be easy work and certainly at the societal level it may be very difficult to resist the trends we have already followed so far. But resist we should, because a better, more humane world is possible. Technology does not have to make the world a less personal and caring place-it could do the opposite, if we wanted it to.

All of the above areas of interest will have effects on how humans perceive themselves, relate to each other, and live their lives. But there is a more existential question too. If the purpose and identity of humanity has something to do with our intelligence (as several prominent Greek philosophers believed, for example), then by externalizing our intelligence and improving it beyond human intelligence, are we making ourselves second-class beings to our own creations?
Conclusion
This is a deeper question with artificial intelligence which cuts to the core of our humanity, into areas traditionally reserved for philosophy, spirituality, and religion. What will happen to the human spirit if or when we are bested by our own creations in everything that we do? Will human life lose meaning? Will we come to a new discovery of our identity beyond our intelligence?

Perhaps intelligence is not really as important to our identity as we might think it is, and perhaps turning over intelligence to machines will help us to realize that. If we instead find our humanity not in our brains, but in our hearts, perhaps we will come to recognize that caring, compassion, kindness, and love are ultimately what make us human and what make life worth living. Perhaps by taking away some of the tedium of life, AI can help us to fulfill this vision of a more humane world.

There are more issues in the ethics of AI; here I have just attempted to point out some major ones. Much more time could be spent on topics like AI-powered surveillance, the role of AI in promoting misinformation and disinformation, the role of AI in politics and international relations, the governance of AI, and so on.
This article builds upon the following previous works: "AI: Ethical Challenges and a Fast Approaching Future" (Oct. 2017) [12], "Some Ethical and Theological Reflections on Artificial Intelligence," (Nov. 2017) [13], Artificial Intelligence and Ethics: Ten areas of interest (Nov. 2017) [1], "AI and Ethics" (Mar. 2018) [14], "Ethical Reflections on Artificial Intelligence"(Aug. 2018) [15], and several presentations of "Artificial Intelligence and Ethics: Sixteen Issues" (2019-20) [3]. References
New technologies are always created for the sake of something good-and AI offers us amazing new abilities to help people and make the world a better place. But in order to make the world a better place we need to choose to do that, in accord with ethics.

Through the concerted effort of many individuals and organizations, we can hope that AI technology will help us to make a better world.

[1] Brian Patrick Green, "Artificial Intelligence and Ethics: Ten areas of interest," Markkula Center for Applied Ethics website, Nov 21, 2017.

[2] Originally paraphrased in Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, "Spider-Man," Amazing Fantasy vol. 1, #15 (August 1962), exact phrase from Uncle Ben in J. Michael Straczynski, Amazing Spider-Man vol. 2, #38 (February 2002). For more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_great_power_comes_great_responsibility

[3] Brian Patrick Green, "Artificial Intelligence and Ethics: Sixteen Issues," various locations and dates: Los Angeles, Mexico City, San Francisco, Santa Clara University (2019-2020).

[4] Bob Yirka, "Computer generated math proof is too large for humans to check," Phys.org, February 19, 2014, available at: https://phys.org/news/2014-02-math-proof-large-humans.html

[5] The Partnership on AI to Benefit People and Society, Inaugural Meeting, Berlin, Germany, October 23-24, 2017.

[6] Leila Scola, "AI and the Ethics of Energy Efficiency," Markkula Center for Applied Ethics website, May 26, 2020, available at: https://www.scu.edu/environmental-ethics/resources/ai-and-the-ethics-of-energy-efficiency/

[7] Brian Patrick Green, "Artificial Intelligence, Decision-Making, and Moral Deskilling," Markkula Center for Applied Ethics website, Mar 15, 2019, available at: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/technology-ethics/resources/artificial-intelligence-decision-making-and-moral-deskilling/

[8] Shannon Vallor, "Moral Deskilling and Upskilling in a New Machine Age: Reflections on the Ambiguous Future of Character." Philosophy of Technology 28 (2015):107-124., available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-014-0156-9

[9] Brad Sylvester, "Fact Check: Did Aristotle Say, 'We Are What We Repeatedly Do'?" Check Your Fact website, June 26, 2019, available at: https://checkyourfact.com/2019/06/26/fact-check-aristotle-excellence-habit-repeatedly-do/

[10] Lee Mannion, "Britain appoints minister for loneliness amid growing isolation," Reuters, January 17, 2018, available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-politics-health/britain-appoints-minister-for-loneliness-amid-growing-isolation-idUSKBN1F61I6

[11] Julianne Holt-Lunstad, Timothy B. Smith, Mark Baker,Tyler Harris, and David Stephenson, "Loneliness and Social Isolation as Risk Factors for Mortality: A Meta-Analytic Review," Perspectives on Psychological Science 10(2) (2015): 227-237, available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691614568352

[12] Markkula Center for Applied Ethics Staff, "AI: Ethical Challenges and a Fast Approaching Future: A panel discussion on artificial intelligence," with Maya Ackerman, Sanjiv Das, Brian Green, and Irina Raicu, Santa Clara University, California, October 24, 2017, posted to the All About Ethics Blog, Oct 31, 2017, video available at: https://www.scu.edu/ethics/all-about-ethics/ai-ethical-challenges-and-a-fast-approaching-future/

[13] Brian Patrick Green, "Some Ethical and Theological Reflections on Artificial Intelligence," Pacific Coast Theological Society (PCTS) meeting, Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, 3-4 November, 2017, available at: http://www.pcts.org/meetings/2017/PCTS2017Nov-Green-ReflectionsAI.pdf
Thank you to many people for all the helpful feedback which has helped me develop this list, including Maya Ackermann, Kirk Bresniker, Sanjiv Das, Kirk Hanson, Brian Klunk, Thane Kreiner, Angelus McNally, Irina Raicu, Leila Scola, Lili Tavlan, Shannon Vallor, the employees of several tech companies, the attendees of the PCTS Fall 2017 meeting, the attendees of the needed.education meetings, several anonymous reviewers, the professors and students of PACS003 at the University of the Pacific, the students of my ENGR 344: AI and Ethics course, as well as many more.
[14] Brian Patrick Green, "AI and Ethics," guest lecture in PACS003: What is an Ethical Life?, University of the Pacific, Stockton, March 21, 2018.

[15] Brian Patrick Green, "Ethical Reflections on Artificial Intelligence," Scientia et Fides 6(2), 24 August 2018. Available at: http://apcz.umk.pl/czasopisma/index.php/SetF/article/view/SetF.2018.015/15729

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Artificial Intelligence and Ethics: Sixteen Challenges and Opportunities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brian Patrick Green is the director of Technology Ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. This article is an update of an earlier article [1]. Views are his own. Artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies are rapidly transforming society and will continue to do so in the coming decades.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Images courtesy of the artist.

Is it a silly prank, a Pagan ritual, or a genius discovery about the next era of mass transit? In a picture posted to Flickr by artist James Bridle-known for coining the term, " New Aesthetic"-a car is sitting in the middle of a parking lot has been surrounded by a magic salt circle. In the language of road markings, the dotted white lines on the outside say, "Come On In," but the solid white line on the inside says, "Do Not Cross." To the car's built-in cameras, these are indomitable laws of magic: Petrificus Totalus for autonomous automobiles.

Captioned simply, "Autonomous Trap 001," the scene evokes a world of narratives involving the much-hyped technology of self-driving cars. It could be mischievous hackers disrupting a friend's self-driving ride home; the police seizing a dissident's getaway vehicle; highway robbers trapping their prey; witches exorcizing a demon from their hatchback.

Self-driving cars aren't there yet, but the artist-philosopher-programmer's thought-provoking photo is a reminder that we'll have to start thinking about these things soon. If a self-driving car is designed to read the road, what happens when the language of the road is abused by those with nefarious intent?

Bridle has carved out a space for himself among those thinking 10-100 years in the future. His website Booktwo.org is lousy with philosophical treatises, thought experiments, creative code, and art projects. His "collaboration with technology" Five Eyes was part of the V&A Museum's privacy-oriented show All of This Belongs to You, which also included the remains of whistleblower Edward Snowden's smashed hard drive full of leaked documents. Bridle has spent the last decade making drones more relatable, uncovering the mysteries of weather prediction, and otherwise trying to elucidate the invisible technologies-usually military in origin-that rule our world.

Recently Bridle has become fascinated by autonomous vehicles. Self-driving cars will be available to the public soon. Singapore is considering the purchase of a fleet of 300,000 driverless taxis to replace the 780,000 manned ones currently clogging their streets. Google's self-driving car initiative, now called Waymo, has been investing in the technology since 2009. Elon Musk's Tesla is already implementing limited automated features in the United States, and even slow-moving large scale car manufacturers like Ford are getting into the game. If driverless cars become anywhere as ubiquitous as the horseless carriage, innocuous vandalism like the Autonomous Trap is just the beginning the problems engineers will have to solve.

Now Bridle is trying to build his own self-driving car, and made the sardonic artwork Autonomous Trap 001 in the process. He's released all the code developed in pursuit of the DIY self-driving car here. We spoke to Bridle to learn more about the circumstances behind this vague photo series and better understand his apprehension and curiosity about the robot chauffeurs of the future.

Creators: What are we looking at here? Can you give me a brief explanation of Autonomous Trap 001?

James Bridle: What you're looking at is a salt circle, a traditional form of protection-from within or without-in magical practice. In this case it's being used to arrest an autonomous vehicle-a self-driving car, which relies on machine vision and processing to guide it. By quickly deploying the expected form of road markings-in this case, a No Entry glyph-we can confuse the car's vision system into believing it's surrounded by no entry points, and entrap it.
Is this actually an autonomous car, or is it conceptual?
I don't actually have a self-driving car, unfortunately-I don't think any have made it to Greece yet, plus the cost issue-but I do have a pretty good understanding of how the things work, having been researching them for a while. And the one in the picture is a research vehicle for building my own. As usual, I've got totally carried away in the research, and ended up writing a bunch of my own software, rigging up cameras and building neural networks to reproduce some of the more interesting currents in the field. Like the trap, I wouldn't entirely trust what I've built, but the principles are sound.
Where did you take these pictures?
I made this Trap while training the car on the roads around Mount Parnassus in Central Greece. Parnassus feels like an appropriate location because, as well as being quite spectacular scenery and wonderful to drive and hike around, it's the home of the Muses in mythology, as well as the site of the Delphic Oracle. The ascent of Mount Parnassus is, in esoteric terms, the journey towards knowledge, and art.
What is your role in the project and is there anyone else involved?
It's just me. I did a project last year called Cloud Index Index which used satellite imagery and machine learning to explore politics and computational thinking, and I had a lot of help on that, particularly from Gene Kogan, another artist who works with machine learning. This time I wanted to do it all myself-mostly to show that I could, and therefore, in theory and accepting an immense amount of privilege and good fortune, anyone can. These technologies are for everyone: you can read the papers, repeat the findings, study the code, build your own tools. This radically reshapes the way you understand and interact with the world, and is something I think is quite crucial to propagate in the current age.
Why did you create Autonomous Trap 001, besides poking fun at an incredibly hyped technology?
It's part of a body of work / research / writing / fooling about to explore and understand the contemporary technologies of automation, in order to better use them, and in some cases to disrupt and oppose them.

Self-driving cars bring together a bunch of really interesting technologies-such as machine vision and intelligence-with crucial social issues such as the atomization and changing nature of labor, the shift of power to corporate elites and Silicon Valley, and the quasi-religious faith in computation as the only framework for the production of truth-and hence, ethics and social justice.

The Trap falls into the category of resistance, while the attempt to build my own car is a process of understanding how the dominant narratives of these technologies are produced, and could be changed. I don't see why cab drivers of the future shouldn't be chalking white lines on side streets to derail self-driving Ubers which are putting them out of work, and I also think we need more eyes and hands on the tools which are shaping all of our futures.
Were there any unexpected challenges in creating the piece?
I ran out of salt, and had to drive back to the nearest village to buy a few more kilos. Luckily, salt, unlike bandwidth and computational power, is a pretty cheap resource. Also, I should have pulled my trousers up for the video.
This is Autonomous Car Trap 001. Do you have more planned?
I have a habit of numbering things, but yes, there will definitely be more. Like the Drone Shadows, which proliferate to this day, consciously starting a series seems to have generative effects.
Where does this fit in your larger body of work?
It's all part of the same attempt to understand the world and act in it, if that doesn't sound too pompous. This work follows directly from projects on machine vision, artificial intelligence, militarized technology, big data etc.-as well as more, shall we say, poetic interventions into emerging technologies. It's one big rolling project, with occasional bouts of specific obsession.
What's next for you? What other projects are you working on?
This body of work is in part in preparation for a solo exhibition which opens next month in Berlin, at Nome Gallery, called Failing to Distinguish Between a Tractor Trailer and the Bright White Sky. I'll be showing a bunch of different outcomes of the research, including interpretations of the machine vision systems I've been building, and the results of the self-driving car training-and hopefully connecting them to some of my more mythological interests.

I've also got a new commission opening in London next week, as part of Convergence-a series of billboards in East London continuing my search for the Render Ghosts. Beyond that, I'm mostly working on writing projects about the new dark age and the relationship between technology, knowledge, understanding, and agency.

Keep up with James Bridle's work on his website and read more about in the links below.
Edward Snowden's Smashed Laptop Belongs to Everyone Here's What Happens When You Mix Weather, Political Data, and Machine Learning The New Aesthetic Revisited: The Debate Continues!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Meet the Artist Using Ritual Magic to Trap Self-Driving Cars

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Images courtesy of the artist. Is it a silly prank, a Pagan ritual, or a genius discovery about the next era of mass transit? In a picture posted to Flickr by artist James Bridle-known for coining the term, " New Aesthetic"-a car is sitting in the middle of a parking lot has been surrounded by a magic salt circle.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.dezeen.com/2019/06/27/accessories-for-the-paranoid-surveillance-design/
虚假信息
https://designacademy.nl/p/research-and-debate/the-arena/2021
https://www.designacademy.nl/p/study-at-dae/graduation-show/graduation-projects/claire-matthews
https://designacademy.nl/p/study-at-dae/graduation-show/graduation-projects/alix-gallet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Brooklyn-based designer Sara Sallam has imagined a collection of jewellery and accessories to protect the wearer from tech-enabled surveillance without concealing their features.

Taking its name from George Orwell, author of dystopian novel 1984, Sallam's project comprises three pieces of jewellery worn on the face, chest and foot.

Each of the wearables work to protect the user's identity from facial recognition, heartbeat detection or gait-tracking technology while still being visually appealing.

"There are several solutions to these tracking technologies created by designers and engineers with various success, but most obscure or change the user's appearance to the point of grotesqueness," the Appalachian State University graduate told Dezeen.

"I wanted to create objects for an Orwellian future where this surveillance is commonplace, and as such, the form needs to appeal to people's sense of aesthetics and still allow the wearer to be identifiable to the people around them."

Each piece would have a ripple-like effect reminiscent of pearl. Sallam chose this finish as a reference to Lover's Eye jewellery, miniature paintings popular in the 1700's that featured an eye, often surrounded by pearls.

The jewellery aims to offer a solution to and refuge from the growing presence of surveillance in countries across the globe, which can be used as a method of state control.

"The creeping rise of this tech is often overlooked, but this kind of unwarranted surveillance poses a threat to our personal liberties," Sallam told Dezeen.

Ewa Nowak's anti-AI mask protects wearers from mass surveillance

"Facial recognition is becoming another tool of our hyper-militarised police, and misidentifies people of colour up to 100 times the amount that it misidentifies white people."

"Most recently, it is being used to identify and arrest protestors, with the FBI notably asking for photos and videos of the Black Lives Matter protests currently sweeping the country," she continued.

"With the rapid expansion of this technology, the question is not whether this technology will play a huge role in our societies future - but what will it look like when it has?"

Sallam developed her project as a follow up to Ewa Nowak's anti-AI Incognito mask. The designer appreciated the mask's beautiful design but noticed that tracking technology had advanced so rapidly that the mask was no longer effective against certain types of recognition.

This includes Amazon Rekognition - the facial recognition software most commonly used by the American police force.

While Nowak's mask was intended only to fool Facebook's AI technology, Sallam still wanted to create an more updated form of the anti-tracking jewellery.

Unable to make physical prototypes of her designs when her university closed due to coronavirus, Sallam digitally created each using a 3D scanner and various 3D modelling and rendering programs.

The facial jewellery works in three ways. Firstly, by obscuring key facial geometry - the area where the nose and eyebrows meet and the chin - and secondly by decreasing the facial symmetry.

It also alters the wearer's facial landscape via its highly reflective material, which distorts patterns of light and dark across the face.

Accessories for the Paranoid uses fake data to stop your devices spying on you

When tested against Amazon Rekognition, Sallam's face piece lowered the software's "confidence rate" in identifying someone from zero to 92 per cent.

"The goal was to lower the confidence rate to 90 per cent, as anything under 99 per cent can't be used in court as the US laws stand)," she explained.

The armour-like chest piece protects against heartbeat detection technology - a very recent technology, according to the designer, owned by the Department of Defence, which uses lasers to detect heart rhythm on the skins surface.

"Not a lot is known about this technology yet, but it can currently be deterred by wearing thick clothing," said Sallam. "But anticipating rapid new advances, I created a lightweight piece that covers the most susceptible areas of skin where lasers could pick up the heart's rhythm."

Described by Sallam as a piece of armour, the chest jewellery was designed with the shape of a traditional breastplate while still looking "non-combative" enough for daily wear.

The final shoe accessory works by interrupting gait recognition technology, which Sallam says has an 80 per cent accuracy rate in identifying an individual.

She took inspiration from "the oldest trick in the book" of placing a pebble in your shoe. Designed to be worn on one foot, the design works by lifting the ball of your foot up just enough to interrupt bipedal symmetry.

It is designed with a modularity that allows it to be switched from one foot to the other to avoid straining one side of your body.

Sallam is not the only designer to create objects as a response to the growing use of surveillance.

Katja Trinkwalder and Pia-Marie Stute developed a series of add-on accessories that use fake data to stop your devices spying on you, while US start-up Winston Privacy created a hardware filter to give people control over their online privacy.

Photography is by Jesse Maltby.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sara Sallam's Orwell jewellery thwarts invasive surveillance technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Brooklyn-based designer Sara Sallam has imagined a collection of jewellery and accessories to protect the wearer from tech-enabled surveillance without concealing their features. Taking its name from George Orwell, author of dystopian novel 1984, Sallam's project comprises three pieces of jewellery worn on the face, chest and foot.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The period following the social mobilizations of 2011 has seen a renewed focus on the place of communication in collective action, linked to the increasing importance of digital communications. Framed in terms of personalized 'connective action' or the social morphology of networks, these analyses have criticized previously dominant models of 'collective identity', arguing that collective action needs to be understood as 'digital networking'. These influential approaches have been significantly constructed as a response to models of communication and action evident in the rise of Independent Media Centres in the period following 1999. After considering the rise of the 'digital networking' paradigm linked to analyses of Indymedia, this article considers the emergence of the internet-based collaboration known as Anonymous, focusing on its origins on the 4chan manga site and its 2008 campaign against Scientology, and also considers the 'I am the 99%' microblog that emerged as part of the Occupy movement. The emergence of Anonymous highlights dimensions of digital culture such as the ephemeral, the importance of memes, an ethic of lulz, the mask and the grotesque. These forms of communication are discussed in the light of dominant attempts to shape digital space in terms of radical transparency, the knowable and the calculable. It is argued that these contrasting approaches may amount to opposing social models of an emerging information society, and that the analysis of contemporary conflicts and mobilizations needs to be alert to novel forms of communicative practice at work in digital cultures today.

Notes on contributor

Kevin McDonald is Professor of Sociology at Middlesex University, London. His recent publications include 'What could a sociology of the subject look like' ( Sociopedia.Isa, 2014) and Our violent world: Terrorism in society (Palgrave, 2013).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
From Indymedia to Anonymous: rethinking action and identity in digital cultures

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The period following the social mobilizations of 2011 has seen a renewed focus on the place of communication in collective action, linked to the increasing importance of digital communications. Framed in terms of personalized 'connective action' or the social morphology of networks, these analyses have criticized previously dominant models of 'collective identity', arguing that collective action needs to be understood as 'digital networking'.

# data[].attributes.headline
Livingston, S., & Risse, M. (2019). The future impact of artificial intelligence on humans and human rights. Ethics & International Affairs, 33(2), 141-158. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S089267941900011X

# data[].attributes.subject
Livingston, S., & Risse, M. (2019). The future impact of artificial intelligence on humans and human rights. Ethics & International Affairs, 33(2), 141-158. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S089267941900011X

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

Guerreiro, João 2020. Managerial Challenges and Social Impacts of Virtual and Augmented Reality. p. 234.

Qerimi, Qerim 2020. The 21st Century from the Positions of Modern Science: Intellectual, Digital and Innovative Aspects. Vol. 91, Issue. , p. 360.

Vadillo Bueno, Guadalupe 2020. Futuros de la inteligencia artificial. Revista Digital Universitaria, Vol. 21, Issue. 1,

Maitra, Suvradip 2020. Artificial Intelligence and Indigenous Perspectives. p. 320.

Jain, Sonali Luthra, Manan Sharma, Shagun and Fatima, Mehtab 2020. Trustworthiness of Artificial Intelligence. p. 907.

Chesterman, Simon 2020. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE LIMITS OF LEGAL PERSONALITY. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 69, Issue. 4, p. 819.

Kuteynikov, Dmitry Izhaev, Osman Lebedev, Valerian and Zenin, Sergey 2021. Human rights during the mass introduction of artificial intelligence and robotic systems into public life. Cuestiones Políticas, Vol. 39, Issue. 71, p. 609.

de Arruda Falcao, Joao Pontual de Lemos Meira, Silvio Romero and Ramalho, Geber Lisboa 2021. Algorithmic pragmatism: First steps. p. 1.

Qerimi, Qerim 2021. "Smart Technologies" for Society, State and Economy. Vol. 155, Issue. , p. 701.

Grimmelikhuijsen, Stephan and Meijer, Albert 2022. Legitimacy of Algorithmic Decision-Making: Six Threats and the Need for a Calibrated Institutional Response. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, Vol. 5, Issue. 3, p. 232.

Gordon, John‐Stewart 2022. Are superintelligent robots entitled to human rights?. Ratio, Vol. 35, Issue. 3, p. 181.

Erman, Eva and Furendal, Markus 2022. The Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence: Some Normative Concerns. Moral Philosophy and Politics, Vol. 0, Issue. 0,

Ikonen, Pasi Hokkanen, Jere Uskali, Turo Manninen, Ville J. E. and Kuusniemi, Heidi 2022. Futures of Journalism. p. 245.

McLean, Scott Read, Gemma J. M. Thompson, Jason Hancock, P. A. and Salmon, Paul M. 2022. Who is in control? Managerial artificial general intelligence (MAGI) for Football. Soccer & Society, Vol. 23, Issue. 1, p. 104.

Lee, Jaemin 2022. Artificial Intelligence and International Law. p. 63.

Lee, Jaemin 2022. Artificial Intelligence and International Law. p. 139.

Kuteynikov, D. L. Izhaev, O. A. Lebedev, V. A. and Zenin, S. S. 2022. Privacy in the realm of Artiﬁcial Intelligence Systems Application for Remote Biometric Identiﬁcation. Lex Russica, p. 121.

Xing, Yunfei He, Wu Zhang, Justin Zuopeng and Cao, Gaohui 2022. AI Privacy Opinions between US and Chinese People. Journal of Computer Information Systems, p. 1.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Future Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Humans and Human Rights | Ethics & International Affairs | Cambridge Core

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef. Guerreiro, João 2020. Managerial Challenges and Social Impacts of Virtual and Augmented Reality. p. 234. Qerimi, Qerim 2020. The 21st Century from the Positions of Modern Science: Intellectual, Digital and Innovative Aspects.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Digital artist talk with Lucy McRae
September 10, 4:30-5:30pm, together with the Ars Electronica Festival 2020

Digital artist talk with Simone C. Niquille
September 11, 4:30-5:30pm, together with the Ars Electronica Festival 2020

Digital artist talk with Lauren Lee McCarthy
September 12, 4:30-5:30pm, together with the Ars Electronica Festival 2020

Virtual exhibition walkthrough with curator Sabine Himmelsbach
September 13, 4:30-5:30pm, together with the Ars Electronica Festival 2020

Emotions are at the core of human experience. Love them or hate them, they influence every aspect of our lives and shape our social behaviour. In the 21st century, technology has begun engaging with emotions like it has never done before. Real Feelings presents works by 20 artists, ranging from artificial intelligence, interactive installations, robotics and biometrics to gaming, video installations, virtual reality and photography. They explore how technologies are collating, assessing or triggering our emotions in multiple ways and directions. These technologies are even creating new feelings, some of which we haven't yet found the words to describe them with. Several works will be newly produced in the context of the exhibition and can be seen for the first time.

In the 21st century, emotions have increasingly come into focus-how they can be manipulated and controlled by technology because they influence our society and our lives. Today major technology companies try to manipulate the way we behave by triggering our emotions every day through smartphones, laptops and personal devices. Researchers at the MIT media lab have developed a machine learning system that "reads" facial expressions to determine human emotions. At the same time, young children are being trained to recognise emotions in other human beings-because their ability to do so is failing in the digital age. The barriers between human and machine, emotion, and technology seem to be breaking down. Our heartbeat, perspiration, speech, or body language are checked by smart watches or fitness trackers, webcams, and facial and body recognition systems. In the 21st century, we are seeing the rise of investigations into emotional technology, which stands for measuring biometric data in order to detect and respond to our emotions, which is then used as data input for various digital applications. Advances in machine learning have enabled emotion recognition with AI. Our world is flooded with digital technology and these devices have literally become extensions of ourselves: humanlike robots are used in healthcare, sex robots are compensating the shortcomings of human relationships, smart devices are listening to our conversations and are taking care of our needs-we are communicating more with our technology than with other humans.

As the emotional intelligence gap between humans and machines grows narrower - do we actually know how we really feel? Who is in control of our emotions now? Is technology beginning to influence how we feel? These difficult questions and more are raised in the course of the exhibition as visitors encounter diverse works that challenge, provoke, and explore how technology is representing, influencing and changing our emotions.

A comprehensive catalog will be published to accompany the exhibition, documenting the works in the exhibition and featuring current scientific and artistic contributions. It includes a contribution on robots and emotions by renowned neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, a text on surveillance capitalism by the author Ariane Koek, and an essay by British artist Cécile B. Evans. An extensive program of events and educational activities is also planned, including a colloquium in collaboration with TA SWISS, the Foundation for Technology Assessment, on the subject of "Social Robots" on October 21, 2020, and the performance Cyberia by Maria Guta & Adrian Ganea-a dancing interaction between a human dancer and a virtual avatar on November 13 and 14, 2020. A digital program in collaboration with the Ars Electronica Festival 2020 features artist talks with Simone C. Niquille, Lucy McRae & Lauren Lee McCarthy.

Artists: Antoine Catala, Stine Deja & Marie Munk, Heather Dewey-Hagborg, Justine Emard, Cécile B. Evans, Ed Fornieles, Maria Guta & Adrian Ganea, Esther Hunziker, Seokyung Kim, Clément Lambelet, Lorem, Lauren Lee McCarthy & Kyle McDonald, Simone C. Niquille, Dani Ploeger, Lucy McRae, Shinseungback Kimyonghun, Maija Tammi, Troika, Coralie Vogelaar, Liam Young

Curators: Sabine Himmelsbach, Ariane Koek und Angelique Spaninks

For further information, please visit www.hek.ch.
For press enquiries: elena.kuznik [​at​] hek.ch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Real Feelings. Emotion and Technology - Announcements - e-flux

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Digital artist talk with Lucy McRae September 10, 4:30-5:30pm, together with the Ars Electronica Festival 2020 Digital artist talk with Simone C. Niquille September 11, 4:30-5:30pm, together with the Ars Electronica Festival 2020 Digital artist talk with Lauren Lee McCarthy September 12, 4:30-5:30pm, together with the Ars Electronica Festival 2020 Virtual exhibition walkthrough with curator Sabine Himmelsbach September 13, 4:30-5:30pm, together with the Ars Electronica Festival 2020 Emotions are at the core of human experience.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cold Intimacies The Making of Emotional Capitalism by Eva Illouz

# data[].attributes.body
Human rights in a digital age

Privacy. Democracy. Freedom of speech. Anonymity. Access. Technology – from data to social media – is forcing human rights into the spotlight.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Data has become a ubiquitous - yet almost imperceptible - part of our daily lives. Every one of our interactions with technology, from tapping a debit card in a convenience store to liking a Facebook post, adds to the near-limitless store of information generated by and about us.

Dr Sharath Srinivasan, co-director of the University's Centre for Governance and Human Rights (CGHR), likens it to a dense but invisible fog. "We don't see it, but it's there and always being produced by our intended and unintended efforts," he says. "And the fog ends up sublimating into something that, in terms of seeing patterns, can be analysed, shaped, bought and sold in ways that allow for possibilities we can't even imagine. Those patterns are then used to make decisions that affect us."

Digital technologies control, blur and fragment a whole process through which judgments are made about our lives that can have a bearing on our freedom, our agency, how we understand our place in society and how others understand us. And they impact greatly on our human rights - both positive rights such as freedom of speech and association, and negative rights such as freedom from harassment, intrusion of privacy and even violence.

The business model underpinning all this has been characterised as 'surveillance capitalism' - a term popularised by the Harvard Business School academic Shoshana Zuboff. It's a framework in which the complex of tech leviathans such as Google and Facebook "unilaterally claims human experience as free raw material for translation into behavioural data", and generates profit by turning it into "prediction products" that can be used to sell products, change markets and potentially influence elections.

Rebekah Larsen (St John's, 2014) is a PhD researcher at the Sociology department who has worked on digital rights and privacy topics with CGHR. She says: "If you look at market capitalisation, the top four or five companies in the world are involved in the commodification of personal data. There's no way we can't think about the role they have in the way we understand human rights."

It's a far cry from the optimism of the early 2010s, when social media platforms were hailed as neutral facilitators for citizens seeking to assert their rights - most notably in the news narratives surrounding the Arab spring.

Dr Stephanie Diepeveen, a post-doctoral research associate at CGHR, has been examining the ways in which Kenyans engage in discussion of politics on Facebook. Her work suggests that the platform itself affects the conversation in some unpredicted ways.

"There was an assumption that, when we speak online, we'll be freer with what we say because there's this physical distance, and we have this digital avatar personhood through which we speak to others," she says. "That did happen; but we found this distancing also made people revert to their entrenched beliefs and familiar tropes - 'common sense' - to explain what was going on in politics. So, contrary to expectations, it wasn't really changing mindsets."

To support freedom of association and other fundamental human rights, Diepeveen believes that online spaces need to be more suited to open discussion. "How do we preserve a space where there's freedom for people to speak to one another in ways that don't have foregone conclusions?" she asks. "A lot of the concern focuses on the way platforms such as Facebook are using our data to try to predict and shape our future behaviour. How do we prevent that and retain the unpredictability in politics?"

But despite the difficulties, Dr Ella McPherson, co-director of the CGHR, believes that researchers will still need to engage with the big media platforms. "It's a real tension that the human rights community feels," she says. "These platforms are where people are already communicating, so there's a real impetus to maintain relationships with them. At the same time, how can you trust these companies on human rights matters when it's clear that they have a very self-serving relationship with the concept? We've seen this with surveillance capitalism, and all the data-hungry mechanisms by which they make their money."

So is it possible to regulate the digital realm while protecting and enabling the new democratic possibilities that it affords? Dr David Erdos, Deputy Director of the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law, believes that the prevailing wind is now behind more robust policing of digital spaces. His research looks at whether regulation could be effective in upholding citizens' rights online - combating violations like cyberbullying, harassment, and extreme infringements of privacy such as revenge pornography.

He says: "It may be successful in tackling all this, but it will depend on a degree of monitoring and management of online content beyond what we've seen to date. We'd be talking about a duty of care that managed platforms would have. Many activists see that as potentially an infringement on the privacy of users who may want to remain anonymous and unregulated.

"Europe has always had an approach that stresses the state's responsibility to protect rights, not just to be a nightwatchman. We have existing legislation - notably the whole data protection framework - where the state has decided to intervene in a strong way. The laws threaten companies with four per cent of their annual global turnover, which can mean hundreds of millions of euros in the case of Facebook or Google."

Within the EU, the totem of data protection is the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which imposes one of the strictest such controls of any democratic jurisdiction - and it has brought debates concerning the balance between freedom of speech and privacy into sharp focus.

Erdos says: "You can't really move digitally without being impacted by the GDPR. If you take the law seriously, it encroaches on people's rights to associate, to run a business or start a club - right down to one person trying to manage a choir. It's rather a mess, and that's before you go into questions of how you enforce it. With sites outside EU jurisdiction, in the US, Russia or China, can you enforce it? When should you reach over and say, 'Because you have an impact on our citizens or residents, we have the right to regulate you'?"

Within Europe, the so-called right to be forgotten - permitting individuals in some cases to demand that Google and other search engines "de-index" material that includes their personal data - has proved particularly controversial. Media outlets overwhelmingly presented it as a threat to freedom of expression and an example of state-endorsed censorship. Larsen, who solicited the opinions of journalists across the broadcast and print media, says: "It was a sticky case for them, because many saw it as an instance where editorial privileges were being taken away from them by the EU. But many of my interviewees reported that they couldn't help thinking they may have been primed by platform providers to react in this way."

More broadly, Larsen believes that these initiatives are not necessarily challenging the larger assumptions that frame the debates around digital rights - such as on the ownership and monetisation of data. As an example, she recalls her involvement in a project for the European Commission while completing her MPhil at Cambridge Judge Business School.

"We were looking at ways to give people more control over their data," she says. "However, if we embrace this notion of personal data being like a commodity that can be traded, I think we lose a very important part of what privacy means in social terms, and the way it helps us develop as individuals. And it can entrench existing inequalities: people who have fewer resources would be more likely to sell their personal data. You can end up with a very neoliberal version of human rights that actually supports the practices of surveillance capitalism."

It is a sentiment that chimes with broadcaster and author Jonnie Penn (Pembroke 2014), who is a project lead at the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence and is completing a PhD on the political history of AI. He says: "Historians of technology talk about 'technologies of control' like digital computing. In the west, the public have seen these tools - at least until recently - as affording us all sorts of new opportunities and benefits. Now, I think they're starting to awaken to the fact that, in the wrong hands, there's serious room for abuse.

"That's why we're talking about digital rights, because we need to rebalance the whole equation somehow. My worry is that if we re-centre this around the individual, a kind of neoliberal conception of an individual's rights, we risk devaluing the collective systems that are actually what are failing today. A good example is the environment: we don't afford it the protections that we might for a human being. We risk peril as a result. Indigenous societies have known this for millennia."

With a new economy that heavily depends on big data - and, increasingly, on artificial intelligence to process it - Penn believes that if collective protections are not brought in now, they will be exponentially more difficult to establish in the future.

"I always use Central Park as an analogy," he says. "There was a moment in the mid-19th century when the decision was taken to build this park in the middle of what became a metropolis. It would be a lot harder to do now - to knock on doors and say, 'We're going to demolish your building and put a park here.' If we don't affirm the collective good in our systems, the outcomes could be really awful. Our Central Park is a Just Transition to zero carbon: decent work, divestment, warming below two degrees - whatever it takes to keep our grandchildren from extinction."

As artificial intelligence becomes more complex, the processes that drive its decisions become increasingly opaque and more difficult to scrutinise and hold to account. Where errors are made, the consequences can damage an individual's quality of life, as in cases where social-media posts have been mistakenly flagged up as offensive, leading to a ban from the platform. And, as Srinivasan points out, the real-world consequences can be far more severe. Artificial intelligence has already been piloted in criminal justice contexts, helping to determine sentencing and parole decisions.

"Where do we point the finger if we want to say an outcome was a bad one?" he says. "Who is responsible? It becomes increasingly difficult to understand where the sources of the decision-making mechanics are located. The policymaker may just say, 'Wait here - the data scientists analyse the data and come up with the algorithms that drive our decisions. You should talk to them.'"

Nevertheless, Srinivasan remains sanguine about the ability of digital technology to perform social good, and the role of institutions such as CGHR in bringing this about. He says: "We know quite well that spaces such as Facebook and Twitter don't lend themselves to the better qualities of democratic life. So where and how do new possibilities come about? The answer is, through innovation, and through public demand for digital technologies that enable the things that we still value and cherish in democratic life."
Words by William Ham Bevan.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr Sharath Srinivasan, co-director of the University's Centre for Governance and Human Rights (CGHR), likens it to a dense but invisible fog. "We don't see it, but it's there and always being produced by our intended and unintended efforts," he says.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Katitza Rodriguez, Kurt Opsahl, Rory Mir, and Daniel Leufer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Virtual Worlds, Real People: Human Rights in the Metaverse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Download the reportToday, December 10, is International Human Rights Day. On this day in 1948, the U.N. General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the document that lays out the principles and building blocks of current and future human rights instruments. In honor of this..…

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.manamana.net/video/detail?id=1641#!zh
基于网络和现成材料的新媒体互动装置
将洗手间作为数字媒介，这个洗手间没有水，只有数据和信息，所以人们进行的活动也与以往不同，他们在这个信息空间里宣泄情感。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
MANA - Global new media art platform - Art / Design / Technology Cross-industry Innovation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MANA - Global new media art platform - Art / Design / Technology Cross-industry Innovation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here’s Why ‘Cyberpunk 2077’ Gender Controversy Is Manufactured Outrage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
‘Cyberpunk 2077’ won’t have traditional gender options in its character creator, and bad-faith actors are making noise about it.

# data[].attributes.body
face to face
质疑人工智能的智能

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
August 25th - September 24th, 2017Galerie Forsblom, Stockholm

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.article19.org/resources/submission-us-online-harassment-abuse-task-force/
虚假信息强化了厌女症文化和父权制权力结构，使基于性别的暴力能够不受惩罚地发生。

互联网本身就存在偏见。它的架构、软件和硬件绝大多数是由处于特权地位的人（例如顺性别者）创建、立法和管理的，主要来自西方背景。数字环境不是性别中立的，经常复制历史歧视趋势并放大它们。在性别人口统计数据方面，顶级互联网和科技公司不平衡。

https://www.article19.org/resources/india-hyderabad-on-the-brink-of-becoming-a-total-surveillance-city/
对印度海得拉巴的广泛监视正将人权置于危险之中，这是该组织对“禁止扫描”运动的更新的一部分，该运动呼吁禁止侵入性面部识别技术。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WARNING: This blogpost is published for discussion and engagement purposes only. It does not constitute a proposal for a legally binding treaty. It contains text that some lawyers and readers with a legal background may find distressing. Sensitive readers are urged to exercise discretion.
There exists an honourable tradition within civil society and digital communities to draft and publish declarations, statements or principles on human rights and the Internet. Because of the way we have engaged as a community, international law now recognises that same rights enjoyed by people offline must also be protected online. The community and civil society have developed a vision and our voices have had influence.

However, over time, this voice has become less visionary and more restrictive.

We are now on the defensive.

Inherent tensions underpin the politics of the Internet, and these tensions have become more and more apparent. We have spent decades worrying about state control while Internet spaces have been colonised by giant corporations and overtaken by the do-ocracy of Silicon Valley. Now, hardly a day passes when we don't learn about yet another violation of human rights in relation to the Internet somewhere in the world, either by state actors or private (corporate) interests.

Fortunately, this trend has been accompanied by calls and efforts to formulate an "Internet Bill of Rights" or Internet Magna Carta that would define a new set of rights for the digital age - most prominently by Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the world wide web. These efforts have been reinvigorated as a result of the Edward Snowden revelations, and the snooping practices by Five Eyes countries which have reduced trust in the Internet and led to a race to the bottom, including the legalisation of many of the disclosed practices.

Many fear the time of darkness for the Internet and human rights is upon us.

We ask simply, is this the Internet that people want to connect to? How can the Internet regain its original language, spirit, and vision?

In these politically charged times, in which the world appears to be more polarized and divided, and digital public spaces more restricted, we believe the time is right to create and articulate a new set of rights for the digital age that work with the existing human rights framework.

We need to maintain the original visionary and inspirational approach of our community.

In this age of the Internet of Things, we need the Internet of Rights. We need a new Universal Declaration of Digital Rights.

What could such new Universal Declaration look like? Our proposal is that the Declaration would look something like this, and we ask you to join us in shaping this vision...
Suggestions, comments, and reactions on the back of the postcard, please! Comments in the form of tweets are also accepted. Join the discussion on Twitter using the hashtag #InternetofRights and share your suggestions, comments, and reactions. We will take all of these on board and will issue the "final" version later this year!
The Universal Declaration of Digital Rights

Preamble

Whereas striving to create a world where anyone, anywhere may express, disseminate and receive information and opinions without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity;

Whereas all states should recognise and promote universal respect for and observance of fundamental human rights in the digital environment and ensure that these rights are upheld as a core element of a free, open and democratic society;

Whereas it is essential to maintain the free flow of information to ensure a global and unfragmented Internet for the benefit of all and to preserve access to knowledge, development and culture, which is the common heritage of all humankind;

Concerned that attempts to limit access to information and communication on the Internet and through digital technologies for political, commercial, security or other reasons are contrary to democratic principles;

Reaffirming the relevance of international human rights standards in the digital environment and the need to explore and expand new human rights guarantees for the future;

We therefore now proclaim THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF DIGITAL RIGHTS as a common standard of digital freedoms for all, to the end that every individual and every institution of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive to promote respect for these rights and, by progressive national and international measures, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance in all countries of the world.

Article 1: Right to Inter-networking

Everyone has the right to benefit from Internet architecture that is based on decentralisation, open standards, interoperability and end-to-end principles. This right includes freedom from unreasonable barriers to entry and unnecessary burdens which could affect the potential for innovation in respect of technologies and services.

Article 2: Right to Access

Everyone has the right to participate in the information society and to access, regardless of their geographical location, universally available Internet services and digital technology at an affordable price.

Article 3: Right to Non-discrimination of Packets

Everyone has the right to receive an unimpeded flow of transboundary Internet traffic. Hence, there should be no discrimination in the treatment of Internet data and traffic based on the device, content, author, origin and/or destination of the content, service or application.

Article 4: Right to Anonymity

Everyone has the right not to be identified and not to disclose their identity when using the Internet and digital technologies. This right includes the right to anonymous speech, to read anonymously or to browse online anonymously.

Article 5: Right to Encryption

Everyone has the right to use secure communication tools, in particular any hardware and software encryption products and other cryptographic methods of their choice.

Article 6: Right to Be Free from Surveillance

Everyone has the right to be free from mass surveillance, interception and persuasive monitoring measures by State, commercial and other entities. This includes the right of everyone to have access to comprehensible, understandable, clear and precise information about all relevant and applicable laws, policies and other measures influencing this right, and the right to be notified about any decision authorising targeted surveillance.

Article 7: Right to Blog

Everyone has the right to disseminate information and ideas to the public through the Internet and digital technologies without permission, license or registration. Nobody should be required to obtain a licence or to register with the government or any other body in order to disseminate information online.

Article 8: Right to Create

Everyone has the right to create content online, including through transformative use of original works subject to copyright and to benefit from broad protection under the fair dealing exceptions.

Article 9: Right to Share

Everyone has the right to receive, impart and personally enjoy cultural goods online. This includes the right to read, listen to, view, browse and remix cultural goods without copyright restrictions and to freely access substantially publicly-funded work. The sharing of cultural goods online should not be subject to undue copyright restrictions or enforcement; while those goods that fall into the public domain must remain in the public domain indefinitely.

Article 10: Right to Digital Protest

Everyone has the right to use digital tools to engage in individual or collective protest actions. This right includes the usage of the Internet and digital tools as both a medium and a venue of protests.

Article 11: Right to Dissent, Offend and Be Offended

Everyone has the right to express, disseminate and receive oppositional, dissenting, reactive or responsive views, values or interests through the use of digital technology. This includes the right to express, impart and receive information and ideas that might offend, shock or disturb the State, individuals or any sector of the population.

Article 12: Right to Be Free from Liability

Everyone has the right to be free from liability for content of others online. This right includes immunity from liability for

a) the content of third parties where he/she has not been involved in modifying that content;

b) the failure to restrict lawful content;

c) hosting unlawful third-party content; or

d) the failure to proactively monitor content of others.

Article 13: Right to Hack

Everyone has the right to break and explore digital codes in public interest and for non-commercial purposes; in particular to surmount technological barriers to information that implement and enforce restrictions to content which should be readily available and accessible.

Article 14: Right to Tinker

Everyone has the right to use digital tools, including software utilities, for non-commercial purposes, to evaluate, audit, or discover services or servers on network and to find insecurities on them. This also includes a right to innovate without permission.

Article 15: Right to Run One's Own

Everyone has the right to run their own servers and services, create virtual private networks and provide services to others on the net.

Article 16: Right to FLOSS

Everyone has the right to access and use free/libre and open source software (FLOSS) which includes

a) the freedom to run the software, for any purpose;

b) the freedom to study, change and improve the software;

c) the freedom to redistribute copies to help others; and

d) the freedom to distribute copies of modified versions.

Article 17: Right to Control Data

Everyone has the right to exercise full control over their personal data. Personal data should be processed only if the individual gives full and informed consent to their processing.

Article 18: Right to Migrate and Export Data

Everyone has the right to data portability, which includes the right to download, transmit and transfer their data from one automated application or processing system into another without hindrance, in an open and standardised format.

Article 19: Right to Know-How

Everyone has the right to free digital education and knowledge to exercise their rights in the digital environment. This right includes access to opportunities to develop technical skills to understand, use, and work with a broad range of digital tools, and to critically analyse the accuracy and trustworthiness of available content, applications and services.

Article 20: Right to Participate

Everyone has the right to make informed decisions and participate in Internet governance, in particular in governance mechanisms and in the development of Internet-related public policies, in full confidence and freedom.

Article 21: Permissible limitations
Join the discussion on Twitter using the hashtag #InternetofRights and share your suggestions, comments, and reactions.
In the exercise of these rights, everyone shall be subject only to such restrictions that are provided by law, pursue a legitimate aim as stipulated by international human rights standards and are necessary and proportionate in relation to the aims pursued and follow due process.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
#InternetOfRights: Creating the Universal Declaration of Digital Rights - ARTICLE 19

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WARNING: This blogpost is published for discussion and engagement purposes only. It does not constitute a proposal for a legally binding treaty. It contains text that some lawyers and readers with a legal background may find distressing. Sensitive readers are urged to exercise discretion. There exists an honourable tradition within civil society and digital communities [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BFI London Film Festival - 5 to 16 October 2022

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
《 銀翼殺手2049》（英語： Blade Runner 2049）是一部 2017年美國新黑色科幻電影，由 丹尼·維勒納夫執導， 漢普敦·芬奇與 麥可·葛林共同撰寫劇本。本片為1982年電影《 银翼杀手》的續集，其導演 雷利·史考特則在本片中擔任執行製片人。前集演員 哈里遜·福特回歸飾演 瑞克·戴克，其他主演包括 雷恩·葛斯林、 安娜·德哈瑪斯、 羅蘋·萊特、 傑瑞德·雷托與 戴夫·巴帝斯塔 。劇情主要描述前集的三十年後，銀翼殺手K為了解決一個重大的危機而展開深入追查，而這一切的線索都指向失蹤已久的瑞克·戴克上。

《銀翼殺手2049》於2017年10月5日在香港和新加坡上映；6日在美國和臺灣上映；27日在中国大陆和日本上映（含2D、3D和 IMAX 等版本）。

《銀翼殺手2049》在 第90屆奧斯卡金像獎上獲得五項提名，贏得 最佳視覺效果獎和 最佳攝影獎。本片在 第71屆英國電影學院獎中獲得八項提名，包括 最佳導演 ，贏得最佳攝影獎和最佳特別視覺效果獎。

複製人是泰瑞公司為地外殖民地設計出來的生物改造人，他們強壯的身體適合當 殖民地的奴工，一系列血腥起義戰后，泰瑞公司因禁止生產複製人而破產，2020年 生態系統崩潰， 物理學家尼安德·華勒斯（Niander Wallace）的崛起。他的公司精於生產人造農作物，人類也因此免遭 飢荒的困擾。華勒斯得到了泰瑞公司的殘存技術，並創造出新一批絕對服從人類的複製人，諸多無壽命限制的舊型複製人倖存，但他們依舊受到追捕，遭到「除役」，這些追捕複製人的獵手得名「 銀翼殺手 」。

在2049年，複製人（被描述為「 生物工程人類」）變成了奴隸。K是一名複製人，為 洛杉磯警察局（LAPD）工作的「銀翼殺手」，負責追捕和退役（殺死）流浪複製人。在一個蛋白質農場裡，他退役了謝波·摩頓（Sapper Morton），並且發現一個被埋在樹下的盒子。這盒子內有一具留有 剖腹產 痕跡的女性複製人遺體，證明複製人是可以透過性行為繁殖，而以前認為這是不可能的。K的直屬上司喬希（Joshi）擔心這可能會導致人類與複製人之間的戰爭。她命令K找到並退役該複製人孩子以隱藏真相。

K探訪華勒斯公司總部，該公司從DNA檔案中識別出已故女性是瑞秋（Rachael），她是當年由泰瑞博士設計出來的實驗性複製人。K了解瑞秋與前銀翼殺手 瑞克·戴克（Rick Deckard）之間的情愛關係。華勒斯公司的總裁尼安德·華勒斯希望查明複製人繁殖的秘密，以擴大 太空移民 。他派他的複製人執行者樂芙（Luv）去LAPD總部偷走瑞秋的遺骨，並跟著K找到瑞秋的孩子。

在摩頓的農場，K看到日期6-10-21被刻在樹幹上，並認出是來自童年回憶中的木製玩具馬。由於複製人的記憶是人造的，K的 全息投影女友嬌伊（Joi）認為這是K出生的證據，而不是被創造的。K燒毀農場並離開。他搜索LAPD記錄，發現在那天出生的雙胞胎除了以外具有相同的DNA，但只有男孩被列為活著。K追蹤孩子到變成廢墟的 聖地牙哥 ，但發現那年的記錄缺少了。K從他的回憶中認出了，並找到了他記得藏起來的玩具木馬。

複製人記憶的設計師安娜·史特林博士（Ana Stelline）證實他對孤兒院的記憶是真實的，使K得出結論，認為自己是瑞秋的兒子。在LAPD總部，K通過後創傷基線測試失敗。他與他的上級喬希談話，以暗示來欺騙她他殺死了這個複製人孩子。喬希給K機會在48小時內逃走。在嬌伊的要求下，K將她轉移到一個流動發射物「分離器」。他對玩具馬進行分析，透露了輻射痕跡，並引領他帶到 拉斯維加斯 的廢墟。他找到戴克，揭露他是瑞秋孩子的父親，並為了保護孩子的身份而冒充出生記錄，戴克把孩子留在複製人自由運動的監護下。

樂芙殺死喬希後，追蹤K到戴克位於拉斯維加斯的藏身之地。她綁架戴克，摧毀嬌伊並留下K等死。複製人自由運動拯救了K。他們的領袖芙瑞莎（Freysa）告訴他，瑞秋的孩子其實是女性，而他不是瑞秋的兒子。為了防止戴克把華勒斯帶到孩子或自由運動，芙瑞莎要求K為所有複製人的更大利益而去殺死戴克。

樂芙將戴克帶到華勒斯公司的總部與尼安德·華勒斯見面。他向戴克提供了的一個複製的瑞秋，以揭露戴克所知道的事情。戴克拒絕，因为他認出假瑞秋的眼睛不是绿色的，樂芙于是殺死複製人。在樂芙正將戴克運送到一艘船上並將他帶離外界進行訊問時，K攔截並殺死了樂芙，但在戰鬥中受重傷。他刻意安排戴克的死以保護戴克免受華勒斯和流浪複製人的影響，並將戴克帶到史特林的辦公室，推斷出她是戴克的女兒，而那個玩具馬的記憶是她的。K倒在辦公室外的階梯上一動也不動，看著正在下雪的天空，而戴克則走進辦公室與史特林相見。

辛·楊 在前集所飾演的瑞秋（Rachel）則由蘿倫·琵塔（Loren Peta）擔任體態演出，但在片尾演員表中仍將辛·楊列名。

電影《 银翼杀手》（1982年）續集於1999年開始發展。曾根據《》而撰寫續集，其改編電影命名為《 Blade Runner Down》；不過，後來因小說版權的問題而被擱置。第一部電影的導演 雷利·史考特考慮開發續集，且暫定名為《 Metropolis》，並在 聖地牙哥國際漫畫展上表達了自己對續集的興趣。2008年驚悚電影《 鷹眼 》的編劇之一崔維斯·懷特與製片人打算合作開發續集。幾年後，他的同事約翰·格倫在2008年前離開了該計畫，他表示該劇本將會探討非洲殖民地的特性，以及泰瑞公司在創始人死亡後所發生的事件。

2009年6月，《 紐約時報》報導，雷利·史考特和他的弟弟 東尼·史考特正在製作一部《银翼杀手》的前傳《 Purefold》。該前傳被計劃為一系列5至10分鐘的短片，預計會以 網路劇或電視劇的形式推出。由於版權問題，使該系列不能與1982年電影的角色或事件有所關連。2010年2月7日，由於資金問題，《 Purefold》的製作已終止。2011年3月4日，報導，巴特·約金正在開發一部新的《银翼杀手》電影。且還有報導說， 克里斯多福·諾蘭 是該片的最佳導演人選。

2011年8月18日，宣布，雷利·史考特將執導一部新的《银翼杀手》電影，但不會在2013年前開始進行。製片人指出，前集的演員 哈里遜·福特 不大可能會參與其中。史考特透露，該片「可能是一部續集」，但沒有以前的演員，而且他想找一名「可能能幫助[他]」的編劇。2012年2月和10月，科索夫和史考特都表示，續集仍在發展中，而福特則不太有望能回歸演出。

史考特於2014年11月表示，他不會執導該片，而僅是製片人，並預計於2014年底或2015年底開始製作，福特的角色只會出現在續集的「第三幕」中。2015年2月26日，續集確認由《 私法爭鋒》（2013年）的導演 丹尼·維勒納夫來執導，福特也會回歸演出瑞克·戴克一角，而前集的編劇 漢普敦·芬奇 也會再度撰寫其劇本；該片預計將於2016年中開始製作。

2015年4月16日， 雷恩·葛斯林加入參演會談。葛斯林於2015年11月證實他確定演出，透露主要是 丹尼·維勒納夫和 羅傑·狄金斯的緣故他才決定參演。 5月20日，狄金斯被聘為攝影指導。正式拍攝定於7月開始， 華納兄弟負責美國內的發行，而 索尼影視娛樂則負責在國際市場的發行。2016年2月，宣布上映日為2018年1月12日。在2015年的 多倫多國際影展 的採訪中，維勒納夫透露，劇情包含主角戴克是否為人或人造人的不確定性。

維勒納夫在接受《 娛樂周刊》採訪時透露，電影將設定於前集的幾十年後，電影雖同樣以 洛杉磯為背景，但地球的氣候會有所不同，在片中的海洋、雨、雪都是有毒的。後來，雷利·史考特被證實將會擔任監製。維納勒夫在接受采访时表示北京也作为本片一个重要的设定参考样本，由前作导演 雷德利·斯科特 推荐给他。

2016年10月，宣布片名定作《銀翼殺手2049》，在此前皆是以《銀翼殺手2》暫稱。

正式拍攝於2016年7月6日在 布達佩斯 進行。2016年8月25日，在歐瑞製片廠的一搭景倒塌，使一名建築工人被壓死。拍攝於2016年11月在匈牙利結束。

《銀翼殺手2049》的剪輯工作在 洛杉磯進行，於2016年12月開始；電影主要以 R級方向製作。在2017年的 聖地牙哥國際動漫展 上，維勒納夫透露，目前電影初剪的片長為2小時半。

冰島作曲家 約翰·約翰森被聘來為電影配樂，他曾與丹尼·維勒納夫在《 怒火邊界》合作。約翰森表示，這一工作已經決定很久。他稱讚了前集的作曲家 范吉利斯，認為這是一個很大的挑戰。 2017年7月，宣布 漢斯·季默 和也將參與部分配樂。2017年9月，約翰森的經紀人宣布，約翰森已退出配樂的工作，且因合約上的規定而不得透露原因。

《銀翼殺手2049》於2017年10月6日在美國上映，且藉由 愛爾康娛樂和 傲庫路思的合作，使得該片也同步推出 VR體驗。華納兄弟影業與達成了協議，使《銀翼殺手2049》得以在 IMAX戲院發行。《銀翼殺手2049》於2017年10月3日在 洛杉磯首映，並於隔日在加拿大 蒙特婁 的上放映。《银翼杀手2049》最初定于11月10日在中国大陆上映，之后又调档提前至10月27日。

華納兄弟主要負責在美國國內的發行，而所有的海外地區則由 索尼影視娛樂 所負責。因IMAX 2D在美國較受歡迎，因此美國國內的IMAX戲院僅有2D版本，但該片在國際市場上仍有3D版本。

《銀翼殺手2049》被 美國電影協會 評為「暴力、一點性、裸露和其語言。」據報導，該片時長達2小時43分，其中片尾名單就佔了11分鐘。中国大陆上映的版本有1分鐘左右的删减，并且在多个镜头都采用裁剪的形式规避裸露等视觉元素。而本片在土耳其等国上映时也在内容上进行了删减。

電影上映前，維勒納夫向透露，該片的院線版就是自己的版本，而不會像前集推出；如果片商又推出了其他版本的話那就與維勒納夫無關。

發行商華納兄弟公司於2016年12月19日釋出《銀翼殺手2049》的首支前導預告片及劇情簡介。2017年5月8日，官方釋出首支全長預告片。第二支預告於2017年7月17日釋出。

2017年8月29日，宣布維勒納夫已選了三名電影導演來分別執導短片，這三支短片主要敘述《银翼杀手》與《銀翼殺手2049》間所發生的事件。第一支短片《 2036：複製人時代》由 路克·史考特執導，內容描述南德·華勒斯帶著他研發的新種複製人與國會議員們見面，以試圖解除複製人禁令。 黃凱旋亦在片中演出。第二支短片《 2048：無處可逃》同由路克·史考特執導，說明了摩頓招致K探員追捕的原因。第三支短片《 銀翼殺手：2022大停電》是一部由 渡邊信一郎 所執導的動畫片，描述了電影中數度提及的重大事件「大停電」的始末。

《銀翼殺手2049》獲得了普遍好評。 爛番茄根據235條評論，該片持有89%的新鮮度，平均得分為8.2／10；該網站共識：「視覺震撼和令人滿意的敘事，《銀翼殺手2049》深刻擴展了前集的故事，同時也成就了一部令人印象深刻的電影。」。該片在 Metacritic上則根據54條評論，獲得了81分，這代表著「整體正面的評價」。據 CinemaScore 調查，觀眾的評價在A+至F間落於「A-」。

在美國和加拿大，分析師預估《銀翼殺手2049》在首週末能從3900間戲院中獲得約4300萬至5000萬美元的票房。2017年9月，根據 Fandango的一項調查顯示，《銀翼殺手2049》是本檔期備受期待的作品之一。在海外市場上，預估首週末票房能增加至6000萬美元。該片於上映首日的票房僅1260萬美元，這使首週末的預估值降低至3200萬至3500萬美元。美國首週末票房達3150萬美元，遠低於初步的預估，儘管這成績使該片位居當週票房冠軍，以及維納勒夫和葛斯林職業生涯中最高的首週成績。 Deadline.com 將該表現歸因於其163分鐘的片長，而限制了戲院的放映次數，加上模糊的宣傳無法吸引普遍大眾，僅能依靠懷舊和較年長的粉絲捧場。

在海外地區，本估計能在首週從六十二個國家中獲得約1億美元的票房。該片於首週在國際上獲得了5220萬美元，全球首週票房達8170萬美元。其中在英國賺了800萬美元、俄羅斯賺了490萬美元、澳大利亞賺了360萬美元。中国大陆首周三天获得约5000万人民币票房，位列当周票房榜第四位。

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
銀翼殺手2049 - 维基百科，自由的百科全书

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
《 銀翼殺手2049》（英語： Blade Runner 2049）是一部 2017年 美國 新黑色 科幻電影，由 丹尼·維勒納夫執導， 漢普敦·芬奇與 麥可·葛林共同撰寫劇本。本片為1982年電影《 银翼杀手》的續集，其導演 雷利·史考特則在本片中擔任執行製片人。前集演員 哈里遜·福特回歸飾演 瑞克·戴克，其他主演包括 雷恩·葛斯林、 安娜·德哈瑪斯、 羅蘋·萊特、 傑瑞德·雷托與 ...