The Role of Institutions in the Design of Communication Technologies

Rajiv C. Shah,Jay P. Kesan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cs/0109109

2002-04-16

Abstract:Communication technologies contain embedded values that affect our society's fundamental values, such as privacy, freedom of speech, and the protection of intellectual property. Researchers have shown the design of technologies is not autonomous but shaped by conflicting social groups. Consequently, communication technologies contain different values when designed by different social groups. Continuing in this vein, we show that the institutions where communication technologies are designed and developed are an important source of the values of communication technologies. We use the term code to collectively refer to the hardware and software of communication technologies. Institutions differ in their motivations, structure, and susceptibility to external influences. First, we focus on the political, economic, social, and legal influences during the development of code. The institutional reactions to these influences are embodied in code. Second, we focus on the decision-making issues in the review process for code. This process determines the code's content and affects the dissemination of code through the decision whether to publicly release the code. We found these factors vary by institution. As a result, institutions differ in the values that they incorporate into code or communications technologies.

Computers and Society

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The core problem that this paper attempts to solve is to explore how different institutions are influenced by social, political, economic and legal factors when designing and developing communication technologies (especially Internet - related technologies), and how these influences are reflected in the final technological achievements. Specifically, the author has studied four different institutional environments - universities, enterprises, the open - source movement and consortia - and analyzed their different motivations, structures and responses to external influences when developing code (i.e., the hardware and software of communication technologies).

### Main problems of the paper
1. **Influence of different institutions on the design of communication technologies**:
- The author believes that the design of communication technologies is not autonomous but is influenced by the conflicts of different social groups. Therefore, the communication technologies designed by different institutions will embed different values.
- The research focuses on understanding how these institutions incorporate specific social values, such as privacy, freedom of speech and intellectual property protection, into the design process.

2. **Decision - making mechanisms of institutions in the code review process**:
- Different institutions have different standards and processes when deciding when to release code, which code to release and how to review code.
- For example, universities usually expect researchers to publicly release code, while enterprises pay more attention to economic benefits and may choose not to disclose certain code.

### Specific case studies
To explore these issues in depth, the author has selected four historical cases for analysis:
- **NCSA Mosaic**: The first popular web browser developed by the University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign.
- **Cookies**: A technology for maintaining user information developed by Netscape.
- **Apache Web server**: One of the most widely used Web servers developed by the open - source community.
- **PICS (Platform for Internet Content Selection)**: A content filtering platform developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).

### Main findings
- **Enterprises are mainly driven by consumer demand when developing code**, which may lead to some technologies considered unprofitable not being developed. For example, Netscape developed Cookies mainly to support e - commerce rather than to minimize privacy loss.
- **The development goals and structures of consortia are greatly influenced by the needs of their members**. For example, the development of PICS was to avoid government regulation, but it did not provide a sustainable economic model to encourage use.
- **There are significant differences in the code review processes of different institutions**. For example, university researchers have greater autonomy in deciding the content and release time of code, while the open - source movement adopts a transparent public comment mechanism, and anyone can comment on the code.

Through these analyses, the author aims to reveal the inherent tendencies of different institutions in developing communication technologies and their influence on code quality and social values, and to provide a basis for formulating normative suggestions for innovative code in the future.