Norwegian University of Science and Technology (Cryptology and Social Life Workshop) By Mikaela Brough

 By Mikaela Brough (CDT in CyberSecurity 2022)

From December 11–12, I attended the Cryptology and Social Life Workshop in Trondheim, hosted by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). I was drawn to this workshop because the attendees comprised a unique academic mix — those whose work touches on, or is at least informed to some extent by, an interest in the socio-political and cultural implications of cryptographic technologies. Among the attendees were both social scientists (e.g., design anthropologists and sociologists) and cryptographers. What made the workshop distinctive was not only the topics of the talks, but the format itself. Each keynote was followed by extended small-group discussions, deliberately set up to bring together people from different disciplinary backgrounds. The result of this was not just a series of presentations, but in-depth conversations across fields that do not always share the same assumptions, methods, or vocabularies. 

In my research, I use an ethnographic approach to understand how people engaged in high-risk activism consider their information security practices. Through fieldwork methods, this work foregrounds the cultural framings of such practices (e.g., surrounding document storage systems, secure messaging patterns, device security protocols), through detailed analytical portraits of the everyday experiences of “building a movement and carrying our collective action” (Staggenborg, 2020, p. 14). I demonstrate that such analytical portraits are not only empirically interesting, but also useful for advancing design research that fosters civic and community participation. As I am currently in my final year of the CDT and have completed fieldwork, I was interested in how this particular crowd of social scientists and cryptographers would perceive this research, many of whom are involved in such design projects. To this end, I delivered a short 15-minute presentation.

During the first two years of my time in the CDT, I attended several conferences and workshops involving slightly different academic circles and fields. I wanted to conduct research that would be beneficial to participating groups and individuals, speak to security and privacy (S&P), and use language, ideas and methods entrenched in science and technology studies (STS). In order to achieve this, I attended events and gave a few talks in STS, S&P and, often, human-computer interaction (HCI), while also co-designing elements of the project with key participants. How should ethnographic knowledge, grounded in everyday experience and social relations, speak to the parameters of meaningful security design, while also materially benefitting participants? My work is also associated with the Social Foundations of Cryptography project, headed by Professor Rikke Bjerg Jensen and Professor Martin R. Albrecht (both of whom are my co-supervisors), an ethnographer and a cryptographer, respectively. In addition to the aforementioned engagements, I have therefore spent considerable time attending events geared more toward the cryptography community. One of the keynotes at the workshop was delivered by Rikke Bjerg Jensen, who gave an hour-and-a-half talk entitled “The Social Foundations of Cryptography: An Ethnography Talk”.

The Cryptology and Social Life Workshop spanned two days. The first day featured two talks (one from Rikke Bjerg Jensen on the Social Foundations of Cryptography Project, and the other from Phil Rogaway on his long-running ethics of computing course at UC Davis), while the second day featured one (from Jean-François Blanchette, on his monograph The Burdens of Proof). As mentioned, each talk was followed by 90 minutes of small-group discussion, structured around questions provided by the speakers to provoke critique and debate. In the discussion that followed Rikke’s talk, someone asked whether cryptography might be useful to ethnographers, rather than only the other way around — a premise central to both Rikke’s work and my own. More specifically, I was asked how my engagement with cryptographers over the years has shaped my research.

When analysing transcripts, fieldnotes, and workshop notes, I often think carefully about how people convey their experiences and habits as they relate to technology. Can we, as researchers, develop a stable understanding of these experiences, or are we fundamentally limited by the mediums and social dynamics through which they are filtered? My own thinking here has been shaped, in part, by interdisciplinary engagement, particularly conversations with cryptographers. How do we represent our partial knowledge of our fields? When do we claim authority, and when do we acknowledge limits? I suggested that because my research is fundamentally about working with people (through interviews, participation in daily activities, and facilitating workshops) I must continually reflect on how I make claims and whose knowledge those claims serve. Over time, speaking with scholars who think differently from me and challenge me has strengthened not only my methodological approach but also my relationships with research participants.

A really interesting part of any workshop or presentation are the discussions with people that show how they interpreted a given presentation, and what really stood out to them. What stands out varies so much, and I try and work different interpretations (and often responses to common questions) into my writing. This was especially beneficial at this workshop because I am currently working through a long and sometimes isolating thesis write-up (and trying to eke out some papers in different kinds of venues). Academics aside, the workshop was also very fun -- in the evening of the 11th, we did an organised art tour of a gallery in Trondheim and had dinner inside the gallery afterwards. It was a brilliant end to a workshop that felt as much about the flow of new ideas as about building effective interdisciplinary relationships.

                                                 
        

References:

Staggenborg, S. (2020). Grassroots environmentalism. Cambridge University Press.