|
 |
 |
|
Surveillance - Empirical studies on surveillance cameras.
|
 |
Shah, R. C., & Braithwaite, J. (2012). Spread Too Thin: Analyzing the Effectiveness of the Chicago Camera Network on Crime. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal
|
|
|
Shah, R.C. (2010). Effectiveness of Red Light Cameras in Chicago: An Exploratory Analysis
|
|
|
| |
Open Standards – Open standards are
publicly available specifications that offer a wealth of economic
and technological benefits. Governments around the world
are considering mandating open standards, especially in the
area of document formats. |
|
Shah, R.C., Kesan, J. P., & Kennis A. Lessons
for Government Adoption of Open Standards: A Case Study of
the Massachusetts Policy (2008). Journal of Information
Technology & Politics
5(4), 387-398. A publicly available draft
is at SSRN. |
|
Shah, R.C., & Kesan, J.P. (2012). Lost in Translation: Interoperability Issues for Open Standards. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 8(1), 113-141. |
|
Shah, R. C., & Kesan, J. P. (draft). An
Empirical Study of Open Standards. (A revised version
won Best
Paper Award for E-Government Track at HICSS 41) |
| |
|
| |
Role of Defaults - Defaults are pre-selected options chosen
by the manufacturer or the software developer. Users tend to
defer to these pre-selected options. Policymakers can take
advantage of this deference in setting defaults |
|
Shah, R. C., & Kesan, J. P. (2008). Setting
Online Policy With Software Defaults. Information, Communication, and Society
11(7), 989-1007. |
|
Shah, R.C., & Sandvig, C. (2008). Defaults
as De Facto Regulation: The Case of Wireless Access Points.
Information, Communication and Society, 11(1), 25-46. |
|
Kesan, J. P., & Shah, R.C. (2006). Setting
Software Defaults: Perspectives from Law, Computer Science
and Behavioral Economics. Notre Dame Law Review, 82(2),
583-634. |
| |
|
| |
How Software (and Architecture) Affects Users -
This work has largely focused on identifying features or characteristics
of code that have significance in regulating behavior. These
characteristics are manipulable and are considered governance
characteristics, because of their ability to differentially
influence behavior. This work has led us to focus on open standards
and defaults. |
|
Shah, R. C., & Kesan, J. P. (2007). How
Architecture Regulates. Journal of Architectural and
Planning Research, 24(4), 350-359. |
|
Shah, R. C., & Kesan, J. P. (2003). Manipulating
the Governance Characteristics of Code. Info, 5(4), 3-9. |
| |
|
| |
Development of Software - This work focuses on the development
of software with an emphasis on the role of several institutions
including universities, firms, consortia, and the open source
movement is examined. For each institution, the analysis examines
their internal processes and norms that affect the development
process. The analysis also examines how each institution emphasizes
different social and technical attributes that are embedded
in code. |
|
Shah, R. C., & Kesan, J. P. (2009). Recipes
for Cookies: How Institutions Shape Communication Technologies.
New Media & Society, 11(3), 315-336.
|
|
Shah, R. C., & Kesan, J. P. (2005). Nurturing
Software: How Societal Institutions Shape the Development
of Software. Communications of the ACM, 40(9), 80-85. |
|
Kesan, J. P., & Shah, R. C. (2004). Deconstructing
Code. Yale Journal of Law & Technology, 6, 277-389. |
|
Shah, R. C., & Kesan, J. P. (2003). Incorporating
Societal Concerns into Communication Technologies. IEEE
Technology and Society Magazine, 22(2), 28-33. |
| |
|
| |
How Government Can Shape Software - Government can influence
the development of code in many ways. This section focuses
on the government’s regulatory power, fiscal power, and
the ability to influence intellectual property rights. |
|
Kesan, J. P., & Shah, R. C. (2005). Shaping
Code. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 18(2),
319-399. |
| |
|
| |
History of the Internet - The Internet's origins date back
to the 1960s with government funded research into computer
networks. This work traces the history and implications of
shifting control over the Internet to the private sector, a
process called privatization. |
|
Shah, R. C., & Kesan, J. P. (2007). The
Privatization of the Internet's Backbone Network. Journal
of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 51(1), 93-109. |
|
Kesan, J. P., & Shah, R. C. (2001). Fool
Us Once Shame on You - Fool Us Twice Shame on Us: What We
Can Learn from the Privatizations of the Internet Backbone
Network and the Domain Name System. Washington University
Law Quarterly, 79(1), 89-220. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
