Contemporary concerns over the governance of technological systems often run up against narratives about the technical infeasibility of designing mechanisms for accountability. While in recent AI ethics literature these concerns have been deliberated predominantly in relation to ML, other instances in computing history also presented circumstances in which computer scientists needed to un-muddle what it means to design accountable systems. One such compelling narrative can be found in canonical histories of the Internet that highlight how its original designers' commitment to the "End-to-End" architectural principle precluded other features from being implemented, resulting in the fast-growing, generative, but ultimately unaccountable network we have today. This paper offers a critique of such technologically essentialist notions of accountability and the characterization of the "unaccountable Internet" as an unintended consequence. It explores the changing meaning of accounting and its relationship to accountability in a selected corpus of requests for comments (RFCs) concerning the early Internet's design from the 1970s and 80s. We characterize four ways of conceptualizing accounting: as billing, as measurement, as management, and as policy, and demonstrate how an understanding of accountability was constituted through these shifting meanings. We link together the administrative and technical mechanisms of accounting for shared resources in a distributed system and an emerging notion of accountability as a social, political, and technical category, arguing that the former is constitutive of the latter. Recovering this history is not only important for understanding the processes that shaped the Internet, but also serves as a starting point for unpacking the complicated political choices that are involved in designing accountability mechanisms for other technological systems today.
翻译:对技术系统治理的当代关切往往与关于设计问责机制在技术上不可行的叙述相悖。虽然在最近的大赦国际道德操守文献中,这些关切主要是在与ML有关的方面得到讨论,但计算历史中的其他事例也揭示了计算机科学家需要将设计问责系统的含义混为一谈的情况。这种令人信服的叙述可见于因特网的教条史中,它突出其原始设计者对“上至下”建筑原则的承诺如何使其他特征无法实施,导致我们今天拥有的网络迅速发展、发扬光大、但最终无法问责。本文批评了这种技术基础主义的问责制概念以及“不负责的互联网”的描述,认为这是一个意想不到的后果。它探讨了会计的改变意义及其与问责制的关系,在互联网早期设计自1970年代和80年代开始的建筑原则时,它突出了最初设计者对“上至下”建筑原则的承诺,这导致会计概念化的四种方式:作为衡量、计量、作为管理、以及作为政策而最终无法问责的网络。本文还批评了这种技术基础主义的问责制概念,在当今的会计和会计制度中逐渐形成一种重要的政治概念时,我们只能把会计和会计制度中的一种技术结构联系起来。