strong provenance built on data signatures will identify content producers. Strong provenance will enhance trust in, and security of, content, while simultaneously complicating anonymous information production. Strong provenance may also help content producers identify infringing content, and signatures provide a mechanism to help producers secure content with encryption-based access control. But pervasive storage and request/response data exchange will challenge producers interested in content control and geographic access restrictions. Finally, network neutrality is a complicated outcome to predict. Future decisions in naming and routing may hinder network neutrality, as the use of names for routing could facilitate new forms of traffic discrimination. At the same time, NDN will promote increased competition among network operators by enabling applications to efficiently route around infrastructure that constrains their traffic.

This article has sought to address policy and social implications of the network that are significant departures from today’s IP Internet. As such, it has not addressed Internet policy topics that remain closely tied to existing challenges in IP, which are areas for future work. For example, NDN faces challenges in globally routable naming rights management similar to those of IP. We have also not addressed application-level policy issues such as the relationship between advertising data collection and privacy or application-level regulations such as accessibility requirements or required geolocation services such as E911.

However, identifying open questions
relevant to the network layers illustrates
an advantage of anticipatory policy stud-
ies. Analyzing potential social and policy
impacts of the NDN architecture can
help prioritize research questions with-
in the NDN project and broader con-
tent-centric networking initiatives. The
practical impact of NDN will depend
on future directions in several open re-
search areas: ( 1) balancing meaningful
names to simplify application develop-
ment with opaque names to protect pri-
vacy; ( 2) standardizing mechanisms for
cryptographic key assignment, distri-
bution and revocation; ( 3) developing
usable design patterns for managing
trust in a broad range of applications;
( 4) providing usable, secure imple-
mentations of more complex multi-
participant encryption schemes; and
( 5) creating fair congestion manage-
ment to enable network neutrality.
Most of NDN’s potential policy im-
pacts are speculative, in part because
we are exploring them while the architec-
ture design is still evolving. Yet imagining
the social changes NDN might encour-
age during the design process provides
opportunities for pro-social computing
research. We hope this work will spark
continuing discussion of the current and
future Internet’s impact on society. Think-
ing creatively about changes can help us
better understand the relationship be-
tween infrastructure and our world.

Acknowledgments. The authors thank Van Jacobson, David D. Clark, Paul Ohm, Charles Duan, Steven Bellovin, and anonymous reviewers for feedback and ideas that shaped this work. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant numbers CNS-1040868, CNS-1421876, and CNS-1345318.

 

References

1. Afanasyev, A., Mahadevan, P., Moiseenko, I., Uzun, E. and Zhang, L. Interest flooding attack and countermeasures in Named Data Networking.

IFIP Net working Conference, 2013, 1–9.

2. Agyapong, P. K. and Sirbu, M. Economic incentives in information-centric networking: Implications for protocol design and public policy. IEEE Commun. Mag. 50, 12 (2012), 18–26; http://doi.org/10.1109/ MCOM.2012.6384447

3. Bannis, A. and Burke, J.A. Creating a secure, integrated home net work of things with Named Data Networking.

UCLA, 2015, Los Angeles, CA.

4. Baxter, G. and Sommerville, I. 2011. Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering.

Interacting with Computers 23, 1 (2011), 4–17; http://doi. org/10.1016/ j.intcom.2010.07.003

5. Bendrath, R. and Mueller, M. The end of the net as we know it? Deep packet inspection and Internet governance. New Media & Society 13, 7 (2011),

1142–1160.

6. Best, M.L. and Wade, K. W. Democratic and antiDemocratic regulators of the Internet: A framework. The Information Society 23, 5 (2007), 405–411; http://doi. org/10.1080/01972240701575684

7. Blanchette, J.-F. and Johnson, D.G. Data retention and the panoptic society: the social benefits of forgetfulness.

The Information Society 18 (2002), 33–45.

8. Burke, J. A., Gasti, P., Nathan, N. and Tsudik, G. Securing instrumented environments over content-centric networking: the case of lighting control. In Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOMM 2013 NOMEN Workshop. Retrieved Aug. 7, 2015; http://named-data.net/publications/nomen13/

9. Chaabane, A., De Cristofaro, E., Kaafar, M.A. and Uzun, E. 2013. Privacy in content-oriented networking: Threats and countermeasures. SIGCOMM Comput.

Commun. Rev. 43, 3 (2013), 25–33; http://doi. org/10.1145/2500098.2500102

10. Citron, D. K. Civil rights in our information age. In The offensive internet: privacy, speech, and reputation.

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA and London,

2010, 31–49.

11. Clark, D.D., Bauer, S., Lehr, W. et al. Measurement and analysis of Internet interconnection and congestion.

In Proceedings of the 42nd Research Conference on Communication, Information, and Internet Policy. Social Science Research Network, 2014. Retrieved Aug. 17, 2015; http://papers.ssrn.com.pr oxy-um.researchport. umd.edu/abstract=2417573

12. Clark, D.D., Wroclawski, J., Sollins, K.R. and Braden, R.

Tussle in cyberspace: Defining tomorrow’s Internet. In Proceedings of the 2002 Conference on Applications, Technologies, Architectures, and Protocols for Computer Communications, ACM, 347–356; http://doi. org/10.1145/633025.633059

13. Cohen, J.E. A right to read anonymously: A closer look at “copyright management” in cyberspace. Connecticut Law Review 28 (1996), 981–1039.

14. Compagno, A. Conti, M., Gasti, P. and Tsudik, G. Poseidon: Mitigating interest flooding DDoS attacks in Named Data Networking. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 38th Conference on Local Computer Networks, 630–638; http://doi.org/10.1109/LCN.2013.6761300

15. Cooke, L. 2007. Controlling the net: European approaches to content and access regulation. Journal of Information Science 33, 3 (2007), 360–376; http://doi. org/10.1177/0165551506072163

16. DeNardis. L. Hidden levers of internet control. Information, Communication & Society 15, 5 (2012), 720–738; http://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.659199

17. DiBenedetto, S., Gasti, P., Tsudik, G. and Uzun, E. ANDaNA: Anonymous Named Data Networking application. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Network & Distributed System Security Symposium, Internet Society. Retrieved June 26, 2012; http://arxiv.org/ abs/1112.2205

18. Fu, W., Abraham, H.B. and Crowley, P. Synchronizing namespaces with invertible bloom filters. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE Symposium on Architectures for Networking and Communications Systems. IEEE Computer Society, 123–134. Retrieved Aug. 17, 2015; http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2772722.2772740

19. Gillespie, T. Wired Shut: Copyright and the Shape of Digital Culture. The MIT Press, 2009.

20. Google transparency report. 2005. Retrieved Aug. 17, 2015; http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/ removals/copyright/

21. Jacobson, V., Smetters, D.K., Thornton, J.D., Plass, M., Briggs, N. and Braynard, R. Networking named content. Commun. ACM 55, 1 (Jan. 2012), 117–124; http://doi. org/10.1145/2063176.2063204

22. Lessig, L. Code: Version 2.0. Basic Books, New York, NY, 2006.

23. Mayer-Schoenberger, V. Useful Void: The Art of Forgetting in the Age of Ubiquitous Computing. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 2007.

24. Pfaffenberger, B. Technological dramas. Science, Technology & Human Values 17, 3 (1992), 282–312.

25. Phillips, D.J. From privacy to visibility: Context, identity, and po wer in ubiquitous computing environments. Social Text 23, 2 (2005), 95–108.

26. Richards, N.M. The perils of social reading. Georgetown Law Journal 101, 3 (2013). Retrieved Apr. 15, 2012; http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=2031307

27. Rosen, J. The right to be forgotten. Stanford Law Review Online 64 (2012), 88.

28. Shang, W., Ding, Q., Marianantoni, A., Burke, J. and Zhang, L. Securing building management systems using named data networking. IEEE Network 28, 3 (2014), 50–56; http://doi.org/10.1109/MNET.2014.6843232

29. Yu, Y., Afanasyev, A., Clark, D., claffy, kc, Jacobson, V.
and Zhang, L. Schematizing and automating trust in
Named Data Networking. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM
Conference on Information-Centric Networking. ACM, 2015.
30. Yu, Y., Afanasyev, A. and Zhang, L. Name-based access
control. University of California Los Angeles, CA, 2015.
31. Zhang, L. Estrin, D., Burke, J.A. et al. Named Data
Networking Tech Report 001. University of California
Los Angeles, CA, 2010. Retrieved Sept. 8, 2014; http://
named-data.net/publications/techreports/tr001ndn-proj/

Katie Shilton ( [e-mail]) is an assistant professor of information studies at the University of Maryland, College Park.

Jeffrey A. Burke ( [e-mail]) is the assistant dean, technology and innovation, in the School of Theater, Film and Television at the University of California, Los Angeles. kc claffy ( [e-mail]) is the founder and director of the Center for Applied Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA) at the University of California, San Diego.

Lixia Zhange ( [e-mail]) is the Jonathan B. Poste; Professor of Computer Science at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Copyright held by authors.