Jacques Berleur is professor at the Computer Science Faculty of the University of Namur (Belgium) since 1972, where he specializes in "Computers and Rationality" as well as in "Computers and Society" and in "Ethics of Computing". His research interests include epistemology of computing, technology assessment in the field of development and use of information and communication technology, social informatics, as well as ethics of computing. He is co-director of CITA (Cellule Interfacultaire de Technology Assessment), an interdisciplinary research team specialized in the assessment of information and communication technology.

J. Berleur: The first idea of having a TC within IFIP, which would handle social and societal questions in relation with "computers", goes back to a Conference convened by Heinz Zemanek in Vienna, in 1974. The title of the Conference is still the same today "Human Choice and Computers": we had the 6^th edition in Montreal, last summer.

The preliminary discussions for establishing formally TC9 suggested having 5 WGs dealing with the following topics: Computers and Privacy, Computers and Employment, Centralisation and Decentralisation, Man-Machine Symbiosis, and Ethical Codes for Persons Working with Computers.

TC9 was formally established in 1976: two years discussion were needed because Russian representatives were afraid to introduce such topics within "Computer Science", for the sake of "science neutrality". None of the mentioned titles was adopted as such. IFIP-TA and GA thought that 2 WGs would be sufficient: Computers and Work, and Social Accountability, both established in 1977. The first hosted also a successful SIG on Woman, Work and Computerisation, which became in 2001 a WG IT and Women; the second WG functioned as a kind of "umbrella" for the other issues. Five new WGs were established more than 10 years later, between 1988 and 1992, although the issues were surely in the preoccupation of the first days: IT and the home, the developing countries, risks and opportunities of AI - which became oriented towards virtual worlds, misuse and the law, history of computing.

But - and that would be the challenge of today - the issues at stake are so many than we should need a regiment of researchers and practitioners! As stressed by the 2003-04 work programme of the IST part (Information Society Technologies) of the European 6^th Research Framework Programme, "Socio-economic dimensions including societal and user needs as well as the impact of research and technology on the development of the information and knowledge-based society should be addressed as an integral part of each project." Long life to TC9!

Having a look at the new items of the 1998 & 2001 ACM Computing Classification System under the Header "Computing Milieux" could also give a first idea of the hot issues of today: literacy, abuse and crime, ethics, computer related health issues, use and abuse of power, assistive technologies for persons with disabilities, employment, intellectual property rights,… If one is not yet convinced, a glance at the issues as classified by the group called "People for Internet Responsibility" ( http://pfir.org/issues ) will suffice: surely more than one hundred!

J. Berleur: We are dealing, as stated in our Aims and Scope, with non purely technical questions: "TC9 is not concerned with computer developments which are strictly technical, or developments in which there is no scientific or technical component."

Going along my reflections in Question 1, I would deepen some of the issues and raise the question if there is fundamental change, or not. Work was since the beginning at the core of the work of WG9.1, but mainly in terms of conditions of work, skilling, participatory design, etc. Today, although those questions are still on the agenda, there are some new questions raised by the globalisation: work is confronted with the question of employability, flexibility, competence more than skill, confusion between home and workplace,… Computer Crime was surely the preoccupation of Donn Parker - his book is dated 1976. But now we are dealing with Cybercriminality, as expressed by the International Convention n°185 of the Council of Europe, signed by the Member States, but also by the USA, Canada, South Africa, and Japan: Cyber Crime is not anymore only "collecting cents" from bank accounts! Privacy has also been always one of the primary issue in the field of "Computers and Society", but it has also taken the form of surveillance, of "dataveillance", through all sort of devices invented by computer scientists, and which are embedded in the software itself. Cookies and spam belong to our daily life! The tension between free flow of information and data protection is still at the centre of many passionate debates, as it was at the time of the OECD Guidelines, and the post 9/11 atmosphere does not help very much in promoting legislative measures world-wide: business and security seem the winners.

It is interesting to go back and see the proposed course on Computers and Society by E. Horowitz et al. (Communications of the ACM, April 1972, vol. 15, Nr 4, pp. 261 ff.): most of the current issues - at least as the "broad titles" are concerned - were in a way identified. I should surely not say that there is "no change under the sun" (Nihil novi sub sole), but that our vigilance must increase since the problems are as ubiquitous as the technologies themselves. There is surely something that has changed: problems have expanded, if not exploded. Moreover, there is today a higher tension between the necessity of keeping a holistic approach of these problems and the necessity to tackle them with rigorous methodology.

J. Berleur: I deeply share the view of Giorgio. IFIP must find its way to prevent the so-called "digital divide" to become a new slogan. What we need is acts. IFIP as a scientific and professional community with so many member Societies from the developing world must become a real forum where their needs are expressed and analysed, and where we should avoid to reduplicate the Western world. We should be also more present in the places where those issues are handled.

I am also deeply convinced that IFIP must play a role in imagining alternate solutions, and not go only along the line of the "dominant thought". It is an urgent responsibility to explore new societies. In Europe, everything is now "e" something: eResearch, eSecurity, eWorking, eLearnning, eAccessibility, eCommerce, eGovernement, eHealth, eContent, eTransport, etc. Even Europe seems to be "reshaped": it is now, by the virtue of ICT thinking, eEurope, i.e. Europe Inc., as commented by the Financial Times (March 25, 2000). Everything is merchandised.

The IFIP political "neutrality" was perhaps "politically correct" at the time of the cold war. Is it still so? We must affirm that today science and technology are not anymore value free, value neutral: there are choices. The challenge for IFIP is to make all of us responsible together for our future, by empowering the users so that they become actors.

Finally, I would add that, if we want to go along that path, we need to refresh constantly our ideas: therefore we also need young forces and new blood. IFIP is challenged by many other organisations, sometimes with real vested interests: let us keep our genuine spirit and share it with youngers.