Read Online Technocreep by Thomas P. Keenan - Free Book Online Page B
Authors: Thomas P. Keenan
Ads: Link
car making more efficient, the IBM 360/50 computer ensured that I got my paycheck on time and that the calculations were done right, as long as humans entered the data correctly.
Now, however, as biomedical and information technologies merge in seamless ways, we donât really know where we are going. Information will still be the spark, but our bodies and our entire lives are becoming the fuel.
It is clear that we should be thinking about the moral, ethical, and even spiritual dimensions of technology before it is too late. We know we will not get it 100% right, because some entrepreneur or hacker will always come up with something clever that we never anticipated. Thatâs why having a framework based on past experience can help. Itâs time to consider why some technologies strike us as being technocreepy.
Helen Nissenbaum has written extensively about âPrivacy as Contextual Integrity,â suggesting that a shared understanding of the norms of information use is key to protecting privacy. As she writes, âdemanding that information gathering and dissemination be appropriate to that context and obey the governing norms of distribution within itâ will provide a benchmark of privacy protection. 337 Nissenbaumâs ideas are explored in an article by Alexis Madrigal, which includes an excellent example of contextual privacy.
Madrigal notes that some people are offended by Googleâs Street View car even though they are standing in a public street and can be seen by their neighbors. Â âIf Iâm out in the street,â he writes, âI can see who can see me, and know whatâs happening. If Googleâs car buzzes by, I havenât agreed to that encounter. Ergo, privacy violation.â 338 The key criticism of Nissenbaumâs framework, Madrigal writes, is that âit rests on the ânormsâ that people expect.â
To explore what contextualized privacy really means to us, here is a model that illustrates some aspects that have emerged as common threads in the examples we have considered:
Figure 9. Dimensions of Technocreepiness. Concept by Thomas P. Keenan. Image created by N.R. Dekens.
In 2012, the New York Times described a controversial smartphones app called âGirls Around Meâ (GAM) as âTaking Creepy to a New Level.â 339 While itâs not quite true that GAM demonstrates every aspect of technocreepiness, it does come pretty close.
GAM allowed a smartphone user to snoop on strangers in the vicinity who had checked into the location-based Foursquare service. On the surface, that seems totally reasonable. If someone discloses their location on Foursquare, presumably they would like to be found, at least by some people. However, GAM also silently links back to the Facebook profiles of the subjects, which often contain a great deal of personal information.
So, the scenario goes, Bob, possibly encouraged by the real-time gender ratio in a bar presented on another app, such as SceneTap, sits down on a stool and orders a beer. He stealthily checks out all the women in the bar (this was gender specific, but other apps like Gays Around Me soon followed) and chooses Alice as an attractive possible companion.
Her Facebook profile, which she has not kept sufficiently private, discloses that she is not in a relationship; likes Italian cooking; and that her favorite band is The Barenaked Ladies. Her photos reveal even more details about her likes and dislikes. Armed with this conversation fodder, and with Alice totally unaware, Bob goes over for a chat â¦
Letâs run GAM against the Dimensions of Creepiness to see how it stacks up.
1. Known vs. Mysterious. Since a person may not even know of the existence of GAM, let alone that people around them are using it while pecking at their smartphones, the odds are good that this falls into the mysterious category. Also, in 2012 at least, few people had done much thinking about how different
Now, however, as biomedical and information technologies merge in seamless ways, we donât really know where we are going. Information will still be the spark, but our bodies and our entire lives are becoming the fuel.
It is clear that we should be thinking about the moral, ethical, and even spiritual dimensions of technology before it is too late. We know we will not get it 100% right, because some entrepreneur or hacker will always come up with something clever that we never anticipated. Thatâs why having a framework based on past experience can help. Itâs time to consider why some technologies strike us as being technocreepy.
Helen Nissenbaum has written extensively about âPrivacy as Contextual Integrity,â suggesting that a shared understanding of the norms of information use is key to protecting privacy. As she writes, âdemanding that information gathering and dissemination be appropriate to that context and obey the governing norms of distribution within itâ will provide a benchmark of privacy protection. 337 Nissenbaumâs ideas are explored in an article by Alexis Madrigal, which includes an excellent example of contextual privacy.
Madrigal notes that some people are offended by Googleâs Street View car even though they are standing in a public street and can be seen by their neighbors. Â âIf Iâm out in the street,â he writes, âI can see who can see me, and know whatâs happening. If Googleâs car buzzes by, I havenât agreed to that encounter. Ergo, privacy violation.â 338 The key criticism of Nissenbaumâs framework, Madrigal writes, is that âit rests on the ânormsâ that people expect.â
To explore what contextualized privacy really means to us, here is a model that illustrates some aspects that have emerged as common threads in the examples we have considered:
Figure 9. Dimensions of Technocreepiness. Concept by Thomas P. Keenan. Image created by N.R. Dekens.
In 2012, the New York Times described a controversial smartphones app called âGirls Around Meâ (GAM) as âTaking Creepy to a New Level.â 339 While itâs not quite true that GAM demonstrates every aspect of technocreepiness, it does come pretty close.
GAM allowed a smartphone user to snoop on strangers in the vicinity who had checked into the location-based Foursquare service. On the surface, that seems totally reasonable. If someone discloses their location on Foursquare, presumably they would like to be found, at least by some people. However, GAM also silently links back to the Facebook profiles of the subjects, which often contain a great deal of personal information.
So, the scenario goes, Bob, possibly encouraged by the real-time gender ratio in a bar presented on another app, such as SceneTap, sits down on a stool and orders a beer. He stealthily checks out all the women in the bar (this was gender specific, but other apps like Gays Around Me soon followed) and chooses Alice as an attractive possible companion.
Her Facebook profile, which she has not kept sufficiently private, discloses that she is not in a relationship; likes Italian cooking; and that her favorite band is The Barenaked Ladies. Her photos reveal even more details about her likes and dislikes. Armed with this conversation fodder, and with Alice totally unaware, Bob goes over for a chat â¦
Letâs run GAM against the Dimensions of Creepiness to see how it stacks up.
1. Known vs. Mysterious. Since a person may not even know of the existence of GAM, let alone that people around them are using it while pecking at their smartphones, the odds are good that this falls into the mysterious category. Also, in 2012 at least, few people had done much thinking about how different
Similar Books
