Comments on All watched over by machines of loving grace: Some ethical guidelines for user experience in ubiquitous-computing settings [1]

Antiwikipedia.com Antiwikipedia.com — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:55 GMT

Excellent article. I’ve linked it from http://www.antiwikipedia.com
See: TransEthics and TranshumanSpace

Artie Turner — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:09 GMT

A great article. I sympathize with Greenfield’s skepticism of ubicomp, and his principles for developers are well reasoned. But is ubicomp really inevitable?

I don’t see the kind of solid business case(s) to spur the kind of investment needed for the Greenfield’s future, at least not in the US.

If there’s going to be a ubicomp boom, I would expect the Chinese to be leading the way.

Robert C. Worstell — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:09 GMT

Reminds me of Azimov’s Robot Laws, which was another future-looking view of ubicomp.

Metropolitan areas will be more affected by this than rural areas. While GPS will be nearly universal in modern cars and trucks, and satellites overhead already can (and probably do) photograph any area of interest to anyone watching, the need for supervision of a few individuals over many geographic miles is less rewarding than supervising a few million people within a single square mile or less.

So the “Digital Divide” which already slows rural areas from adopting infrastructure which ubicomp would need in order to thrive would also protect those same areas from the supervision.

A point would be to watch for FCC utilization for Federal or other governmental agencies when Digital TV upgrades to two-way systems, much as satellite computers already use – and pay per view, which utilizes telephone uplinks – and could autodial based on usage, or use any phone call as a carrier to get its data out and up to a central database system…

These would be the first points of inroad: Sattelite TV/radio, always-on computer networks via broadband, GPS systems, and cellular phones. In-home networking with IPv6 would be next, since all sorts of computer-enhanced equipment (security system, refrigerator, heating and cooling – even wireless self-starting mechanisms from the car) these could then be the promulgation of ubicomp.

Again, rural areas will be less affected than newer condominiums in/around urban areas which tend to be “breaking edge” in design in order to attract upscale customers. Similarly, inner city areas will also be longer to adopt these “advances.” Where there is the fastest ROI will be the proving ground and fastest expansion of ubicomp.

hect — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:09 GMT

interesting piece thanks.

Christopher Fahey — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:09 GMT

I wonder if the “opt out” criteria isn’t a little backwards. Won’t most people wish to spend the majority of their time “out” of the system, or at least mostly out of the system?

I’d rather see this criteria reversed, with the default mode of a ubicomp world being more compatible with the natural state of the human psyche: solitary and private. You can “opt in” at will, and you can immerse yourself only as far as suits your mood or needs. Some will spend every waking hour immersed in ubicomp, but others may only keep their toes wet enough to be able to stay on top of urgent issues or to receive communications from friends and loved ones. This is the difference between leaving your cell phone at home (or even taking it with you but with the ringer turned off) and being an annoying crackberry addict.

I’m not a Luddite, but I find it hard to imagine a world (in the near future at least) where it would not be considered impolite to have one’s attentions focused on digital activities while engaged in the intimate physical company of other human beings. Nor do I find it appealing to live in a world where my privacy and indeed the solitude of my own mind is considered the exception, not the rule. I want to choose to step in. I don’t want to have to remember to choose to step out.

And again, this is not an “all or nothing” deal. One can be “plugged in” only enough to access one’s personal files on-demand, or to make one’s attention freely accessible only to one’s closest friends, without opening the floodgates and transforming oneself into a constant target for needy employers and persistent digital marketeers. But even informal, benign modes of ubicomp should be acts of volition, of deliberate choice. At least for the near future, the default mode should be nothing: no net, no computers.

You begin each day naked and alone in your own mind, and you take a series of deliberate steps to “jack in” to the ubicomp world. And you end the day as you began it. I shouldn’t have to remember to unplug myself before going to sleep.

It’s bad enough that I sometimes forget to turn off my cel phone when I’m at a nice restaurant with good friends.

-Cf

AG — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:09 GMT

Anyone want to start an approval facility?

I think that’s a splendid idea. It would be nice to be able to offer users, consumers, or subjects the information that a panel of knowledgeable people have found the system they’re using meets the Good Housekeeping Seal Of Approval.

It’s a starting place, a basis for informed choice.

CD Evans — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:09 GMT

Hello, yes indeed a great article.

I found that I naturally found myself following ethics similar to the above ethical guidelines on the gizmondo, and that it was difficult not to meet them just out of good design logic (though I’m not sure how close the final deign will be to my suggestions). I could see from this that some projects might not have the ability to design as thoroughly, especially as business motivations may breach a few of these guidelines. In this case, it was advertisements which may or may not be ‘directed’ at the gamer.

It may be that we need a form of these guidelines, not for ourselves, but for the businesses that we represent, in order to be ‘approved’ as ethical experiences. I would even motion that we should start a movement towards this, where products are ‘verified’ and perhaps even given awards where they are particularly experience-able.

This could be subjective as well. And I would say that there should be a few of these models of ideal interactions, and none of them should be prescriptions, only just validations for a certain audience.

Anyone want to start an approval facility?

Michael Honey — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:09 GMT

Great article: I haven’t had time to think through all the implications yet, but some thoughts follow.

I feel that “Principle 5 – Be Deniable” (perhaps “refusable” would be better here) deserves primacy. I’m thinking of the opter-out, who has chosen, for whatever reason, to not avail themselves of ubicomp opportunities – perhaps on this occasion only, perhaps all the time. This person might be a general objector to invasive/ubicomp augmentation, a “natural”, or they may just be wanting to work/play incognito. (The desire for anonymity might imply another principle – that an anonymous option always be available).

Should not this person be offered at least a minimal functionality (via a non-ubicomp interface, for example) which is their right? (I’m thinking here of fundamental public infrastructures such as the Disch elevator example, not private/optional niceties.)

I think there’s an off-topic but interesting discussion to be had here regarding the naturals vs. augmented humans in, say, the job market. No doubt, even in the face of possible legislation, there will be some professions which will be de facto only open to augmented individuals [or gestalts…]: should naturals be somehow compensated(/for)?

justin m — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:09 GMT

Unfortunately, many average people won’t think about such things until somebody tells them to be worried. That is why internet explorer is still so popular, phishing scams are so prevelant, and Nigerian princes ask me for assistance every other day.

I fear it is a situation where the public will have to be educated and re-educated on a daily basis. What such systems will need is a safeguard that will ensure all these things before an individual piece is allowed to go online and connect with the rest of the network. But how do you promise and ensure those kinds of ethics and morals on the world though?

Martin — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:52:09 GMT

A validly argued case, and one which far too few people will undoubtedly take to heart.

I can’t help but think “This is how it should be done, but will the uncomprehending masses not dismiss it as not economically viable?”

In the end, it might all be about helping people understand the importance of often not-thought-of things, and asking them to entrust care of these to those who do think of them…