Everyware_ The Dawning Age of Ubiquitous Computing - Adam Greenfield [88]
This is not paternalism; in fact, it's just the opposite. Where paternalism is the limitation of choice, all I am arguing for is that people be informed just what it is that they are being offered in everyware, at every step of the way, so they can make meaningful decisions about the place they wish it to have in their lives.
The remainder of this book will articulate some general principles we should observe in the development of ubiquitous computing to secure the interests of those people most affected by it.
Section 7.
How might We Safeguard Our Prerogatives in an Everyware World?
By now, our picture is essentially complete. We have a reasonably comprehensive understanding of the nature of ubiquitous computing and the forces involved in determining that nature.
How can we, as designers, users, and consumers, ensure that everyware contains provisions preserving our quality of life and safeguarding our fundamental prerogatives?
Thesis 70
It will not be sufficient simply to say, "First, do no harm."
We've agreed that, in order to protect the interests of everyone involved, it would be wise for us to establish some general principles guiding the ethical design and deployment of ubiquitous technology.
The most essential principle is, of course, first, do no harm. If everyone contemplating the development of everyware could be relied upon to take this simple idea to heart, thoughtfully and with compassion, there would be very little need to enunciate any of the following.
There are difficulties with such a laissez-faire approach, though. For one thing, it leaves entirely too much unspoken as to what constitutes harm, as to who is at risk, as to what the likely consequences of failure would be. It assumes that everyone developing everyware will do so in complete good faith and will always esteem the abstract-seeming needs of users more highly than market share, the profit motive, or the prerogatives of total information awareness. And, even where developers can be relied upon to act in good faith, it's simply not specific enough to constitute practically useful guidance.
The next best thing, then, is to develop a strategy for ethical development that does take these factors into account—something that spells out the issues in sufficient detail to be of use to developers, that strikes a balance between their needs and those of users, and that incentivizes compliance rather than punish noncompliance.
How might we go about designing such a strategy? Let's consider the fundamental nature of the challenge before us one last time, and with that fresh in mind, articulate a framework that should help us develop wiser, more useful, and more humane instantiations of everyware.
Thesis 71
We're not very good at doing "smart" yet, and we may never be.
After 230 pages in which we've explored the vast and sprawling terrain of everyware in a fair degree of detail, perhaps we would be safe in venturing some guesses about the deeper nature of its challenge.
At root, I see it this way: as a civilization, our production of high-technological artifacts does not yet display anything like the degree of insight, refinement and robustness that toolmakers, furniture artisans, and craftspeople have developed over the thousands of years of their collective endeavor. Our business practices and development methodologies, the complexity of our technology and even the intellectual frameworks we bring to the task, militate against our being able to do so.
Nor have we so far been able to design systems capable of producing inferences about behavior nearly as accurate as those