data

Dig out your tinfoil hat! Consumer neurotech is here to stay – and it needs more scrutiny

/ Fiona J McEvoy / Leave a comment

“Thoughts are free and subject to no rule. On them rests the freedom of man, and they tower above the light of nature”

Philippus Aureolus Paracelsus (1493-1541)

This week, Facebook Reality Labs revealed the latest piece of hardware gadgetry that it hopes will introduce eager consumers to a new world of augmented and mixed reality. The wristband is a type of technology known as a neural — or brain-computer — interface, and can read the electrical nerve signals our brain sends to our muscles and interpret them as instructions.

In other words, you don’t have to move. You can just *think* your movements.

You’d be forgiven for wondering if we’ve evolved too far..

A jazzy, high production video features grinning young San Francisco-type execs describing this new, immersive experience. They’ve invented it, and they’ll be damned if they aren’t going to foist it upon us.  “The wrist is a great starting point for us technologically,” one chirps, “because it opens up new and dynamic forms of control.” Quite. 

Continue reading →

Here Are Five Reasons Consumers Won’t Buy Your Smart Home Device

/ Fiona J McEvoy / 1 Comment

This blog was originally posted on the Hill + Knowlton Strategies website.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Hl3QN85Gk5yd72A0J5GBI-kZ9DeAyDBAHOEFcMaTu5pXWXBpxdN16bgst-RwRs7O_2Nl3p3OGmi_Tv62ecEZ1cgEriJyW-SSJTG7IgA2IEZsIvzhKVGR4TtZiqBZE0qKNwGc-lBH
The Aware Home

In 2000, a group of researchers at Georgia Tech launched a project they called “The Aware Home.” The collective of computer scientists and engineers built a three-story experimental home with the intent of producing an environment that was “capable of knowing information about itself and the whereabouts and activities of its inhabitants.” The team installed a vast network of “context aware sensors” throughout the house and on wearable computers worn by the home’s occupants. The hope was to establish an entirely new domain of knowledge — one that would create efficiencies in home management, improve health and well-being, and provide support for groups like the elderly.

Continue reading →

From Pandemic to Panopticon: Are We Habituating Aggressive Surveillance?

/ Fiona J McEvoy / 1 Comment

lego-1044891_1920

In Shoshana Zuboff’s 2019 book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, she recalls the response to the launch of Google Glass in 2012. Zuboff describes public horror, as well as loud protestations from privacy advocates who were deeply concerned that the product’s undetectable recording of people and places threatened to eliminate “a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy and/or anonymity.” 

Zuboff describes the product:

Google Glass combined computation, communication, photography, GPS tracking, data retrieval, and audio and video recording capabilities in a wearable format patterned on eyeglasses. The data it gathered — location, audio, video, photos, and other personal information — moved from the device to Google’s servers.

At the time, campaigners warned of a potential chilling effect on the population if Google Glass were to be married with new facial recognition technology, and in 2013 a congressional privacy caucus asked then Google CEO Larry Page for assurances on privacy safeguards for the product. 

Eventually, after visceral public rejection, Google parked Glass in 2015 with a short blog announcing that they would be working on future versions. And although we never saw the relaunch of a follow-up consumer Glass, the product didn’t disappear into the sunset as some had predicted. Instead, Google took the opportunity to regroup and redirect, unwilling to turn its back on the chance of harvesting valuable swathes of what Zuboff terms “behavioral surplus data”, or cede this wearables turf to a rival. 

Continue reading →

The Problem with Next Generation Virtual Assistants

/ Fiona J McEvoy / Leave a comment

33433114056_ff8bc048f1_b

It may not seem like it, but there is quite an arms race going on when it comes to interactive AI and virtual assistants. Every tech company wants their offering to be more intuitive…more human. Yet although they’re improving, voice activated tech like Alexa and Siri are still pretty clunky, and often underwhelming in their interactions.

This obviously isn’t great if developers want to see them entering the workplace in such a way as to supercharge sales.  Continue reading →

Want Artificial Intelligence that cares about people? Ethical thinking needs to start with the researchers

/ Fiona J McEvoy / Leave a comment

We’re delighted to feature a guest post from Grainne Faller and Louise Holden of the Magna Carta For Data initiative.

The project was established in 2014 by the Insight Centre for Data Analytics  – one of the largest data research centres in Europe – as a statement of its commitment to ethical data research within its labs, and the broader global movement to embed ethics in data science research and development.

Magna Carta For Data 1

A self-driving car is hurtling towards a group of people in the middle of a narrow bridge. Should it drive on, and hit the group? Or should it drive off the bridge, avoiding the group of people but almost certainly killing its passenger? Now, what about if there are three people on the bridge but five people in the car? Can you – should you – design algorithms that will change the way the car reacts depending on these situations?

This is just one of millions of ethical issues faced by researchers of artificial intelligence and big data every hour of every day around the world. Continue reading →

6 Tech Terms Every Adult Should Learn About To Avoid Being Left Behind

/ Fiona J McEvoy / Leave a comment

adults

Not for the first time, Apple CEO Tim Cook has spoken out this week about how important it is for children to learn computer code. He’s not alone in believing that this “language of the future” will be critical for kids growing up right now. In a sea of unknowns one thing appears to be certain: technical understanding is a very valuable asset indeed.

It’s interesting then, that in spite of remarkable efforts to equip the adults of tomorrow with such skills, very little is being done to familiarize young adults, middle-aged parents, or retirees (with impressively long-life expectancies!) with the signature terms of the “AI Age”. This seems a like an oversight. Continue reading →

Bots may be determining all our futures

/ Fiona J McEvoy / Leave a comment

social bots

We’ve all seen the stories and allegations of Russian bots manipulating the Trump-Clinton US election and, most recently, the FCC debate on net neutrality. Yet far from such high stakes arenas, there’s good reason to believe these automated pests are also contaminating data used by firms and governments to understand who we (the humans) are, as well as what we like and need with regard to a broad range of things… Continue reading →

10 real-world ethical concerns for virtual reality

/ Fiona J McEvoy / 1 Comment

virtual reality.jpeg

There are lots of emerging ideas about how virtual reality (VR) can be used for the betterment of society – whether it be inspiring social change, or training surgeons for delicate medical procedures.

Nevertheless, as with all new technologies, we should also be alive to any potential ethical concerns that could re-emerge as social problems further down the line. Here I list just a few issues that should undoubtedly be considered before we brazenly forge ahead in optimism.

1.   Vulnerability

When we think of virtual reality, we automatically conjure images of clunky headsets covering the eyes – and often the ears – of users in order to create a fully immersive experience. There are also VR gloves, and a growing range of other accessories and attachments. Though the resultant feel might be hyper-realistic, we should also be concerned for people using these in the home – especially alone. Having limited access to sense data leaves users vulnerable to accidents, home invasions, and any other misfortunes that can come of being totally distracted.

2.   Social isolation

There’s a lot of debate around whether VR is socially isolating. On the one hand, the whole experience takes place within a single user’s field-of-vision, which obviously excludes others from physically participating alongside them. On the other hand, developers like Facebook have been busy inventing communal meeting places like Spaces, which help VR users meet and interact in a virtual social environment. Though – as argued –  the latter could be helpfully utilized by the introverted and lonely (e.g. seniors), there’s also a danger that it could become the lazy and dismissive way of dealing with these issues. At the other end of the spectrum, forums like Spaces may also end-up “detaching” users by leading them to neglect their real-world social connections. Whatever the case, studies show that real face-to-face interactions are a very important factor in maintaining good mental health. Substituting them with VR would be ill-advised.

3.   Desensitization

It is a well-acknowledged danger that being thoroughly and regularly immersed in a virtual reality environment may lead some users to become desensitized in the real-world – particularly if the VR is one in which the user experiences or perpetrates extreme levels of violence. Desensitization means that the user may be unaffected (or less affected) by acts of violence, and could fail to show empathy as a result. Some say that this symptom is already reported amongst gamers who choose to play first person shooters or roleplay games with a high degree of immersion.

4.   Overestimation of abilities

Akin to desensitization, is the problem of users overestimating their ability to perform virtual feats just as well in the real-world. This is especially applicable to children and young people who could take it that their expertise in tightrope walking, parkour, or car driving will transfer seamlessly over to non-virtual environments…

5.   Psychiatric

There could also be more profound and dangerous psychological effects on some users (although clearly there are currently a lot of unknowns). Experts in neuroscience and the human mind have spoken of “depersonalization”, which can result in a user believing their own body is an avatar. There is also a pertinent worry that VR might be swift to expose psychiatric vulnerabilities in some users, and spark psychotic episodes. Needless to say, we must identify the psychological risks and symptoms ahead of market saturation, if that is an inevitability

6.   Unpalatable fantasies

If there’s any industry getting excited about virtual reality, it’s the porn industry (predicted to be the third largest VR sector by 2025, after gaming and NFL-related content). The website Pornhub is already reporting that views of VR content are up 225% since it debuted in 2016. This obviously isn’t an ethical problem in and of itself, but it does become problematic if/when “unpalatable” fantasies become immersive. We have to ask: should there be limitations on uber realistic representations of aggressive, borderline-pedophilic, or other more perverse types of VR erotica? Or outside of the realm of porn, to what extent is it okay to make a game out of the events of 9/11, as is the case with the 08.46 simulator?

7.   Torture/virtual criminality

There’s been some suggestion that VR headsets could be employed by the military as a kind of “ethical” alternative to regular interrogatory torture. Whether this is truth or rumor, it nevertheless establishes a critical need to understand the status of pain, damage, violence, and trauma inflicted by other users in a virtual environment – be it physical or psychological. At what point does virtual behavior constitute a real-world criminal act?

8.   Manipulation

Attempts at corporate manipulation via flashy advertising tricks are not new, but up until now they’ve been 2-dimensional. As such, they’ve had to work hard compete with our distracted focus. Phones ringing, babies crying, traffic, conversations, music, noisy neighbors, interesting reads, and all the rest. With VR, commercial advertisers essentially have access to our entire surrounding environment (which some hold has the power to control our behavior). This ramps up revenue for developers, who now have (literally) whole new worlds of blank space upon which they can sell advertising. Commentators are already warning that this could lead to new and clever tactics involving product placement, brand integration and subliminal advertising.

9.   Appropriate roaming and recreation

One of the most exciting selling points of VR is that it can let us roam the earth from the comfort of our own homes. This is obviously a laudable, liberating experience for those who are unable to travel. As with augmented reality, however, we probably need to have conversations about where it is appropriate to roam and/or recreate as a virtual experience. Is it fine for me to wander through a recreation of my favorite celebrity’s apartment (I can imagine many fans would adore the idea!)? Or peep through windows of homes and businesses in any given city street? The answers to some of these questions may seem obvious to us, but we cannot assume that the ethical parameters of this capability are clear to all who may use or develop.

10.   Privacy and data

Last, but not least, the more we “merge” into a virtual world, the more of ourselves we are likely to give away. This might mean more and greater privacy worries. German researchers have raised the concern that if our online avatars mirror our real-world movements and gestures, these “motor intentions” and the “kinetic fingerprints” of our unique movement signatures can be tracked, read, and exploited by predatory entities. Again, it’s clear that there needs to be an open and consultative dialogue with regards to what is collectable, and what should be off-limits in terms of our virtual activities.

This list is not exhaustive, and some of these concerns will be proven groundless in good time. Regardless, as non-technicians and future users, we are right to demand full and clear explanations as to how these tripwires will be averted or mitigated by VR companies.

Five concerns about government biometric databases and facial recognition

/ Fiona J McEvoy / Leave a comment

face recognition

Last Thursday, the Australian government announced its existing “Face Verification Service” would be expanded to include personal images from every Australian driver’s license and photo ID, as well as from every passport and visa. This database will then be used to train facial recognition technology so that law enforcers can identify people within seconds, wherever they may be – on the street, in shopping malls, car parks, train stations, airports, schools, and just about anywhere that surveillance cameras pop-up…

Deep learning techniques will allow the algorithm to adapt to new information, meaning that it will have the ability to identify a face obscured by bad lighting or bad angles…and even one that has aged over several years.

This level of penetrative surveillance is obviously unprecedented, and is being heavily criticized by the country’s civil rights activists and law professors who say that Australia’s “patchwork” privacy laws have allowed successive governments to erode citizens’ rights. Nevertheless, politicians argue that personal information abounds on the internet regardless, and that it is more important that measures are taken to deter and ensnare potential terrorists.

However worthy the objective, it is obviously important to challenge such measures by trying to understand their immediate and long-term implications. Here are five glaring concerns that governments mounting similar initiatives should undoubtedly address:

  1. Hacking and security breaches

The more comprehensive a database of information is, the more attractive it becomes to hackers. No doubt the Australian government will hire top security experts as part of this project, but the methods of those intent on breaching security parameters are forever evolving, and it is no joke trying to mount a defense. Back in 2014 the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM) compromised the personal information of 22 million current and former employees due to a Chinese hack, which was one of the biggest in history. Then FBI Director James Comey said that the information included, “every place I’ve ever lived since I was 18, every foreign travel I’ve ever taken, all of my family, their addresses.”

  1. Ineffective unless coverage is total

Using surveillance, citizen data and/or national ID cards to track and monitor people in the hopes of preventing terrorist attacks (the stated intention of the Aussie government) really requires total coverage, i.e. monitoring everyone all of the time. We know this because many states with mass (but not total) surveillance programs – like the US – have still been subject to national security breaches, like the Boston Marathon bombing. Security experts are clear that targeted, rather than broad surveillance, is generally the best way to find those planning an attack, as most subjects are already on the radar of intelligence services. Perhaps Australia’s new approach aspires to some ideal notion of total coverage, but if it isn’t successful at achieving this, there’s a chance that malicious parties could evade detection by a scheme that focuses its attentions on registered citizens.

  1. Chilling effect

Following that last thought through, in the eyes of some, there is a substantial harm inflicted by this biometrically-based surveillance project: it treats all citizens and visitors as potential suspects. This may seem like a rather intangible consequence, but that isn’t necessarily the case. Implementing a facial recognition scheme could, in fact, have a substantial chilling effect. This means that law-abiding citizens may be discouraged from participating in legitimate public acts – for example, protesting the current government administration – for fear of legal repercussions down-the-line. Indeed, there are countless things we may hesitate to do if we have new concerns about instant identifiability…

  1. Mission creep

Though current governments may give their reassurances about the respectful and considered use of this data, who is to say what future administrations may wish to use it for? Might their mission creep beyond national security, and deteriorate to the point at which law enforcement use facial recognition at will to detain and prosecute individuals for very minor offenses? Might our “personal file” be updated with our known movements so that intelligence services have a comprehensive history of where we’ve been and when? Additionally, might the images used to train and update algorithms start to come from non-official sources like personal social media accounts and other platforms? Undoubtedly, it is already easy to build-up a comprehensive file on an individual using publically available data, but many would argue that governments should require a rationale – or even permission – for doing so.

  1. False positives

As all data scientists know, algorithms working with massive datasets are likely to produce false positives, i.e. such a system as proposed may implicate perfectly innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit. This has also been identified as a problem with DNA databases. The sheer number of comparisons that have to be run when, for instance, a new threat is identified, dramatically raises the possibility that some of the identifications will be in error. These odds increase if, in the cases of both DNA and facial recognition, two individuals are related. As rights campaigners point out, not only is this potentially harrowing for the individuals concerned, it also presents a harmful distraction for law enforcement and security services who might prioritize seemingly “infallible” technological insight over other useful, but contradictory leads.

Though apparently most Australians “don’t care” about the launch of this new scheme, it is morally dangerous for governments to take general apathy as a green light for action. Not caring can be a “stand-in” for all sorts of things, and of course most people are busy leading their lives. Where individual citizens may not be concerned to thrash out the real implications of an initiative, politicians and their advisors have an absolute responsibility to do so – even where the reasoning they offer is of little-to-no interest to the general population.

Online dating’s hints of Stoicism

/ Fiona J McEvoy / Leave a comment

couple

Yesterday, I examined why some believe that data and the internet are conspiring to limit both our attention, and the fields of our knowledge/interest. Today I’m presenting something entirely different, namely the results of a forthcoming report which demonstrate how the phenomenon of online dating is actively altering the fabric of society by expanding our worlds.

An overview of the paper is available here, but in a nutshell, researchers from the University of Essex and the University of Vienna have been studying the social connections between us all, and have revealed how so many of us meeting (and mating with!) complete strangers through online dating is having the effect of broadening out our whole society.

Economists Josue Ortega and Philipp Hergovich argue that, whereas just a couple of decades ago most new people arriving into our social circle (e.g. a new partner) were just a couple of connections away from us to begin with (i.e. someone you meet through existing friends, or that lives in your local community), now our digital “matchings” with random folk from the internet mean that for many of us, our social reach extends much further than it ever would have done – i.e. into completely separate communities.

Looking at the bigger picture, this means that our little clusters of friends/family/neighbors no longer exist in relative isolation because: “as far as networks go, this [dating strangers] is like building new highways between towns…just a few random new paths between different node villages can completely change how the network functions.” This bridging between communities is perhaps most vivid when considering the growing numbers of interracial couples. Indeed, the report’s authors claim that their model predicts almost complete racial integration post the emergence of online dating.

This put me in mind of the concentric circles of Stoic philosophy (further popularized by the modern philosopher Professor Martha Nussbaum). This simple image has existed for centuries and has been described by Nussbaum as a “reminder of the interdependence of all human beings and communities.” It is supposed to encapsulate some of the ancient ideas of belonging and cosmopolitanism, and is similar to the expanding circles of moral concern explained by Philosopher Peter Singer:

hierocles-concentric-circles

As its inventor, Hierocles, imagined it, the most external circles should be pulled in as strangers are treated as friends, and friends as relatives. This happens as we increase our own efforts to recognize the habits, cultures, aims and aspirations of others and consider them akin to – and even constitutive of – our own.

In many respects, the evolution of the internet (as well as other media) has built upon the foundations of global travel to help us realize Hierocles’ rudimentary diagram. Though we still have strong ideas about personal, familial and community identity, the broadening out of our non-virtual social network – as exemplified by this work on online dating – means that our connections and concerns are not limited to the smaller, inner circles any longer. We increasingly draw those from the furthermost circles inward. As Singer argues, this must also mean that our ethical/moral concern emanates outward beyond our immediate vicinities.

Yet, not only can the internet (and in this case, data matching) bring those outer circles in, but in some ways it also seems to enable the distribution of “the self” and – more pertinently – a community…

I remember back in 2012, when I was working in PR and public affairs, there was a lot of talk about current “trends”. One of the ones that has stuck with me was nicknamed something like “patchwork people”. It referred, I think rather observantly, to the notion that so many of us feel better defined by the virtual/global communities we inhabit (perhaps communities based around hobbies or research or careers or fandom) than we do our immediate physical communities, within which we might rarely interact.

Whether the internet is allowing us to draw others into our understanding of the world, or whether we feel that our understanding of the world is mainly constituted by connections to others outside of the “natural” inner circles, there seems to be no doubt that the natural order of priority is evolving, and it will be fascinating to see how and if it continues to progress.