Skip to main content
Log in

Technology paternalism – wider implications of ubiquitous computing

  • Focus
  • Published:
Poiesis & Praxis

Abstract

Ubiquitous computing technologies will have a wide impact on our daily lives in the future. Currently, most debates about social implications of these technologies concentrate on different aspects of privacy and data security. However, the authors of this paper argue that there is more to consider from a social perspective: In particular, the question is raised how people can maintain control in environments that are supposed to be totally automated. Hinting at the possibility that people may be subdued to machines’ autonomous actions we introduce the term “Technology Paternalism”. We elaborate a working definition and illustrate the concept by looking at different examples based on current and future technology. We also dwell on the impacts of ubiquity and control of technology and suggest some approaches to assure a reasonable balance of interests such as a general “right for the last word”.

Résumé

Les technologies dites de « l’informatique ubiquitaire pourrait avoir des répercussions d’envergure sur la vie quotidienne. À l’heure actuelle, la plupart des débats sur les conséquences sociales de l’informatique ubiquitaire portent que sur les domaines de la protection de la vie privée et de la sécurité des données. Pourtant les auteurs de cet article sont d’avis que d’autres aspects de la perspective sociale doivent être également pris en compte. La question qui se pose en particulier est celle de savoir comment les gens peuvent conserver le contrôle dans un environnement qui va être de plus en plus automatisé. En évoquant la possibilité que les individus puissent être contrôlés par des machines agissant de façon autonome, les auteurs introduisent la notion du paternalisme technologique. Ils développent à ce sujet une définition de travail et illustrent le concept sur la base de technologies existantes et de technologies futures possibles. En outre, ils abordent le rapport entre l’omniprésence et contrôle et proposent des axiomes pour garantir un équilibre raisonnable entre différents intérêts. L’une de ces propositions est un « droit général à avoir le dernier mot ».

Zusammenfassung

Die Technologien des “Ubiquitous Computing” werden weit gehende Auswirkungen auf unser tägliches Leben haben. Derzeit bewegen sich die meisten Debatten zu den sozialen Auswirkungen hauptsächlich in den Gebieten des Datenschutzes und der Datensicherheit. Dennoch vertreten die Autoren dieses Artikels die Auffassung, dass auch weitere Aspekte aus der sozialen Perspektive betrachtet werden müssen. Insbesondere wird die Frage aufgeworfen, wie Menschen in einer Umgebung, die immer weiter autamatisiert sein soll, weiterhin die Kontrolle behalten können. Unter Hinweis auf die Möglichkeit, dass Menschen von autonom agierenden Maschinen kontrolliert werden könnten, führen wir Autoren den Begriff des Technologiepaternalismus ein. Wir entwickeln hierzu eine Arbeitsdefinition und illustrieren das Konzept anhand bereits existierender wie auch möglicher zukünftiger Technologien. Wir gehen zudem auf die Beziehung zwischen Allgegenwärtigkeit und Kontrolle ein und schlagen stellen Ansätze zur Sicherstellung einer angemessenen Balance unterschiedlicher Interessen vor. Einer dieser Vorschläge ist ein generelles “Recht auf das letzte Wort”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. All these examples taken from Dworkin (2002)

  2. “Elektrisierende Idee”, Technology Review — Das M.I.T Magazin für Innovation, No. 5, May 2005, p.30

  3. This term was shaped by Lawrence Lessig in his famous book “Code is Law” (Lessig 1999).

  4. In their paper, Petersson et al. demand a system that is explicitly designed to be overrulable. On the other hand, the proposed system is demanded to “be able to perform any semi- or fully autonomous manoeuvres” (Petersson et al. 2004, p. 2476).

  5. A comparable approach was also mentioned by Clausen and Hansen (2002), decribing ‘Consensus conferences’ held in Denmark, where “[t]he idea has been to qualify lay people to participate in debates with experts, to get this debate diffused to a broader public, and to get the debate boiled down to a ‘consensus’ document [...]”.

References

  • Agre PE (2001) Changing places: contexts of awareness in computing. Hum-Comput Interact 16(2):177–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altman I (1975) The environment and social behaviour: privacy, personal space, territory, crowding. Monterey, California, Brooks/Cole

    Google Scholar 

  • Baran E, Krasnova H (2005) “Technology Paternalism”, Seminar paper, Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik - Humboldt Universität zu Berlin

  • Berthold O, Günther O, Spiekermann S (2005) RFID: Verbraucherängste und Verbraucherschutz. IWI Working Paper, Humboldt University Berlin

  • Bohn J, Coroama V, Langheinrich M, Mattern F, Rohs M (2004) Living in a World of Smart Everyday Objects – Social, Economic, and Ethical Implications. Journal of Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 10(5):763–786 Online: http://www.vs.inf.ethz.ch/publ/papers/hera.pdf [2005-04-22]

    Google Scholar 

  • Clausen C, Hansen A (2002) The Role of TA in the social shaping of technology. In: Banse, Grunwald, Rader (eds) Technology assessment in the IT society. Campus Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Coutaz J, Crowley JL, et al (2005) “Context is key. Commun ACM 48(3):49–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couto A (2005) The social legitimacy of paternalism. Social justice, Bremen

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin Gerald (2002) Paternalism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2002 Edition), Edward N Zalta (ed) Online: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2002/entries/paternalism [2005-04-26]

  • Hooper S (2004) The car that can read road signs”, In: CNN.com, Oct. 7, 2004. Online: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/10/06/roadsign.recognition/

  • Lahlou S, Langheinrich M, et al (2005) Privacy and trust issues with invisible computers. Commun ACM 48(3):59–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lessig L (1999) Code and other laws of cyberspace. Basic books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Longmans Dictionary of Contemporary English (1987) Paternalism” and “paternal”, Licensed edition published by Langenscheidt KG, Berlin

  • Lyytinen K, Yoo Y (2002) Issues and challenges in ubiquitous computing. Commun ACM 45(12):63–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margulis S (2003) Privacy as a social issue and behavioral concept. J Soc Issues 59(2):243–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam-Webster (2003) “Paternalism”, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. In: Encyclopædia Britannica – Deluxe Edition 2003 for PC. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc, UK

  • Mitchell G (2005) “Libertarian Paternalism Is an Oxymoron”, Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 99, No. 3, 2005. Online: http://ssrn.com/abstract=615562 [2005-05-30]

  • Palen L, Dourish P (2003) Unpacking ‘Privacy’ for a Networked World CHI 2003, Ft Lauderdale. ACM Press, Florida, USA,

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersson L, Fletcher L, Barnes N, Zelinsky A (2004) An interactive driver assistance system monitoring the scene in and out of the vehicle. Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation pp 3475–3481

  • Pohl H (2004) Hintergrundinformationen der Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI) zu RFID - Radio Frequency Identification.”

  • Saab (2005) Saab unveils Alcohol Lock-Out Concept to discourage drinking and driving. Saab South Africa. Online: http://www.saab.com/main/ZA/en/alcokey.shtml [2005-04-27]

  • Spiekermann S, Ziekow H (2004) Technische Analyse RFID-bezogener Angstszenarien. Berlin, Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik - Humboldt Universität zu Berlin: 44

  • Spiekermann S (2005) Perceived Control: Scales for Privacy in Ubiquitous Computing Environments. 10th International Conference on User Modeling, Edinburgh, Scotland

  • Spiekermann S, Ziekow H (2005) RFID: a 7-point-plan to ensure privacy”, 13th European conference on Information Systems, Regensburg, May 2005. Online: http://www.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/~sspiek/ECIS_final.pdf [2005-04-25]

  • Strassner M, Fleisch E (2003) The Promise of Auto-ID in the Automotive Industry”, Auto-ID Center, May 2003. Online: http://www.autoid.org/SC31/clr/200305_3826_Automotive%20Prpsl.pdf [2005-05-18]

  • Sunstein CR, Thaler RH (2003) Libertarian Paternalism Is Not An Oxymoron. University of Chicago Law Review, Forthcoming. Online: http://ssrn.com/abstract=405940 [2005-05-28]

  • Walker GH, Stanton NA, Young MS (2001) Where Is Computing Driving Cars?. Int J Hum-Comput Int 13(2):203–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiser M (1991) The computer for the 21st century. Sci Am 265:94–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiser M, Brown JS (1996) The Coming Age of Calm Technology. Online: http://www.ubiq.com/hypertext/weiser/acmfuture2endnote.htm [2005-05-04]

  • Williams JM (2004) Technological Paternalism, Prism, December 2004, Vol. 14, No. 4, American Society for Engineering Education, Washington DC. Online: http://prism-magazine.org/dec04/last_word.cfm [2005-04-28]

  • Williams R, Edge D (1996) The social shaping of technology. Res Policy 20:856–899

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Spiekermann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Spiekermann, S., Pallas, F. Technology paternalism – wider implications of ubiquitous computing. Poiesis Prax 4, 6–18 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-005-0010-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10202-005-0010-3

Keywords

Navigation