Select a result to preview

Dechesne2013ReconfigurableTechnology

#digitalethics2024 #noteType/litnote

#digitalethics2024, #noteType/litnote

Francien Dechesne, Martijn Warnier and Jeroen van den Hoven (2013), "Ethical requirements for reconfigurable sensor technology: a challenge for value sensitive design"

Bibliographic info

⇒ Dechesne, F., Warnier, M. & van den Hoven, J. Ethical requirements for reconfigurable sensor technology: a challenge for value sensitive design. Ethics Inf Technol 15, 173–181 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-013-9326-1

Commentary

⇒ In general, what about this text makes it particularly interesting or thought-provoking? What do you see as weaknesses?

The article provides an analysis on the societal and moral impact of a key issue of increasingly deployed technology; its reconfigurability by design. It focuses on a case study in the Netherlands Sensor Technology Applied in Reconfigurable systems for Sustainable security (STARS). The idea behind reconfigurable technology is that a technology, such as cameras and motion detectors, can be adapted (i.e., reconfigured) to fulfil multiple functions. For example, a sensor network installed for security purposes (e.g., prevent theft) should be designed such that it can also be used as an
information system for rescue workers during an emergency with (ideally) minimal effort. The motivations behind designing technology to be reconfigurable are affordability, efficiency and changing security demands. The article discusses how the designed reconfigurability of the technology raises new ethical questions and renders responsible design and usage complicated. A weakness of the article may be a lacking description of technical opportunities and challenges of reconfiguration about the presented case study. Generally, the paper lacks relevant specifics. For instance, the contextual integrity framework by Helen Nissenbaum is presented as a practical solution to the ethical challenges of reconfigurable technology, however this section is brief and could have been expanded to offer practical guidance.

Excerpts & Key Quotes

Ethical Questions for Socio-technical Systems

The development of reconfigurable sensor technology is aimed at impacting the societal goals of safety and security. But the overall societal impact is not just determined by the technical features and their intended functionality. We approach this technology as a socio-technical system, which means that we take the embedding of the technology in social and societal structures to be of essential importance to its effect: What data will be gathered and by whom? Who will handle the data? How will the data be used? Who determines the priority of functionalities when the system is intended to serve different goals?

Comment:

The excerpt above highlights the social context in which technologies are employed and offers some critical questions about responsible use of the technology. A new question is added here inherent to the idea of reconfigurable technologies: "Who determines the priority of functionalities when
the system is intended to serve different goals?"

Terminology: Functionalities vs Technical Affordances

Hence, re-configurability should serve to provide a flexibility in functionality beyond the design phase. Because the term ‘functionality’ often bears the connotation of being the particular use for which something is designed, it helps to also bring in Gibson’s terminology of affordance (Gibson, 1986) in order to also talk about more general usage. Affordances of a technology can be defined as the action possibilities latent in the technology, and need not be designed-in intentionally. This is demonstrated in the dual use-problem: technologies designed with a peaceful functionality, such nuclear radiation technology for cancer treatment, or aviation technology for the transportation of people, also bring the affordance of harmful usages.

Comment:

The excerpt mentions distinct terminology relevant in the context of reconfigurable technologies: technical affordances. The idea is to clarify the distinction between intended and unintended/unanticipated uses of the technology.

Function-creep-by-design

The epistemological issue connected to the open functionality clearly bears on the principle of informed consent. A prerequisite of that principle is a knowable impression of what the system will do under which circumstances. One can argue that this prerequisite is hard to fulfil for many of today’s (socio-technical) systems, as they are developed for a certain goal, but once in place, easily used for or combined with other functionalities. This is called function creep; a well known example is the use of cameras that are put in place to implement a road pricing system, also for the detection of stolen cars, or tax evaders. This issue is even more prominent if the system is intended to be reconfigurable to changing circumstances, or even designed to fit yet unthought of functionalities and affordances. This could be called: ‘‘function-creep-by-design’’, open-ended design intended for open-ended use.

Comment:

The excerpt described that reconfigurable technology can be thought of as function-creep-by design. Informed consent may have been obtained for one use of a technology but not for subsequent uses that were not specified prior (issue of function creep). Usually, specific function creep is not anticipated when a technology is designed, reconfigurability however is based on the concept of allowing unanticipated uses, which is a significant challenge for informed consent and policy.

Nissenbaum's Contextual Integrity

Nissenbaum’s framework for Contextual Integrity provides explanation, evaluation and prescription, and thereby contributes to the design process. As Nissenbaum recognizes, it does not yet ‘‘support substantive descriptions for general families of technologies’’, and ‘‘the most fruitful assessments take place within particular contexts’’ (Nissenbaum 2010, p. 190). In the case of reconfigurable systems, the particular context may be underspecified, or only one of a vast number of possible contexts. Therefore, a specific challenge for VSD of reconfigurable technology, such as sensor networks, requires an analysis of the composition and interaction of different contexts, and its translation into policies. We can conclude that in the case of the development of reconfigurable technology, or more accurately: technology that provides ‘‘function creep by design’’, the applicability of VSD is limited, and it may be more fruitful to focus on ‘‘values in context of use’’. This corresponds to a shift from the ‘‘technical’’ to the ‘‘social’’ component of socio-technical systems: technology developed to provide open affordances will not constrain the value choices, so this is left to the actors in the social context.

Comment:

The paper states that the multiple and unforeseen functionalities inherent to reconfigurable design make it difficult to apply Value-Sensitive-Design Theory in the technology design process since it requires the specification of values and their implementation into the technology for all possible functionalities. Therefore, the authors suggest a more general approach focusing on determining "values in context of use" guiding the use of technology. While the described shift may offer valuable insights this section of the paper is rather brief and would benefit from further argumentation.