digitally numb

Beyond Privacy – the need for value sensitive design in social media

I’ve written previously about the need for a simple volume know-like control panel for controlling information we choose to share via various social platforms on the internet. The basic idea behind this approach is that notions of privacy vary and continue to evolve as personal and social norms and attitudes change. Therefore, it’s important to let individuals manage their own expectations of privacy. Responsible use of data is an empty promise if your users don’t feel confident about the ability to control the flow of  their information in an easy and efficient manner. But privacy and control of data is not the only issue that’s causing consumer confusion and drawing the ire of advocates and lawmakers. It’s part of a much bigger issue that’s the source of a lot of the widespread concern about social media.

This core issue is the development and release of social platforms and new features that have the potential of impacting millions of individuals across the world with what appears to be little or no consideration paid to human values. Yes, new technologies are not necessarily value neutral. Batya Friedman and Peter H. Kahn, Jr. first shed light on this important issue in The human-computer interaction handbook.

According to Friedman and Kahn, there are three basic theories about biases in technology:

• The Embodied Theory — technologies reflect the biases of their inventors.
• The Exogenous Theory — biases emerge because of the way society shapes the use of such technologies (beyond the influence or control of the original designer).
• The Interactional Theory — biases in technology are partly caused by the original design (embodied theory) and the social impact (exogenous theory). Therefore, according  this theory, biases in technology emerge because of the biases of the designer and those of the people using it. In addition, technologies themselves have the ability to shape individual and social behavior.

Value Sensitive design uses the Interactional theory, a tripartite methodology, and emphasis on direct and indirect stakeholders as an approach to designing technology that accounts for human values in a principled and comprehensive manner.
 
I’m not advocating a detailed research project before developing and launching every new social media system or feature, but here’s an illustrative list of 10 basic questions that should be asked:

1. What is the intended business purpose of the system/ feature?
2. What is the intended user-focused purpose of the system/feature?
3. Are the current and potential business purposes made clear to the user?
4. What are the potential uses of the system/feature?
5. What is the potential impact (negative and positive) on direct stakeholders (the users) ?
6. What is the potential impact (negative and positive) on indirect stakeholders (other parties that may be affected by the use of the system or feature)?
7. What are the key issues involved? In other words, what human values are impacted (e.g. ownership and property, physical welfare, freedom from bias, universal usability, autonomy, privacy, security, etc.)?
8. How can the system/feature balance competing values (e.g. cooperation vs. privacy)?
9. How do users behave when using the system/feature?
10. What information is provided by design and performance tests?

If you’re not prepared to ask and answer the above questions before finalizing the design of a social media system or feature (or for that matter any consumer-facing Internet-based product), you better at least have a good communications plan to deal with the PR backlash that will inevitably follow.

The Problem with Talking Refrigerators

According to a new report published by scientists Adam Waytz from Harvard University and Nicholas Epley and John T. Cacioppo from University of Chicago, humans have no difficulty identifying other humans in a biological sense, but from a psychological standpoint, things are a lot more complicated. Their report analyzes the psychology of anthropomorphism, which is basically our tendency to attribute human characteristics or behavior to non-human things. We express this tendency in a variety of ways, ranging from dressing up pets as people, attaching names to natural phenomenon, inanimate objects such as Roombas or for that matter, human-like gods.

According to the research carried out by Waytz and his colleagues, thinking of a non-human entity in human ways helps us not only feel more in control and connected to our environment, but also renders non-human objects and phenomenon worthy of moral care and consideration.

In other recent news, McKinsey recently released a report about “new sensor-driven business models” that the Internet of Things will bring. According to the report, we will soon see the emergence of Internet-enabled objects ranging from shoes to refrigerators that layer web services, which will help us interact with these objects. This will be made possible by technologies such as RFID tags and sensors, resulting in numerous new technological and social advances.

These two recent reports made me realize that it’s possible we’re at the precipice of a new wave of anthropomorphic computer interface design. We already spend so much time interacting with computing devices that are connected to the Internet, but imagine if objects all around us were also networked and interactive. In such a world, anthropomorphic human-computer interaction design may actually make things simpler and more intuitive for us. The use of anthropomorphic agents in human-computer interaction is fairly common, but has yielded varied results. On the plus side, they have the potential to trigger an emotional response from users, improve interactivity, engagement and thereby promote broad based adoption of computer technology. However, human-like agents can also be incredibly annoying (I’m thinking of Clippy, the Microsoft Office Assistant).

Unfortunately, annoyance is not the biggest potential problem with human-like computer agents. As the research conducted by Waytz and co. has pointed out; imparting human-like qualities on inanimate objects illicit subconscious and psychological responses in humans. Although their research touches upon some of the positive psychological drivers for anthropomorphism, it does not delve into the responses that are evoked by actual human-like interfaces such as robots that simulate human appearance, expressions and gestures, or human-like interfaces in cars, websites, software programs and mobile devices. If anthropomorphism helps us interact and control inanimate objects with ease, what negative impacts can such human-like interfaces or objects have on us? This paper provides some very interesting insight into some of the privacy implications of anthropomorphic human-computer interaction design techniques. However, privacy will not be the only concern and such interfaces could have an impact on a range of human values from individuality, respect, empathy and trust to informed consent, authority and security. I really don’t mean to be a buzz-kill, but I think the “Internet of Things” could use some principles of value sensitive design. If we don’t identify, understand and anticipate the ethical and value concerns that are bound to arise from the deployment of networked objects that exhibit human-like behavior, we risk facing an avalanche of problems later.

So anyone out there working on building a smart, human-like refrigerator – I hope you’re paying attention.

5 real problems in an augmented world

Augmented (hyper)Reality: Domestic Robocop from Keiichi Matsuda on Vimeo.

It’s finally here — our view of the real world need not be limited by what our naked eye can see. Gadgets and terminals are not the be-all and the end-all in our quest for more information, real time access to data and most importantly, a reliable secondary storage mechanism for our memories. Why miss out on the physical world if you want to be immersed in and enjoy the benefits of digital media? Why not just augment the physical world with it? Yes, it’s the new buzz word, but Augmented Reality is here (and here to stay). The potential for this technology is undoubtedly endless, but what we’ve seen so far has mostly ranged from gimmicky and cute to somewhat useful. Nothing groundbreaking so far — no mass adoption of wearable technology or any of the entertainment possibilities. However, it’s just a matter of time when some of these implementations become part of our daily lives. If you hate how people are constantly distracted by their iPhones and Blackberry’s, brace yourself, because it’s about to get much worse.

Augmented Reality, just like any other technology will have some incredibly beneficial uses and some absolutely useless ones. However, all forms of Augmented Reality will likely be accompanied by some risks. Here are just five potential problems we can expect in the years ahead:

1. Profiling: The use of facial recognition technology, combined with geo-location and augmented data will lead to a seamless integration of our online and offline lives. As a result of these developments, a person walking around in the physical world will no longer just be a person, but will be their physical self along with a digital profile and other information that either the person itself or others make available online. Imagine walking into a social gathering and getting ignored by a bunch of people because you have self-identified yourself with a political or religious affiliation that they don’t particularly care for. Or worse — imagine being singled out for additional security screening at the airport because of it.

2. Unauthorized Augmented Advertising: Advertisers and tech companies are drooling over the possibilities of monetizing objects & spaces in the physical world by augmenting digital ads onto them in real-time. Think of the physical and intellectual property rights implications if the technologies that drive augmented advertising do not come with inbuilt controls — controls that would prevent advertisers from augmenting their marketing messages on building surfaces and other physical objects (including private or public property or other trademarked or copyrighted material) without adequate permission.

3. Augmented Behavioral Targeting: Ad targeting based on real world behavior using a combination of geo-location data & publicly self-disclosed information via social media services is just around the corner. For example, let’s assume you live in Los Angeles, travel a lot and have been checking into the local airport via services like Gowalla, Brightkite or Foursquare every time you leave town. Let’s also assume you have been checking out websites selling home security systems lately. Thanks to your online activities and your eagerness to share, you get served an ad that states “Given your busy travel schedule & the rising crime rate in LA, don’t you think it’s high time you installed a home security system?” (Actually this example may not be that bad considering sites like Please Rob Me have emerged). It does raise questions though. Who would have to provide privacy notice and choice in this scenario and how would you control what information is collected and how it is used for advertising that blurs the boundaries between your physical and virtual worlds?

4. Physical danger: Augmented Reality, like any mobile media technology presents some real physical safety issues. If you think mobile phones are currently a distraction while driving a car, think of an augmented windshield feeding you driving directions, along with more data about your surroundings than you may need. Or imagine crossing a busy street in an unfamiliar neighborhood, while simultaneously using an Augmented Reality interface to look for that hot new restaurant, checking out what people are tweeting about it and being bombarded with ads through it all.

5. Spam: Yes — where there is a marketing opportunity, there will be spam, deceptive advertising techniques and social engineering tricks to dupe gullible consumers into paying for things they don’t really need. If you think too many legitimate Internet companies (that are sensitive to your privacy concerns)  are harvesting all the data you publicly share on the Internet, there are even more scammers out there doing the very same thing. Be ready to be tricked and duped by too good to be true augmented offers in the real world — offers that will lure you in ways that unsolicited email from online pharmacies or belly-fat banner ads only wish they could.

The above list is by no means an exhaustive one. The dangers (much like the benefits) are far too many to be cataloged in one blog post. However, the sooner we start preparing for some of these problems, the more we increase our chances of arriving at timely solutions. There are a lot of smart people out there working incredibly hard on building the exciting future of augmented reality. Let’s hope there are also a few that are working at least half as hard on solving some of its incidental problems.

digitally numb?

Admit it. You love technology.

You love the way every new medium for creating, consuming & communicating media that has emerged  in the recent past (from email and instant messaging to social media and smart phones) has all seamlessly managed to transform the way you live to the point where you’ve seriously started to doubt if you could survive without any of it. I ask myself that all the time. Here’s the dilemma — Are we sure if all this technology that we love so dearly is in fact making us more free, productive, connected, informed or just cloaking your perception of reality with an endless stream of information & digital distractions?

I’m not sure either. It’s probably a bit if both, but how often do any of us sit and reflect upon what traits and values the brand new iPhone or Facebook and Twitter are actually adding or taking away from our lives? I’m not suggesting you do that because the answer will rarely, if at all, be in absolutes. Nevertheless, these are important questions that don’t get asked often enough. Most of us blindly accept and embrace technology as it is thrust upon us assuming more information has to be better than less, faster connectivity ought to be better than slow and all that is new is obviously better than what’s old.

At one end, the technophobes mourn about the speed of progress & risk being left behind, while at the other end, the technophiles eagerly march towards techno utopia. However, the very notion that we’re all either technophiles or a technophobes is firstly as ridiculous as the idea that we can only have either right or left wing political ideologies. Who can disagree that what we really need in politics (theoretically at least) is a midpoint between extremes? But I digress…in terms of technology, this balance cannot be achieved by passing judgments on media and communications technologies. However, we need to start asking the right questions — by observing technology’s current and potential impact on human needs and values with a view to nurturing traits that are beneficial to individuals and society in general.

So where do we begin? I’ve spent the past few precious minutes of my life typing this post on my iPhone, rather than killing zombies in my favorite iPhone game. I’d say I’m off to a good start.…back to the game now.